Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 4

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 26 (Thu) September 25 (Wed) September 24 (Tue) More...

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

< March 03	March 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

William Showalter

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

PROD was declined in 2013 on the grounds that a Google Scholar search turns up several hits but that does not still appear to be true.

The sole source that verifies his work isn't sufficient to establish notability and I can find no other evidence that he's a notable chairmaker. I'm not even sure he's still a chairmaker as his website has been down for many years. StarM 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete I did not see adequate coverage in a search.--- Possibly (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete clearly not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete, there seems to be a couple of book mentions, but I don't think that it amounts to WP:SIGCOV. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - lack of significant coverage, Google search does pick up some mentions, such as this but none of these are non-trivial to count towards notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 19:08, 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 result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexei Eryomin

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

Fails WP:PROF. There is not a serious attempt by any of the sources to provide a biography of this rather obscure academic. Third-party citations, in particular, all seem to be either within a walled-garden of believers in noospheres or are one-off mentions. This looks like WP:SOAP as well. jps (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: See related Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Noogenesis as well as the previous AfD Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Noometry. jps (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC).
Delete per nom. The claim to notability is that he invented something non-notable. That's absolutely no good. So, in addition to the reasons already given, we should probably also delete it out of kindness as it just makes him look bad. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per all the above. XOR'easter (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Citation counts are too weak to support a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and we have no other case for notability. In addition, as his work seems to be at least somewhat fringe in nature, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE demand adequate mainstream coverage of it to provide a properly neutral description of his contributions, and we don't have those. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as others have said. I don't see any real grounds for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Very weak sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment "... work by fellow scientist Alexei Eryomin, noos-related concepts have grown in stature more than has been recognized..." Rondfeldt D., Arquilla J. (2020) Whose Story Wins: The Noösphere, Noöpolitik, and the Future of Statecraft. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. p.18, 99 pp.(ISBN 978-1-9774-0530-2) ירמיהו - פרוגנוזה (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep all. Daniel (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

List of American advertising characters

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

These pages simply list traits. For the List of American advertising characters, they only list characters that just so happen to be advertised in America. Yoshiman6464 23:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Strong Keep Lists are part of Knowledge, and, like it or not, these kinds of detailed lists are part of our culture. The reason given for deletion also doesn't make sense. What is "under utilized" even mean? The specific list mentioned above, List of American advertising characters, gets 80–90 hits a day. That's not "under utilized." Also interesting that proposer has gone about killing links to this article. That needs to be explained. (Not sure why this would be done before this discussion—that he has started—has even begun.) GenQuest 03:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@GenQuest: It was my mistake on removing the links. When I searched for links for the article, there were only about a few characters that actually linked to the articles. In my mind, I was thinking that most of the characters featured on the list did not have it linked back to List of American advertising characters. Thus, the articles almost seemed like a WP:GARDEN to me. Furthermore, the articles don’t go into that detail regarding the characters; it’s merely a simple list of characters that just so happen to have that one trait. I initially discovered the articles when I noticed that non-American characters were included in the American characters article as seen here. Finally, a good chunk of the characters featured in the article are not notable enough to have their own articles. Such as AMC’s Clip or Hostess Brand’s King Ding Dong. Yoshiman6464 06:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I also undid all my edits. Yoshiman6464 06:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I think those issues can be addressed through local editing, and/or selective merging. GenQuest 08:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep all. What's the beef? "The most memorable advertising characters ever" (MSN), "Top Ad Icons of the 20th Century" (CNBC), etc. show this is a listworthy subject and satisfies WP:NLIST. A few of the entries seem a bit suspect (Is Blu the Bunny really national in scope?), but that's a matter for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep No severe issue with the list. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep all - all of them contain notable entries, so, at the very least, they have a navigational purpose. It's quite clear from comments above that the topic itself could pass notability guidelines as well, even if the current sources in the article don't establish that yet. Spiderone 08:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Strong keep. These lists seem to pass all of WP's guidelines with no problems. Grutness...wha? 10:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Mascots for advertising is a clear notable thing, and lists, delinated by country for ease of size, make a lot of sense. --Masem (t) 14:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- The only comment I do have is that the list should start by character, then product/company, given the title. Eg the way it is formatted now, so that one product may have multiple characters listed with it, may make sense for things like, say, McDonalds, but as a user/reader, I'd expect to search on character to find the product, not vice-versa. But that's a format concern, not a deletion reason. (Also, there 100% needs to be versions for Japanese and other Asian countries; coming from video games, I can tell you that the use of Mario + Sonic there came out of advert characters for other products in the Asian regions and while those may not be sourced as well in english-level sources, they will exist.) --Masem (t) 14:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep all, the nomination is incoherent, mistaken, and confused, and doesn't even pretend to be based in guidelines or policy. No point in leaving this open any longer. postdlf (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep Not sure if it was a good idea to nominate all these lists in a single AfD. Each of them may have different merits. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep all Plenty of blue links so a valid navigational list. Also these sorts of things get coverage. Dream Focus 05:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep all Lists fulfill a navigational need. Besides advertising characters are notable both as individuals and as a group or set for a list. So advertising characters by country or region is a valid subset. Also, since some multinational advertising plays in many countries or regions, characters in one region might also be relevant to another region, so could appear on multiple lists. These lists are notable in their own right. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per Masem. Could use some clean-up, but it's a clear and discriminate topic, and looks to be verifiable and notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Not seeing a deletion criteria. Dark knight 2149 06:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep This page should not be up for deletion, it meets WP policies as stated by many prior users. LindaSaunders (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Can someone speedy keep close this? GenQuest 18:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Several usable sources found, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Volnay

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

Recently deceased French/Réunion musician about whom I can't find much at all - one good obit, used as the single reference; the next best one down the line is this, which is already below usable. Possibly my searching here sucks, but in absence of better material, I don't see the notability case made yet. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Another source was just added: - may be starting too look better. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment I found two more obituaries in French. I have a hunch he is notable, but am not certain yet.--- Possibly (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll go with weak keep, as I have added three obituaries. Reunion island, where he was known, is a small island (30 miles square) off the coast of southern Africa. While not ideal coverage, four obituaries there means he was well-known/notable. --- Possibly (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice. You clearly had a better search pattern than me. I'll leave it up for another day or so, but if no one disagrees, I'm minded to withdraw. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. All the sources were in French, and I am in Quebec, so I think Google tends to give me French search results with English ones sometimes.--- Possibly (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep puisque en meuble, des , , . ——Serial 15:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 13:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography of South America

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

Talk about an open-ended list. We have quite a few pages along the lines of Bibliography of World War I, which tend to be large, but one for an entire continent? These criteria: relating to the subject of South America, its history, geography, culture, people, etc. really don't leave out anything at all. I can guarantee that in the course of two hour's mechanical googling, I can swell this list by 1000 (referenced) entries, and the result will do no one any good at all. I think Reywas92 had the right idea trying to abolish this . --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Incredibly vague, arbitrary, and useless. This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of unrelated books somehow tied to a massive topic about which (and its subtopics) tens of thousands of books have been written. There's "Soccer in sun and shadow" (yeah they do play soccer in South America), "Traveling with Che Guevara: The Making of a Revolutionary" (better known for time in Cuba, but he was killed in Bolivia), "The road to Gobblers Knob: From Chile to Alaska on a motorbike" (yes you can travel in the continent), and "The last monarch butterfly: conserving the monarch butterfly in a brave new world" (South America is in fact one of the five continents it lives on). From modern travel guides and memoirists' travelogues to histories of specific countries and biographies, to books that are about all of Latin America or the Western Hemisphere, there is no rhyme or reason to this list, and there are no inclusion criteria that can reasonably define its contents. Moreover, it serves no purpose to the reader. Pages like History of South America, Geography of South America, Economy of South America, and the articles on respective countries at Outline of South America or other specific topics are best suited to provide relevant information and resources. WP:Further reading sections are good, but it serves no encyclopedic purpose to lump together indiscriminate, disparate sources rather than organizing in relevant pages like Amazon rainforest#Further reading, Inca Empire#References, or History of Colombia#Further reading. Reywas92 23:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete This is an article that, if comprehensive, could never be reasonably contained. Knowledge is not a repository of indiscriminate information. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per Reywas92. ―NK1406 03:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN – a list of similar bibliographies follows. These demonstrate that the topic is quite manageable. We have bibliographies for other large regions such as the Soviet Union and United States. To exclude a major region of the global south would be arbitrary and outrageous systemic bias – note that there are no separate blibliography pages for subdivisions such as Brazil. The topic is limited to sources in English which is sensible as it limits the scope to the works which our English language readers will be wanting. If the page should grow too large then we just split it per WP:SPLIT. Deleting the page when we already have a reasonable start on the topic would be defeatist, disruptive and contrary to policies such as WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Note that these works list numerous bibliographies as well as individual works and so there's plenty more.

We don't have a "Bibliography of the United States" - we have 20+ bibliographies for bits as small as Wake Island (this is your link). Are you vaguely aware of the scale differences involved here? And what currently exists is a random hodgepodge of things vaguely connected to South America, as Reywas shows above; there's hardly even anything to salvage for putative more limited bibliographies. Although of course you are welcome to make a copy and try, I guess. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Once again, BS. Just because back in the '60s when one didn't have a search bar and a librarian or researcher compiled books A,B,C,D.... into a bibliography hundreds of pages long (and may have provided annotations), that does not mean it is appropriate or notable to independently and indiscriminately compile the arbitrary books X,n,Q,6,z... By no means is this what LISTN describes: While I'm sure you would be happy to copy and paste every title in the catalog of the Library of Congress into these bibliographies and splitting indefinitely, this is an encyclopedia, not an inventory of any book on any broad topic. Reywas92 08:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That's an argument against bibliographies in general but it's clear that Knowledge accepts such articles. What the nay-sayers fail to provide is a good reason why this part of the globe should be blanked when we have plenty of comparable coverage of other parts. The main languages in Latin America are Portuguese and Spanish but this bibliography focusses on works in English, as appropriate for this language version of Knowledge. This provides a sensible filter and there's no evidence that the result is impractical or unfeasible. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I know that, but others need to see how dumb your arguments are. No part of the globe is being "blanked": we have massive lists of relevant books listed at specific pages like History_of_Latin_America#Further_reading, Venezuela#Bibliography, Argentina#Bibliography, Brazil#Further_reading, History_of_Bolivia#Further_reading, Ecuador#Further_reading, History_of_Brazil#Further_reading, Latin_America#Further_reading, and many others, and those on this page are welcome in any other article's further reading section! Any suggesting that I am promoting systemic bias by not arbitrarily lumping together an indiscriminate selection of context-free unrelated book titles is a baseless personal attack. Inclusion of any English books is a nonsensical filter, with no explanation whatsoever why these books, out of hundreds of thousands published on the people, places, and creatures of an entire continent, are here, is a complete and utter failure of LISTN. Reywas92 03:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep. I agree that this meets WP:LISTN, which is the primary criterion on which it should be judged. The argument that the topic is too broad isn't convincing: we have lots of articles on vast topics (life, history, outer space, etc.) that we keep to a manageable size using summary style and editorial discretion. There's no reason the same principles can't be applied to a bibliography: if this grows to an unreasonable length (which I'll note hasn't happened yet in the more than a decade since it was created) or if there's a consensus it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE in its current form, we could split off sections by geographical or historical divisions or by field, and/or we could apply any number of criteria to limit the list's scope. There's probably a need for a broader discussion of how we approach bibliographies, especially topical ones rather than ones for authors – are they intended to be comprehensive; if so are they indiscriminate, and if not how do we decide what to include and what to leave out (does anyone else think there should be a separate Wikimedia project for bibliographies?) – but there certainly seems to be a consensus that we ought to have them, and in this case resolving whatever problems this one may have is preferable to deletion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. This article should be kept, but it should be also defined more precisely, as a bibliography of works that are dedicated to South America in general, as a whole continent, therefore excluding works with narrower scopes, like those dedicated to particular countries. Sorabino (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:IINFO; far too broad for a manageable list. Sandstein 10:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete- Overly broad and indiscriminate. Also protest the use of "other stuff exists" arguments to make a thinly veiled accusation of racism against the nom and delete !voters. Reyk _YO! 11:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: There needs to be some kind of meaningful inclusion criteria for any list and I think this is especially true for Bibliographies. This has none. The topic itself is impossibly indiscriminate, if it were "Bibliography of South American geography" or "Bibliography of pre-colonial South American history", or something similar it would work, but this is just a random collection of books with no inclusion criteria, without any relation to each other, about anything related to South America. Further a majority of the listings are not about South America as a continent, but about some sub division of South America. Even if the article was renamed and inclusion criteria added, it would take TNT to fix the content. There is nothing here worth saving. // Timothy :: talk 12:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Mercado & Taqueria De Amigos

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

Promotional article Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete as promotional puff for a non notable eatery. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete can’t find anything that suggests notability. --Devoke water 11:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Yup, after looking around some, I found bupkiss in terms of significant reliable coverage. Alright, back to my wikibreak.Americanfreedom (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Ewww... That this fails GNG is obvious, but it is frustrating that spam of this type is not worthy of G11. Gosh. Java Hurricane 16:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment @JavaHurricane: Yup, still trying to learn the ins and outs of company article writing, but how about being a bit more encouraging than "ewww..." next time. You won't drive away people who want to help a project that's bleeding users. Gosh.Americanfreedom (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Americanfreedom, I am extremely, terribly sorry for the comment. Really was in a bad mood then and the article left a sour taste. Hope you understand. Java Hurricane 11:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 12:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Lewy Williams

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

Non-notable player, has not won any major titles or been in the finals of a major tournament. ... discospinster _talk 20:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Week Keep Last 64 at UK Open, and coverage in darting press.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Go Phightins! 20:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Davey Dodds

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

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

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

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

Keep was at several UK Opens, was a regular on the Pro tour. Also Newcastle Masters trophy been renamed after him.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Hasn't reached the last 32 in any major tournament --John B123 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Once the multiple comments of the now-blocked sockpuppet contributor are parsed out, there is a clear consensus for deletion based on the absence of in-depth reliable sources or other indications of a following for the subject. No prejudice against someone else redirecting this title to an appropriate target. BD2412 T 06:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Robert Davenport (actor)

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 15:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 15:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Keep / Suspicious nomination: Here we go again. This editor previously nominated two of my articles (Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Jan_D'Arcy and Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Annette_McCarthy), both of which were closed as Keep. I didn't mind those noms but the editor then started making weird and untrue accusations about me closing AFD discussions on another user's talk page. I told admin User:Daniel about this and said I was willing to let it drop but was worried they might nominate further articles I created to retaliate. And here we are. Not one but TWO more articles (also Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Erik Rondell) nominated by the SAME user. Based on this user's previous actions and comments, I consider this nomination and any more on my articles more than highly suspect.-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)strike !vote of sock, see Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/FlyboyExeter. Onel5969 12:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment - just in response to the personal attack above. How many of your articles have I reviewed, and marked passed as reviewed? Quite a few more than I've had issues with, if you bothered to look before making a baseless accusation. Even those which have been sent to AfD by other Reviewers, before you worked to improve the articles, like Ellen McElduff. Other of your articles, I've had to request revdel on, due to copyright violations (like Gary Hershberger), and have not commented on the notability of. I simply review your articles as they come up in the queue, and when one with questionable comes along, I take appropriate action. Knowing that you will object to what should be handled through a prod, I bring them to AfD. Just today, I approved 2 of your other articles as passing review. Onel5969 19:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment - Um, it wasn't a personal attack, the personal attack was when you made weird and untrue accusations about me on another user's talk page! Nice dig about the copyvio del - showing further proof you have animosity towards me. Today you nominated 2 more articles within less than three minutes of each other, not nearly enough time to review and read all page references and external links and decide on the notability of two people, let alone perform detailed searches. I said nothing to you about those first two noms, you're the one who started contention and tried to stir up trouble by making those accusations on another user's page. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Non notable performer. Nothing found to help pass ACTOR or GNG. All citations in the article have passing mentions of said individual. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment I already voted keep above but here are my reasons based on subject of article. The article acknowledges the actor had a short-lived career, but two notable and cult roles (Twin Peaks and The Chocalate War movie, including originating a role in David Lynch's feature-length and groundbreaking pilot of Twin Peaks, which was released as a movie as well as a TV show in many parts of the world) give him enough for cult status and WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG in my opinion. There's also a lead role in a Claudia Myers short movie and a Disney movie role. I haven't yet researched stage roles. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Update - Have added print sources about his roles in Twin Peaks and The Chocolate War. There's still more to be sourced. I have added some additional sources to article about film/television roles. Some are just passing mentions as name listed in credits, but also discuss the character, plot, cult status, themes. etc. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources and notability of projects and roles, not how short-lived a career was. There is clearly enough now to pass WP:GNG and should be enough for WP:NACTOR too. I may be able to dig out some old books on Twin Peaks as well, but probably not in time for this. Also found some stage credits, including these two (https://www.broadwayworld.com/people/Robert-Davenport and https://www.abouttheartists.com/artists/243993-robert-davenport) (and there's even more) but didn't add to article yet as can't verify if it's him or another actor with same name. I mainly know of him from his roles in Twin Peaks and The Chocolate War, so though a short-lived screen career still notable and with cult status based on those roles imo-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Pilot (Twin Peaks). Currently fails WP:NACTOR with very few roles and no support for "cult status." KidAd • SPEAK 08:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment I think originating the role in Twin Peaks and being the first actor to portray the only character to be played by three actors, along with being in the pilot, gives him cult status. Also, there's the other notable role in The Chocolate War, so any redirect would need to go there too. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

A criterion of WP:NACTOR is " Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Appearing in a single episode of a cult show does not necessarily correlate with the "cult following" of an individual. Something to ponder... KidAd • SPEAK 08:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply That's true and I totally get what you're saying but that pilot has major cult status and was released in Europe as a movie. Though Bauer is probably best known for the role, Davenport originated it and his name tends to come up a lot when character is mentioned or photos of him shown in iconic headdress in pilot. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete, seems not notable enough.--RZuo (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor 20:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG, there are no independent, reliable, secondary sources giving this actor significant coverage. Does not pass WP:NACTOR, has only had minor roles (only in one episode of Twin Peaks), no evidence of a large fan base, or of a unique contribution. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete for failing NACTOR. Four credits, one of which (Twin Peaks) might be considered substantial, if you squint, aren't going to do it. The utter lack of any sources about him specifically is a killer. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment I just wanted to address some specific points raised above. Role in movie "The Chocolate War" wasn't minor - it's part of main cast, so at least two substantial roles. Role in short movie was the lead. The "only in one episode of Twin Peaks" was the feature-length pilot, which was released as a movie in much of the world. There's also a Disney movie and possibly several stage roles. All of that should be enough for WP:NACTOR. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The Chocolate War is a low-budget flop, according to its article, and I can't find anything supporting the claim that it is a cult film. That doesn't qualify as a "notable film" per NACTOR. Also, 20 passing mentions aren't going to do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It was directed by a respected director and based on a cult novel and garnered mixed but mostly positive reviews and acclaim. As pointed out above, Davenport would seem to meet GNG through numerous mentions (in less detail) in several sources including reviews of works he acted in. I think he's a candidate for ANYBIO/NACTOR too, but definitely meets GNG/BASIC. As per WP:Basic If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Note to closing admin. Going on a WikiBreak. I know I'm against the tide on this one, but I don't think the delete votes (while they outnumber my vote) are very strong, policy-based arguments. They have not given any solid arguments imo, beyond saying just "not notable", and the first one is based on old references. Article has since been updated with more. I've continued to work on the article. It now has 20 references (had only 4 when nominated). As per WP:Basic If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Also please take into account my main points - Davenport has WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC point #1, and maybe WP:ANYBIO point #2 (though need to check more print sources for latter) as well. Additional links to stage roles also found but not yet verified. I still think the article should be kept, but if not my suggestion would be to draftify at least to give time for other sources and verification of stage roles (all discussed above) to be researched and redirect article name in meantime to List_of_Twin_Peaks_characters#Johnny_Horne (the character he played in Twin Peaks). But I really do think Davenport has enough to close this as Keep/no consensus. Thank you. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)strike !vote of sock, see Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/FlyboyExeter. Onel5969 12:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. There seems to be just enough consensus that there are sources present to constitute this person passing notability under the general notability guideline. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Adriana Chechik

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

None of the sources here cut the mustard and winning awards no longer determines notability.. fails gng and ent and we should have better sourcing for a blp Spartaz 14:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutral She has a few articles where she is the either a major topic, or the sole topic in some fairly large media, but I'm not sure if it's enough to be notable. A profile in GQ India as well as a fairly large mention in this article from Jezebel are both independent of the porn industry. She also has significant routine coverage in the industry magazines. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment You don't cut mustard, you spread it. Lugnuts 18:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Only if you're classy. Normally I just squeeze it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncles its Tewkesbury Mustard! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

what have post offices got to do with this? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep The multiple AVN awards suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This keep entry should be discarded in the final reckoning, as industry awards have been specifically deprecated for porn bios. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep I think the GQ article supercedes awards and passes into general notability. Trillfendi (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete we do not have the multiple substantial articles in reliable, indepdent, secondary 3rd-party sources to show a pass of GNG. One article does not cut it for those purposes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 10:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete the GQ India piece is a staff article with no byline, and all it is is a reprint of a portion of a Reddit AMA. There is nothing else in the article to support notability of this person. Zaathras (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Currently heading towards no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor 20:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep: I can see the reason for the debate but this is well beyond a typical adult actor article in terms of sourcing.--Milowent • 20:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Not to be as bad as other shit articles isn’t a policy based keep reason.Spartaz 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Winning AVN awards for multiple number of times makes her notable. Kichu🐘 05:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is a completely made up argument. Awards are worthless ever since pornbio was depreceated. Both arguments here pretty much acknowledge this is a GNG fail and no ENT case has been made either. Spartaz 16:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Per WP:ENT Clause 2, which this AVN article explains. --w 01:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

AVN writing about porn actors is essentially a press release or advertisement, thus invalud per WP:GNG. Zaathras (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. The article is attributed to the Editor in Chief of AVN, categorized as an article in its internal search results (as opposed to a press release), not a profile page, and is literally the cover story of the June 2020 issue. AVN is a WP:RS depending on the specific content that is posted. Not only is this article an RS, but it also undoubtedly establishes GNG. --w 09:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

weak keep The Jezebel article is pretty solid. Mainstream interviews with (Howard Stern) and a few paragraphs in LA Weekly probably push it over. Also there is an article in The Sun on her (though I think we consider The Sun to be not reilable) and a lot of mentions/references in the DailyDot. I also think winning those best actress awards are a sign of notability. Not a home run, but enough IMO. Hobit (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per above. VocalIndia (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep These are genuine awards that confer a real sense of achievement and the Jezebel ref mentioned above is by a senior staff writer, so is RS. A clear keep./ scope_creep 13:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep there is indications shown here of RSs out there that cover her for WP:GNG. Also the argument that awards should be discard, or votes that mention multiple awards should be ignore, is completely false. The PORNBIO change did not make significant awards irrelevant, they made it so they weren't to be used to automatically pass a SNG. WikiVirusC 14:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Mother Tongue Records

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

This label does not seem to be notable enough for an article, please note that there is an Italian one of the same name which also seems to be non-notable. The Italian one seems to have slightly more sources available but both lack the depth of coverage from independent sources required to pass WP:NCORP or even WP:GNG. In addition, this label does not count as one of the more important indie labels so does not fit in with WP:NMUSIC; they've had a few artists that meet our notability standards but no indication that they were in any way a significant part of their history (in other words, the singles and albums released through this label were largely non-notable). Spiderone 19:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete there are no sources other than the organizations own website. This really needs to be a proposed deleteable thing with the only way to remove the proposed delete to find 1 source from a website not controlled by the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Crystal Cave (Gibraltar)

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

Generic cave mass-produced from labels on a map with no explanation of notability, fails WP:GEOLAND. Prod removed without explanation as usual. Reywas92 19:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 19:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep/merge Gibraltar is a maze of tunnels and natural caves. This particular natural cave adjoins to the Ragged Staff Cave and its crystal formations are naturally of interest. It has been the subject of scientific study and papers include Carbon dioxide, ground air and carbon cycling in Gibraltar karst and Monitoring cave processes and decoding climate records in Gibraltar Caves. Deletion is therefore not appropriate as out policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. Those are about Gibraltar's caves in general, not this one in particular. These are not significant coverage of the Crystal Cave. Reywas92 00:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. The only source mentions the cave in a single sentence so fails WP:SIGCOV and my BEFORE didn't find anything better. Do ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. I might revise my vote to keep if anyone can find a single sentence describing the cave published in a reliable source. Likewise I would change it to a redirect if this name is mentioned in any official source which specifies a location for the cave.----Pontificalibus 13:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Searcedh for "Crystal Cave", Gibraltar in Google Scholar and found only a few for it. However, none of them either describe the cave in any detail or indicate that it is of any historic or scientific importance. There are a lot other "Crystal Caves" (especially Pennsylvania and Bermuda) making finding anything difficult. Both JSTOR and GEOREF yielded nothing. Found nothing about a Crystal Cave while looking through pertinent chapters in:

Rose, E.P. and Rosenbaum, M.S., 1991. A field guide to the geology of Gibraltar. Gibraltar Museum under the auspices of the Gibraltar Heritage Trust. Paul H. (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment According to 2019 - The 200 Caves of Gibraltar - Part 13, which itself is a self-published blog, the map used in the article for the cave's name and location and mentioned above by Reywas92 is Undated and unattributed and cannot be considered a reliable source. Paul H. (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: A journal search turned up nothing. I checked some of the other cave sites to see if they had RS which might have information on this location, but they are all pretty badly sourced as well. I'm assuming if something was easily found in Google it would already have been mentioned. Being considered as a potential water reservoir does not make this notable, I don't see anything in the article itself that would lead anyone to believe this is notable. I searched for the other cave at AfD, Willis' Cave at the same time and didn't find anything for that either. Fails GNG and GEOLAND. // Timothy :: talk 08:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Willis' Cave

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

Generic cave mass-produced from labels on a map with no explanation of notability, fails WP:GEOLAND. Prod removed without explanation as usual. Reywas92 19:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 19:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete The first source is an apparently unpublished, unattributed hand-drawn diagram. The second source doesn't mention the cave, simply referring to "a cave" near Willis' Battery. This fails WP:V so a redirect is not appropriate.----Pontificalibus 11:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. Searched for "Willis' Cave", Gibraltar in Google Scholar and Google Books and found nothing for it. Both JSTOR and GEOREF also yielded nothing. Found nothing for Willis' Cave while looking through pertinent chapters in Rose, E.P. and Rosenbaum, M.S., 1991. A field guide to the geology of Gibraltar. Gibraltar Museum under the auspices of the Gibraltar Heritage Trust. Finally, according to 2019 - The 200 Caves of Gibraltar - Part 13, which itself is a self-published blog, the map (first source) used in the article for the cave's name and location is undated and unattributed and cannot be considered a reliable source as previously noted. Paul H. (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: A journal search turned up nothing. I checked some of the other cave sites to see if they had RS which might have information on this location, but they are all pretty badly sourced as well. I'm assuming if something was easily found in Google it would already have been mentioned. I don't see anything in the article itself that would lead anyone to believe this is notable, the description isn't a description but rather info on its namesake. I searched for the other cave at AfD, Crystal Cave (Gibraltar) at the same time and didn't find anything for that either. Fails GNG and GEOLAND. // Timothy :: talk 08:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Ceuta. Daniel (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Tramaguera

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

Small generic beach with no explanation of notability, fails WP:GEOLAND. Prod removed without explanation as usual. Reywas92 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect or merge to Ceuta per WP:SIGCOV and WP:CHEAP. It's sourced, and people might be looking for this little (1 km) beach, but not so notable that anyone has written about it in a significant way. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect: local name for a non-notable short strip of beach. I don't see any reason not to redirect it to Ceuta, but I don't think there is anything to merge. Per GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Knowledge article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." // Timothy :: talk 08:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Ceuta. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Playa San Amaro

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

Small generic beach with no explanation of notability, fails WP:GEOLAND. One source is just a label on a map, not significant coverage. Prod removed without explanation as usual. Reywas92 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep per WP:BEFORE. I see a lot of sources in both English and Spanish. It appears to be a beach with some hotels. Perhaps this can be saved? Bearian (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect: I can't find anything other than mentions in tourism sites, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Per GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Knowledge article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." I don't see any reason not to redirect it to Ceuta, but I don't think there is anything to merge. // Timothy :: talk 08:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Ceuta. Daniel (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Playa del Sarchal

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

Small generic beach with no explanation of notability, fails WP:GEOLAND. Prod removed without explanation as usual. Reywas92 19:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 19:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 19:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete not every named place is notable, that is what we would need to consider making something notable to have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect or merge to Ceuta per WP:SIGCOV and WP:CHEAP. It's sourced, and people might be looking for this little beach, but not so notable that anyone has written about it in a significant way. See Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Tramaguera. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect: As with the other similar noms, I can't find anything other than mentions in tourism sites, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Per GEOLAND, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Knowledge article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography." I don't see any reason not to redirect it to Ceuta, but I don't think there is anything to merge. // Timothy :: talk 08:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Josten

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

Concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No caps at any level and only a very occasional player at the top level; most of her career has been tier 2 or below. A German search brings up the usual database profile pages and routine coverage in match reports and transfer news. The only coverage outside of that is this brief announcement that she won player of the tournament in the SV Bökendorf tournament and then two very trivial mentions in NWZ here and here. I cannot see any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of Josten. Spiderone 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete I conducted a search but was unable to find anything with significant coverage: it was primarily routine coverage of the player's team. Did not find any in-depth sources for the player to meet WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, globally locked and possible paid editing. Fences&Windows 21:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Geoff Lewis (businessman)

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

WP:BLP, flagged as possible paid editing, of a venture capitalist not properly sourced as passing our inclusion standards for businesspeople. The overwhelming majority of the footnotes here are sources that are not legitimate support for notability -- podcasts, directory entries, pieces which briefly quote him giving soundbite on a topic other than himself, press releases from his own company, Q&A interviews in which he's expounding on a subject other than himself, and sources which tangentially verify stray facts without mentioning his name at all in conjunction with them -- and the only sources which genuinely represent reliable source coverage about him are just covering him in the context of having once written an open letter criticizing Donald Trump, which just makes him a WP:BLP1E at best. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this, and we have no tolerance for undisclosed conflicts of interest. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

delete I don't feel like going into the dozens of ways this fails notability but being loosely associated with someone notable is nothing more than a 15 minutes of fame situation, there's nothing lasting, this is a paid for spam piece sourced to dubious articles that say little to nothing of value about the subject. CUPIDICAE💕 19:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
keep Not a paid editor. Geoff is pretty well known amongst the VC community. Agree that this case is on the edge due to lack of sources. I also didn't add businessman to the page title an admin did that during the review process. Deltagammaz (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Just asserting that a subject is well-known inside a special interest community is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts them from actually having to clear WP:GNG on the depth and quality of the sources. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

delete per cupidicae.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. This has been a long running discussion - over five weeks now, though not many contributors, and little clear evidence of consensus. There are six !votes for delete, mostly citing guidelines or policies such as NLIST, NOTSTATS, FANCRUFT. There are seven !votes for keep, though the reasons vary. Three are in the form of "I like it", so hold little weight. Three point to the existence of FL as a reason to keep, though that in itself is not a convincing argument, and tends to fall in the "I like it camp". But one keep !vote, that of Deus et lex, directly challenges the assumptions of the delete !voters that the NOTSTAT policy cited is actually relevant to the articles listed. Though it is one vote, it is very convincing rationale. The arguments citing previous AfDs are not that useful as some article-lists were kept, while others were deleted. Each AfD should be taken on its own merits. The deciding argument that is left is if the lists meet WP:NLIST. And I note that the most recent discussions focus on this aspect. NLIST requires that the list topic be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" - and it is emphasised that individual items on the list do not need formal citing for meeting the requirements as long as there is evidence from reliable sources that the set criteria itself has been defined by reliable sources. There is an argument that the lists do not meet this criteria, and a counter argument that the list do meet the criteria. On being asked to provide evidence that the lists are appropriately cited, there was response that there would be books that did provide such evidence. But the evidence itself was not provided. I checked the sourcing in some articles and agree with the argument that evidence has not been provided that reliable sources have discussed the criteria of five wickets taken in one innings on a particular ground. There are stats and occasional articles which provide evidence that five wickets were taken on a particular ground, but none of the ones I checked discussed that as a defining set, such as "this is the seventh time that there has been a five wicket haul on this ground". Given that there were two !votes and a solid argument put forward for the lists not meeting WP:NLIST, and that this argument was not adequately met by those wishing to keep, this is a delete decision. However, as the subject of merging the information into existing articles was proposed and not objected to, I will temporarily userfy any article on request to allow the contents to be merged into an appropriate article. SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Irish cricket grounds

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

In continuation of previous AfD Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook where we developed a clear consensus that such lists are not required as they fail WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Thanks. Störm (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Procedurally I'd like to see List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at McLean Park (a featured list) and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lord's added to this list. If we agree to delete these lists then I think we need to agree to delete the featured ones and the Lord's one - unless someone can make a case for Lord's as an exception (which I think is doable fwiw). I've edited all of these lists extensively but have no great attachment either way to them - but if we're going to call these non-notable then we need to call all of them non-notable or make a decision as to where the notability lies.

I'd also point to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve from 2019 and the related discussions here, here and here - all on the same archive page confusingly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep I don't understand the need to delete these pages. Although I have created a few of these pages and if deleted won't work on them again. But since a separate page for centuries is there I don't understand the logic to delete these. Ankurc.17 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete all. per previous AfD outcome for the lists of centuries and WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTIINFO WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:FANCRUFT. With regards to the featured lists, we should leave those until after this discussion to establish whether we have a clear precedent to keep/remove. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't we deal with those first? If those articles - particularly McLean Park - can become a featured list then any of these can. In fact, many are in a very similar state. Don't be scared of including a featured list first - if the idea of these lists isn't notable then the featured lists aren't notable either. Lord's you can argue about separately, I agree, because of the nature of the ground. There may be other grounds where this applies - SCG, MCG etc... - but not McLean. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete all. per previous AfDs. I don't think "by ground" is a meaningful categorisation. "by player" makes a lot more sense. I can tell you have many Test centuries Don Bradman got, but how many centuries there have been as MCG, I wouldn't have a clue. No one's interested. Nigej (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep all as discussions on previous proposals have mentioned, the fact that there have been featured lists in this group of articles suggests that they actually don't fail the guidelines and are within Knowledge's criteria, given that they wouldn't have been accepted as featured lists otherwise. I'd admit that they need work, but I don't think that merits deletion of them all. Turnagra (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment pinging previous participants @Tsistunagiska:, @Churot:, @Kemalcan:, @Theleekycauldron:, @Spiderone:, @NavjotSR:, @Joalhe1997: for their view. Störm (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing has basically said the same thing as I said on a previous AfD page, where do we draw the line on notability? There probably needs to be a consensus on whether there's a way we can keep and work on these lists to fall in line with the WPs or whether we should delete all of these types of lists, as I don't understand why some should stay and some should go. Also going to ping in Lugnuts who works a lot on WP:Cricket pages. Joalhe1997 (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The fact that a similar, as BST highlights, is a Featured List, gives hope that ALL of these lists could become FL too. All of the articles I've got to FL status are in the same ballpark (see top of my userpage), so I'd support a Keep for these, as they all have WP:POTENTIAL. Worst case is that if someone wants to work on a specific list, they can get it restored (to their userspace) via WP:REFUND and work on polishing it up to a FL standard. Lugnuts 09:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to mixed consideration at the moment, (currently) somewhat focusing on whether the existence of certain exceptions undermines the general reasoning proposed in the test case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I should formally say that I would suggest keep for now, on the grounds that some of these lists are pretty close to the same standard as featured lists. I would have no problem at all if one of the FL were put forward for deletion to determine whether or not we should consider these articles to be suitable in terms of notability or not. I'd be happy to treat Lord's, the MCG and SCG as cases separate beyond that, but I think we'd be better off trying to decide if we consider any other articles in this series to be notable or not first.

There's a little too much range in the bundle for me to feel confident of any choice to delete as well - there are centuries articles and ones that should clearly be merged (Green Park, for example) as well as lists by ground and lists by country. For me that's rather too many things to try to decide on in one bundle if I'm honest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. No point in deleting these articles / lists. One could debate them at an aggregate (across all sports, not just cricket and bowling), but, I do not see an issue in keeping. Value from these articles is nett positive, even if the magnitude is limited. Keep. Ktin (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete all Consistent with the previous AFDs, these are not meaningful ways to categorize such statistics. Just because similar articles are FL does not give immunity to these, nor do even the FLs have any sort of immunity. The FLC process tends to be based on the article's quality as it appears and is not necessarily a statement that the topic's notability or encyclopedic-ness overrides other discussions. Reywas92 22:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep all - for a number of reasons: 1. the previous AfD does not establish some sort of precedent for every page - I note these discussions have been dominated by users such as Störm and Ajf773 who take particularly strong views (and in my view often incorrect, if you read previous AfDs) on the use of cricket statistics in articles, and I note the previous discussion wasn't properly shared with relevant deletion-discussion lists (particularly country-related ones) which would enable a broader range of users to have input (like this AfD does). It appears that a view has been taken that the individual AfD should be used as some sort of RfC for whether these types of statistics are notable or not - that isn't the case and it doesn't accord with Knowledge policy on what AfDs are to be used for, there should be a RfC or broader discussion on the relevant WikiProject where proper consensus and consultation is done if that is to be the case; 2. The pages are NOT a violation of WP:NOTSTATS - that requires excessive lists of indiscriminate statistics, but 5 wicket hauls and centuries at particular grounds are, in many cases, things that have been covered by other independent sources, so they're not indiscriminate (also taking into account lists of centuries and 5-wicket hauls are fairly limited), and they're not excessive - the argument that they are just Cricinfo mirrors is simply not correct (and the Featured List articles metioned above prove that point); 3. The point about the articles being able to be improved is a valid and relevant point; 4. Even if (contrary to everything I have already said) there is a consensus that stand-alone articles shouldn't exist, none of the arguments put by the proponents of deletion show that it's not inappropriate to merge to the relevant cricket ground etc. articles that would override Knowledge policy on alternatives to deletion - in the context of articles that are largely prose text, statistics about 5-wicket hauls and centuries (the summary achievements in a match for a bowler and batter respectively) are not inappropriate or indiscriminate and also don't violate WP:NOTSTATS. The mass nomination here, while in good faith and to avoid the mess of recent AfDs on individual batsmen and bowler centuries and 5-wicket hauls, doesn't give users the proper ability to analyse each article to determine the appropriateness of another option before deletion is able to be considered. All of the above show that these should be kept; if there are inappropriate entries in the above list, reasons should be put forward specifically on those pages to show why they are inappropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete all - there is something about cricket and cricket fans that leads to this kind of "cruft". I do not think any other sports goes to this level of detail. --Bduke (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - cruft is only an essay, it is not policy, and is not a reason for deletion. Cricket statistics are in many instances covered by multiple independent reliable sources. This can't just be a delete all, the nominators need to show why it is inappropriate to not keep or merge. Deus et lex (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep People will find this valuable. Nexus000 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:ADDSVALUE is not a real argument for a deletion discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest you encourage full discussions rather than just make remarks about others' comments. Nexus might have a valid reason for making that argument? Deus et lex (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I invite him/her to elaborate more. Simple comments like that aren't useful in deciding on an outcome. Ajf773 (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep arguments are all very week and classic arguments to avoid but I don’t think we should delete all many articles without a stronger consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoa there. My argument here is that the list of articles presented is far too diverse to be able to come to a conclusion here. There's nothing wrong with that argument. As I've argued above, this should probably be a keep and then I'd be very happy to see a proper debate on List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at McLean Park. If we can reach a consensus there that articles of that type are not notable, then we can move on from that. I've also listed three previous discussions where articles such as this were discussed and a consensus was reached that they are notable. I'm not sure that's a "weak" argument and one that could be considered one to avoid. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with @Blue Square Thing: here, @Spartaz: -- I think it's unfair to just write off some pretty valid comments made by users here and call them "weak", which have been made by reference to Knowledge policy (including that a mass deletion doesn't take into account the diversity of articles, the fact that the articles don't in fact violate WP:NOTSTATS (despite the often-repeated claim that they do - and this has been accepted and has been the consensus of other users and closers in other AfDs), and the existence of appropriate merge or redirect targets for some of these articles (WP:ATD). I've also explained elsewhere that for some of these types of articles (lists of five-wicket hauls and centuries) have been the subject of independent coverage outside of Cricinfo. I don't have the time to research individual articles to find further sources given the large number up for AfD here but it's worth noting that. I think at best you can say there isn't consensus to delete at present. Deus et lex (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Closer should also note that Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook bundle and Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Dubai International Cricket Stadium bundle were deleted despite having featured lists like List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium, List of international cricket centuries at Bellerive Oval and others and no one objected previously. Störm (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, similar lists for players are regularly deleted, redirected, or merged despite having featured lists. If we have featured lists that doesn't mean we can't delete other lists as these featured lists were promoted by specific mindset of people (I have no doubt that if we again discuss these lists will be demoted) who consider ESPNCricinfo and CricketArchive as secondary sources which they are not (they are database websites). Secondly, lists should meet WP:NLIST and their table are full of WP:NOTSTATS so aren't any useful. Störm (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I should be clear that: a) the bundle here is mainly five-wicket hauls, not centuries - similar, but different; b) I've changed my mind and would now make the same points about centuries. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Störm:, I've already raised why you can't treat some of the other discussions as precedent, when (for example) some of them weren't brought to the attention of appropriate WikiProject Deletion Sorting lists, and the fact that they don't set a "precedent" as such - if you want to do that, the appropriate course is an RfC. Deus et lex (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete all: Per the previous AFDs, this is an arbitrary way to group, not supported by RS, and does not meet LISTN. The keep comments do not address guidelines that have been mentioned, and provide no sources or guidelines that support their position. // Timothy :: talk 10:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment TimothyBlue, have you even read the lengthy replies that @Blue Square Thing: and I have raised? The articles are already sourced externally so that isn't true. Grouping centuries or five-wicket hauls at particular grounds is not "arbitrary" and has been covered in external sources in many cases - cricket statistics frequently reference centuries and five-wicket hauls. I'm not sure how they violate WP:LISTN, but you can't just assert it, you need to argue why. There are plenty of good, policy-based arguments about why the mass deletion of these articles is inappropriate. At worst they should be merged or redirected, because you're required to show that isn't inappropriate BEFORE deleting. No one has done that. The prior AfDs are NOT a precedent and should not be used as a quasi-RfC. These articles must be considered on their own merits, and as a group it is inappropriate to delete them. If there's a problem with a particular one then raise it, othewise it's just vague reasons given for deletion of all of them, and that's not the right outcome. Deus et lex (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  - Deus et lex Please pick any article of your choice (in order to prove) and show reliable secondary sources where they discuss the centuries/fifers as a group (I have searched for all of them and they all fail WP:LISTN). But, if you can't, then don't brag about it as keep voters arguments don't make sense (Spartaz was right what they said). Störm (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
    - Störm - did you check largely offline sources such as Wisden? Books featuring the history of particular cricket grounds that discuss centuries or 5-fors made at those grounds? Including for the Featured Articles? And even if you're right, none of that means a merge or a redirect isn't appropriate. There are some entirely valid arguments for keeping these articles that are grounded in Knowledge policy, as Blue Square Thing and I have mentioned. The mass nomination should not have been made. It's trying to set an RfC-like argument, it doesn't give editors the proper opportunity to look up what sources might be available, and doesn't distinguish properly between the particular articles. I'm not "bragging", just trying to show up the ill-thought out reasons for deletion by editors who are obsessed with removing cricket statistic articles. Deus et lex (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Go Phightins! 21:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Tetralogy

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

During Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Duology (2nd nomination), it was noted that this article, as well as the following two articles, are almost identical in content, consisting of nothing but a dictionary definition and an unsourced, possibly OR list of series.

Hexalogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Heptalogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I am not nominating Pentalogy, which does have encyclopedic content, nor Trilogy, which lacks encyclopedic content but which I would expect to be encyclopedically notable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Note that there is a corresponding category for each of the listed articles here. For example, the now-deleted duology's corresponding category Category:Duologies still exists. The same goes for tetralogy, hexalogy, and heptalogy, respectively corresponding to Category:Tetralogies, Category:Hexalogies, and Category:Heptalogies. They may need to be considered as well. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

My current opinion is that the categories can be kept. Maybe a WP:CfD is required for this. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity} 06:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. This is a WP:DICTDEF plus a list of some works that come in four parts. A category for the concept makes some sense, but an article or a list seem not necessary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete just as duology: WP:NOTDICT, and the articles presents no non-trivial information that would make for independent notability. wikt:tetraology should be used where (and if) necessary. IceWelder 12:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Pinging contributors from the duology AfD: @Erik, P,TO 19104, Jontesta, Videogameplayer99, Cunard, LaukkuTheGreit, TarkusAB, Alalch Emis, Star Mississippi, Epinoia, and Danbloch. IceWelder 12:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete for consistent treatment with duology or potentially redirect to Series#Types of series in arts, entertainment, and media --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 12:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep and adapt/translate the french article – The current article is terrible, a stub masking as a pseudo-list. However, tetralogy is a very standard and common (and important) term, unlike „duology”, which is mostly a non-word. Deletion isn't helpful because it will potentially hinder creation of a good article on this subject (from a purely practical standpoint). — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep, as Alalch Emis says, this seems to be a distinct literary concept from the Greek theatre, as opposed to the other terms, which are neologisms with no historical use or meaning beyond giving a number of works. Although as they are used, the terms should probably be mentioned in this article and in "trilogy"—turn the others into redirects. As a term with a specific meaning not immediately obvious from its roots, "tetralogy" seems to have enough distinct material to stand alone, as demonstrated by the French article. P Aculeius (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Create a new article and Merge all these terms, such as duology, trilogy, tetrology, pentology, etc. – call the page "Series of Works" or something like that and have "Tetrology" and the other terms redirect to that page – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Categorize any remaining articles listed, then delete. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep tetralogy and heptalogy, both of which are important literary concepts in much the same way that the unnominated trilogy is (although less common). Duology and hexalogy can go. On a point of order, it looks as though this is at least the third AfD for heptalogy (see Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Heptalogy (2nd nomination)) which should surely be flagged up somewhere in the nomination? And has the creator, JHunterJ, been notified that an article they created has been put up for AfD? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Speedy Keep heptalogy per its previous AfD, its talk, and the fact that the nomination reasons given here do not apply to it, since it is fully sourced with no original research and includes encyclopedic information beyond a dictionary definition. Geez. Don't just lump things together needlessly. Thank you for the ping, Andreas Philopater -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep There was no good reason to delete duology nor is there for this.★Trekker (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Strong Keep The reference to the tetralogies of Classical Greek drama makes this more than a dictionary entry. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Hexalogy and Heptalogy as WP:DICTDEF and keep Tetralogy for now. These kinds of combined AFDs get confusing and make it difficult to form a consensus. It's possible we need a simple article for fictional series or something. I will agree that none of these articles have sufficient coverage to be more than a dictionary definition / list. But there is some consensus that Tetralogy has some WP:POTENTIAL and deserves time before deciding if it deserves an article once and for all. Archrogue (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 18:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:BEFORE. A serious deep, Internet search must be done, or at least a little work, before nominations such as these. Editors lose respect and reputation when they nominate randomly. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- The thought of that has never given these editors pause though, and the administrators who frequent AfD's seem to tolerate and abet questionable or badly formed nominations. Haleth (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Charles Wister Groff

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

Non-notable real estate developer. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Paisarepa 18:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 18:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 18:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa 18:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable real estate developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. One source is not acceptable, and anyway, this appears to be a run of the mill business person. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Spartaz 13:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sweet Sixteen Novel

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

Just barely avoids A7; was speedy-deleted, recreated by the creator half an hour later, prodded, and then deprodded by creator (at that point I'd recommend WP:SALT). I assumed as good faith as possible and did an in-depth WP:BEFORE; the best it got was a review hosted on a very marginal site, insufficient for GNG. The creator's rationale for keeping seems to be WP:ITEXISTS. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. D🐶ggy54321 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I did find this but it definetly isn't enough to prove notablility via GNG. TheCartoonEditor | (talk) | (contribs) 16:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
You know when we talk about this article it is simply for Sweet Sixteen Novel, There was never a copyrighted content and besides the article can be kept cuz It's notable enough to be kept, more references and citations can come in as time goes on. We'd rather cite the true and actual citation instead of adding a wrong/incorrect/non-existing citation.Ugochimobi (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ugochimobi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Keep This book has significant coverage and reviews in Nigerian media, and was the novel used in the JAMB test, which appears to be essentially the Nigerian SAT test. Clearly passes WP:NBOOK 1 and 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk • contribs) 13:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep Publicized use in a national test suggests WP:NBOOK #4. I'm also more reluctant to delete well sourced content from underrepresented area of the world.--agr (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

*Delete — fails to meet WP:NBOOK. Celestina007 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC) (switched to keep). Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 It's taught to every student taking the JAMB in Nigeria, that qualifies it for NBOOK 4. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, Oh gosh!! I guess we have to confirm this from a Nigerian, oh wait, I am a Nigerian & i can categorically tell you this particular book was never taught to me at the time I wrote my Jamb examinations & neither is it being taught to students currently writing the Jamb examinations this year, i would know I was once a private home teacher. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 This source is an official government document listing that it's in use. I can't speak to your experience but I believe we generally follow sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I saw that document prior now as well as this publication & I’m not so sure why they'd publish that blatant crap. I however understand and appreciate your POV Verifiability and not truth but I’m sorry I’m sticking with my !vote. Celestina007 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I apologized if I came across as terse. Agree to disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, it’s okay, imo, you didn’t come off as terse & I always enjoy a civil conversation with a colleague. I hope in time you'd understand my frustration here, for example if three reliable sources say 1 + 1= 4, i mean that’s a blatant & factual inaccuracy but since reliable sources say it’s 4 then oh well it is 4, but of course you know that simply isn’t true, that’s where I am right now with this article we are discussing, it’s really a catch-22 scenario for me. Celestina007 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 I understand that frustration. Is it possible there is supplemental or optional test module for use of English? Perhaps that is what the document is referring to? I'm not familiar with the JAMB test aside from the research I did when looking into this AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, not that I’m aware of, Jamb is written by 12th graders seeking to get admission into a college or university in that given year. Jamb comprises(English, Math, Physics & Chemistry) for students going to study a science related course at the University and isn’t solely for the test of English language. But I think the problem is this, each year, Jamb makes it mandatory for those seeking to write the examination to read a specific book as prerequisite, so each new year is a new book and no two books are ever repeated(if memory serves me right) so it isn’t impossible that this book was one of such in a particular given year, I think those in the 12th grade in 2019 “Jambites”(what they are referred to) were made to read the aforementioned book, that’s definitely possible, but it isn’t a constant used year in year out, no that isn’t true, if you feel from what I’ve ever said that it meets WP:NBOOK#4 then let me know & I’d change my !vote. Celestina007 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 WP:NBOOK specifically says if a book is, or has been, used them it qualifies. If it was the book for the JAMB in an earlier year I believe it qualifies. I'm hardly a Knowledge veteran, so don't let me change your mind if you believe I'm wrong. Regardless I appreciate the information you gave me and the civil discourse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I don’t consider myself an expert when it comes to books or films, so im happy we had this conversation per our convo I have changed my !vote accordingly. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep — Per in-depth conversation with @ScottishFinnishRadish. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Suggest redirect to the author article for the time being. Deb (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
'Redirect' The book doesn't have enough reliable sources to warrant a standalone article as of yet. Some content is unsourced, while other lines use same references. However, the 3 sources mentioned in the article are enough to get this book's brief information on the author's page. I would add that info later today. Then Delete this one. Dial911 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - I added the information on the author's page and it has relevant information about this book now. As it is WP:TOOSOON for the book, this article should be deleted for now. Dial911 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge (which seems to have been completed by Dial911 so I guess really redirect) to Bolaji Abdullahi. Per alternatives to deletion there's no need to delete this, especially given a merge has been done (see WP:Merge and delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I actually was thinking about WP:Merge and Delete but got lost in my own explanation ;) Dial911 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep - The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself: a review by Nigerian Tribune, The Daily Trust, and The Guardian, and it has been used for instruction for the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board examinations, so passes WP:NBOOK. --Ashley yoursmile! 21:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment: if kept, this needs renaming to Sweet Sixteen (novel) or similar. ser! (chat to me). 23:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep This passes WP:NBOOK thanks to the sources in the reception. I see other sources in the AFD and someone should expand the article. Archrogue (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Mavis Amankwah

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

Non-notable PR person, under sourced hagiography Juniperesque (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete an article on a non-notable person in the PR industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable person. Oaktree b (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. scope_creep 17:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
KEEP Seems notable enough for a STUB180.252.116.122 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

CA Workload Automation AE

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. Never seen an RS that delves into this topic for more than 2 sentences. Mottezen (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2032

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

Just a copy of UEFA Euro 2028, all the bid information is about the 2028 tournament. It's 11 years away, no evidence it'll definitely actually even happen in 2032, the host for the tournament 4 years beforehand hasn't even been announced. Way WP:TOOSOON for an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Way WP:TOOSOON. The countries listed in the bid section are all actually sourced for considering bidding for an earlier tournament. Mottezen (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - far TOOSOON. Giant Snowman 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
SALT It's a long way off, but we will need the article and it probably should be locked down maybe? Govvy (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should Salt. This subject will be notable once a few countries start publicly considering a bid, and there it no way of knowing when that's gonna be. Mottezen (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - I agree as its way too soon for an article to be created here. HawkAussie (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as WP:TOOSOON but do not salt as it will eventually be notable and we will need to have an article. Smartyllama (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete WP:TOOSOON and also seems to be a straight copy-and-paste move from UEFA Euro 2028. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. redirecting doesn't really work here when there is only a link to this article in that section in the proposed target, certainly no indication that there is any real coverage on this as a topic in itself yet. Fenix down (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2028 broadcasting rights

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

This proposed championship is 7 years away, way WP:TOOSOON for an article on broadcasters Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - far TOOSOON. Giant Snowman 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments – It had reliable sources, if you think is too soon, please think about delete main article also. --Aleen f1 12:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The UEFA Euro 2028 article is relevant because the bids for it are being done at the moment. It could use expansion, but not deletion. Whereas the broadcasters are only relevant when the tournament happens i.e. in 2028. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That is no questions on verifiability. Anyway, no point arguing, judge yourself, TOOSOON is not a guidelines, anyhow. --Aleen f1 15:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to UEFA Euro 2028. TOOSOON for this article. The line on this is clear to me: if there is SIGCOV to support an encyclopedic article then it's not TOOSOON; in this case there is not SIGCOV and it is TOOSOON. // Timothy :: talk 12:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Canadian Caper. Daniel (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Robert G. Anders

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

Subject is known for only WP:ONEEVENT. There is nothing in this article that can't be housed at Canadian Caper. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Canadian Caper. Knowledge does not need to be a directory of these individuals. StarM 17:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete when I came across this article a few moths back I was going to nominate it for deletion, but was distracted by other things. Not even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Canadian Caper - doesn't appear to have any notability outside of the event for which we already have an article. P-K3 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Canadian Caper. This article tells us nothing about Anders as a person other than being part of those events. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Thomas (soccer)

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

This doesn't pass WP:NFOOTBALL, and I really don't see WP:GNG met either. All rather routine, I don't see anything special. Govvy (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This article should be kept because he has played for a senior club team and is a college soccer player who also was part of the USMNT U23 roster. It is also likely that he will become a pro soccer player, so it shouldn't be deleted -Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless you have a WP:CRYSTAL ball, there is no way of working out whether he will be professional or not. Surely it would make more sense to create the article after turning pro? Spiderone 17:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete clear WP:NFOOTY/WP:GNG fail, may be notable at some point in the relatively near future but not near enough to draftify. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable soccer player for Stanford University.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

John Pack Lambert, he is notable, as he is their starting goalkeeper and has been their starting keeper for three seasons, and has won multiple Pac-12 awards. -Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Which doesn't matter considering the only coverage of him is brief and transactional or fails WP:YOUNGATH (U-17 stuff). SportingFlyer T·C 18:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - none of the coverage so far would count as significant coverage and I'm not finding anything better myself Spiderone 18:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

10 Years (song)

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

Listing to forestall an edit war involving Ss112 (talk · contribs), TheThomanski (talk · contribs), Hayman30 (talk · contribs), Paintspot (talk · contribs), and a blocked IP. The claim is that the article is not notable per WP:NSONG. Lithopsian (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep - there are no precedent that Eurovision songs are not notable. Quite the opposite actually. Once confirmed like it has been per sources, it is notable. BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per User:BabbaQ above: Often, for Eurovision songs, "once confirmed (like it has been, per sources), it is notable" in this case. Secondly, given that the song is due to release in NINE days (13 March), it would probably end up needing to be re-created TWO DAYS after the deletion discussion ends on 11 March. There's little point in a deletion discussion, as shortly after the end of the typical 7-days period, the song will be out and will be reported on much more widely (by which point it will 100% be able to be considered notable enough for a page). Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep It easily passes WP:GNG. Eurovision is wildly popular in Iceland and the upcoming song has been covered in the national media for several months. Alvaldi (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Per others, the song is easily notable. { } 20:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep The song release is just days away, it is already being reported on as a favourite to win the Eurovision Song Contest even before it has been released, the majority of Eurovision songs have been deemed notable enough to warrant an article and this should be no different. (Z2a (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC))
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NOTBURO. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GNG and all of the above arguments. There is a CLEAR precedent that songs that will perform in Eurovision are notable under WP:NMUSIC. ser! (chat to me). 21:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Russia–Turkey relations. Clear consensus that this needs to end up as a redirect, but no consensus regarding whether to delete or to merge. That conversation can be further pursued on the talk page of Russia–Turkey relations if desired by editors. The content is preserved behind the redirect should it be needed for merging purposes. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Russia–Turkey proxy conflict

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

The article sources allege there is a proxy war between Turkey and Russia while it's mainly geopolitical differences. None of the sources confirm any proxy conflict existing other than the tensions between the two countries over certain issues such as Syria. However, both countries are in agreement over various international affairs as stated in the introduction of the countries' relations article. Apparently, the main reasoning for the article's existence is over the shootdown of a Russian fighter jet in 2015. And as I've stated in the article's talk page, both nations resolved the issue almost immediately. This page uses the same rationale as did the articles about there being a proxy conflict between Turkey with France, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. All these three were deleted for the same reason, lack of notability, factual accuracy, and/or verifiability.

This page was nominated for deletion once before. No consensus was the result of the discussion. WikiCleanerMan (talk) --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:41, 4 March 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 March 4. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge and delete: merge content with the Russia–Turkey relations article, then delete this proxy conflict article. Morgengave (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What would be the point when their relations articles already states the gist of what this article alleges? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge and deleteper filer and per Buidhe who in the forgoing deletion discussion voted delete.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete – per my comments on the talk page which led to this RfC. After reviewing the sources I cannot find experts describing the Russia-Turkey relationship as a consistent proxy conflict, instead it's variously referred to as "competition"/"rivalry"/a "shaky alliance" etc., with pragmatic cooperation in areas of mutual interest. (Example sources: ). This article appears to heavily rely on OR, citing news reports about events in which both Russia & Turkey are involved, and connecting these events to a broader "conflict" when the sources don't go this far. The sources do describe the Syrian and Libyan civil wars as "proxy wars" or "mercenary wars" in which both Russia & Turkey have been competing through the use of mercenaries/direct military intervention – but describing those individual conflicts as proxy wars doesn't equate to there being a being a actual proxy conflict between Russia and Turkey themselves (à la Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict). I can't find strong sourcing to support such an exceptional claim. As there's no significant narrative on the page describing the nuances/nature of the alleged proxy conflict (it's mostly a list of events supposedly part of the conflict), I'm personally in favour of outright deletion per WP:TNT in order to remove the mess of OR. However, if other editors can see something worth salvaging it can be merged into Russia–Turkey relations. Jr8825 • Talk 18:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Russia–Turkey relations. This article is clearly prone to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues and its existence isn't tenable in the near or long term. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per all aboveShadow4dark (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Russia–Turkey relations. There is way too much OR/SYNTH in the article for a merge or to make the history worth saving. The assertion that this is a proxy conflict (which I agree with, but that's an opinion) does not have support in sources and the SYNTH is used to support the assertion without actually using sources. // Timothy :: talk 12:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge and redirect Create a section in Russia–Turkey relations entitled "Syrian-Turkish conflicts contributing to Turkish-Russian tensions." Redirect this article to that section while preserving the edit history.--Kerbyki (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per above--Sakiv (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

P. W. Ellis

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

Completely unsourced biography, of the "person who existed, the end" variety, of a person notable only as an unelected chair of government agencies. As always, this is not an automatic notability freebie just because the person existed -- to be notable for something like this, he would have to have a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about his work in the roles, so as to enable us to write a substantive article that actually demonstrated his significance. But even on a search for contemporaneous media coverage from his own time, I can still only find glancing namechecks of his existence rather than any sources that were substantively about him to help establish his notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Doing a before I found this which shows he may be notable, but it can't be used as it is a blog, and Annoyingly has no refs attached to where they got the info from. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete 15 years is too long to keep unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: As per nomination and Davidstewartharvey. I disagree with Johnpacklambert, as this is not a WP:BLP and so we can wait. Emir of Knowledge (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
keep I found this source and this as well as NiagaraFalls Review article which mentions him, which I think clears notability and RS. The article may grow at some point, not all sources from this time are online. --hroest 22:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The City of Toronto isn't a media outlet, but one of Ellis' own former employers — so that link is a primary source self-published by a directly affiliated entity, not a notability-building piece of reliable source media coverage. The fact that the provincial archives happen to hold an archival fonds of his own personal papers is not a notability criterion, and the fact that they were his own personal papers means that digging into the fonds wouldn't net you any reliable or notability-making sources either. And we're looking for sources that have him as their subject, not sources that happen to briefly mention his name in the process of being about some random person finding a lawn bowling trophy in a shed 90 years after his death — so even if we deemed that source usable on the grounds that it contains a bit of information about Ellis' jewellery company, it wouldn't clinch passage of GNG all by itself if it was the only non-primary source in play, because Ellis isn't its subject. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Unsourced. A ProQuest search in Canadian historical newspapers turned up nothing. // Timothy :: talk 12:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Kokumo

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, per comments at and : this subject is a border case of notability - and is adamant that the article about them be deleted. Paul ❬talk❭ 15:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 15:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 15:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Paul ❬talk❭ 15:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete As the nominator says, the notability is borderline. I would normally vote keep in this situation and work on digging up some more sources, but with the request to delete the article I see no compelling need or overwhelming notability to support keeping it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Enough borderline notability for a "weak keep," but delete is fine given the subject's request. OhNoitsJamie 15:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that notability is borderline. Moreover, "Kokumo" as a name tends to be surprisingly common, such that a lot of what I'm pulling up in Google News search is non-responsive (strings: kokumo, kokumo activist, kokumo singer), and the general search, while more on-target, pulls up nothing really useful that isn't already cited. This coupled with the BLPDELREQ weighs in favour of deleting it, though if she's watching this AfD, I'll make myself perfectly clear: The chances of you being able to do better are, based on the Google search results, pretty much impossible. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 16:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
In light of David notMD (talk · contribs)'s !vote below, SALT the earth as well (diff of demand: ). They should be going through the drafting process like every other COI editor, and IIRC their account's autoconfirmed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 20:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment Before we apply WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the user should go through the proper OTRS verification process to verify they are who they say they are. Saying that, I support a delete as not meeting WP:GNG. Although if this article gets deleted, it shouldn't be seen as an encouragement for them to create an autobiography instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per much of the above. I take Joseph2302's point about OTRS verification, but to be honest the claims to notability are so slight, and the sourcing so weak, I'd probably be in the delete camp anyway regardless of the subject's request. Most of the sourcing I can see is either affiliated (Huffpost released her work), press-releasey stuff, or interviews in the local paper. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete If the person wants the article deleted there is no reason to keep it, they are not nearly so notable that we would absolutely need to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete and Salt weak notability and subject's preference but given the disruptiveness, poor attitude of the subject, and desire to own the article, there is a reasonable chance they will create another account to produce an autobiographical article. Slywriter (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep She/they are the subject of the Huffington Post article and is also indexed in the LCCN system, the start of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oaktree b, can I point out that the HuffPost article is an affiliated source - the track it's covering was released as an exclusive premiere through HuffPost Gay Voices. It's not something that can be used to assess notability. I'm not familiar enough with the LCCN system to offer a view on whether that contributes significantly to notability for an author. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep there is some in-depth significant coverage in independent sources and they have received a notable Lambda Literary Award. Theroadislong (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete, ~~(possibly subject to OTRS request verification, in case this is a case of impersonation?)~~ based on the combination of borderline notability and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE with the standard proviso that the article may be recreated at a later time if they become sufficiently notable that an article would be clearly appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment FWIW, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE confirmed via OTRS Ticket2021030410007637. Geoff | 21:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per Geoff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. versacespace talk to me 12:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. A keep vote at this stage is basically out of spite. ValarianB (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete bolding my vote now, as WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Though if we delete at the user's request, can we also protect from re-creation? Because otherwise I have a feeling that the subject will just try and write their own autobiography here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know if we normally do salt pre-emptively. I would opt to wait and see in this instance, as I think she's intending to pursue other, more appropriate, avenues of promotion. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  - You are correct that we do not SALT preemptively. Typically 3 is the magic number, but that isn't a hard rule. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    - The user in question is asking for a BLPREQUESTDELETE specifically because they want to create their own page- their userpage and talkpage make that very clear. But if we really want for them to create a new article and that to get deleted before applying the salt, then go for it. But salting just solves the inevitable problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
    - Policy doesn't work that way. If they end up recreating the article, then they will still not have any control over it, and future BLPREQUESTDELETE requests will simply be ignored Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
      - She's made it clear this is a hill she will fight and die on, and I feel it's better to shut this down before it goes south - because it will go south the moment someone else other than her edits the article without her blessing. She's already made it clear that controlling "her" article is the only outcome she will accept, and we need to push back on this in no uncertain terms, otherwise I foresee this ending with community bans. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 00:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
        AFD isn't the place we issue sanctions, however. The issue at hand is the article, not the potential for future issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
        Hence why I and Joseph are arguing for a salt. I'm not saying she should be sanctioned based off of her behaviour around this AfD; I'm saying that the page should be salted and she should go through AfC since she has an autoconfirmed account and would otherwise bypass it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 17:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and questionable notability anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Received message on my Talk today (9 March) from person in question, as an IP, confirming demand to have the article deleted unless can have complete command of content. David notMD (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment She left this message on the page today. Thoughts?--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 14:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- That may or may not be the same person, but still Delete. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
- That person (IP:68.193.85.73) last week sent me a note, that basically said 'If I cannot control it completely, delete it.' Even if this is now a true change of heart, my opinion is still Delete. They (meaning a singular pronoun) can try starting over as an autobiography. Or give up. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

MegaMek

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

No evidence of notability outside of ScourgeForce popularity which has been regularly discussed on Talk. The game exists and is discussed on a fora, but no significant, in depth sourcing. Prior bulk AfD: Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Boson (computer game) which was, essentially, procedural keep. StarM 15:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete I was unable to find anything that would count as a significant reliable secondary coverage. The Linux Magazine link cited in the article is just an interview . Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. There are zero hits in WP:VG/SE and bare WP:PASSING mentions in the Internet Archive. IceWelder 09:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Westchester Day School

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

This is a school below the high school level in the US. Such schools are almost never notable. There is nothing to suggest this is one of the extremely rare exceptions John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:19, 4 March 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 March 4. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth to meet GNG or ORGCRIT. // Timothy :: talk 14:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Radiohead discography#Extended plays. Go Phightins! 16:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Itch (EP)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. I can find no significant independent coverage of this EP or other indication of notability (which is not unexpected given its very limited release). Article cites no sources other than its AllMusic entry (which gives a rating but no review) and consists competely of original research. I suggest redirecting to Radiohead discography#Extended plays. Lennart97 (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Radiohead discography#Extended play per nom--fails WP:GNG. Not enough material for a reasonably detailed article. HĐ (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Edited to add: another option may be to merge the content into a notable release, similar to how the EP No Surprises/Running from Demons is covered at No Surprises. As Itch contains only music from Pablo Honey, that could be a target for merging. There isn't any sourced content to merge, however, apart from the tracklist. Lennart97 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge to Pablo Honey: Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Radiohead discography#Extended play fails WP:NALBUMS, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. --Ashley yoursmile! 12:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 01:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Beacon (band)

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

Notability issues, potentially WP:SOAP. Acousmana (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Author Keep per WP:MUSIC. I did not write this as promotion. The band released multiple albums on important indie labels per WP:MUSIC, and it had three reliable sources cited at the time of nomination. Chubbles (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep unless other editors think Ghostly International is not a "major indie label" per NMUSIC. But see this. Mottezen (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment sources are, in order of RS: youbtube clip (to support an OR statement); a one paragraph record review in a Scottish events mag; a one paragraph record review in Exclaim, a Toronto based music mag; Allmusic bio (which alone does not necessarily establish notability). Acousmana (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Exclaim also published this longer text on their debut. Mottezen (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the YouTube clip (not my addition), those are three fine sources. Very much in line with what you'd expect from music journalism. Chubbles (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

disagree they are fine, barrel scraping with respect to "journalism," if these were reviews in national press, or one of the webzines we generally do accept as RS for music content - written by notable muso journalist - perhaps, but these? Acousmana (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The Skinny, Exclaim, and Allmusic are all already webzines/databases we generally accept as RS for music content. See WP:MUSICSOURCE. Chubbles (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, still think this is a stretch based on coverage presented, out of interest, if you haven't seen, current RS discussion re:Allmusic and notability. Acousmana (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep as AllMusic, Exclaim and The Skinny are all well established music reliable sources. Exclaim is probably the second most respected music source in Canada. They have also released albums on a notable indie label so passing criteria 5 of WP:NMUSIC ( only one criteria needed) in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep - I would say that there is just about enough coverage in reliable, independent sources to pass NMUSIC and criterion 5 is met, as above Spiderone 20:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 06:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Roscoe Fillmore

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

Biography of a political activist and horticulturist, not properly referenced for the purposes of establishing his permanent notability in either field. As a politician, the notability claims here are that he was a fringe party organizer and unsuccessful candidate for political office, neither of which are instant notability freebies in the absence of a demonstrated WP:GNG pass, and as a horticulturist the only notability claim here is that he published gardening books, which isn't a notability freebie in the absence of critical analysis about the books -- but the only references being cited at all are an academic journal article where he's one of the bylined authors rather than the subject being written about, a small-press biography of him written by his own grandson, and an archival fonds of his own papers, which means that none of the sources are fully independent of him for the purposes of establishing that his work has been externally validated as significant by people he wasn't directly related to or employed by. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep as article author. It easily passes WP:GNG. The Acadiensis article was published in 1982, 14 years after his death. It includes a two page summary of his life as well as an extract of his autobiography. It is clearly an independent, in-depth source. Per WP:BEFORE, these other sources are also easily findable. Fillmore is discussed further in this article and this one as well. As for the the full-length book on Fillmore, it was published by Between the Lines Books, which has also published numerous highly-regarded books on the Canadian Left. It was not a self-published missive; that his grandson wrote the book does not discount its legitimacy. The book, which was reviewed by Canada's largest labour history journal Labour / Le Travail as well as Left History, describes the work as displaying "meticulous research" comparable to other biographies. The reviewer also calls it a "valuable addition to the literature on political radicalism in Canada and on Maritime regional history..."--User:Namiba 16:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that a paper includes some biographical information about its author(s), as a foreword or afterword to his own work, does not reify that paper into a notability-building source, and the date upon which the article was actually published relative to his death doesn't change anything either. If he's the bylined author of the source, then it does not constitute evidence of his notability — you do not make people notable for writing stuff by referencing said stuff to itself as verification that it exists, you make people notable for writing stuff by referencing said stuff to other people doing critical analysis of said stuff.

And yes, the fact that the biographical book was written by his own grandson does discount its validity as a notability-making source. The fact that a minor publishing house issued it does not override the fact that its author was writing about his own relative, and the fact that the book got reviewed does not override the fact that its author was writing about his own relative. It would be fine to use if the article were properly referenced to enough independent coverage of him to get him over GNG, but it can't be the load-bearing pillar of a claim that its existence gets him over GNG per se, precisely because it was written by his own grandson.

Furthermore, being mentioned in other journal articles is not the same thing as being the subject of those journal articles, with the added bonus that the author or coauthor of both of those journal articles is the same person as his credited coauthor of the article he partially wrote himself, and thus still isn't fully independent of himself. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if you can actually access the the journal article, but it is not BY Fillmore, who was long dead by the time was published. It is by a historian about Fillmore. It is part biography of the subject and part a publishing of Fillmore's autobiography. I think we just fundamentally disagree on the book about Fillmore as a reliable source. As evidenced by the positive reviews by other historians, it is a well-regarded book about Canadian left political history through the life of Roscoe Fillmore. The mentions in multiple other journal articles (more are available that haven't been linked to here) also substantiate the subject's notability.--User:Namiba 17:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's about Fillmore and not by Fillmore, then why does it explicitly credit Fillmore as one of its two bylined authors? Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, in the Canadian context, BTLB isn't a minor publisher. It is one of the foremost publishers of Canadian historical content. Peer-review makes a major difference here.--User:Namiba 17:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You do realize you're claiming to know more about the relative importance of Canadian publishing houses than an actual Canadian who actually used to work in publishing, right? McClelland and Stewart is major. House of Anansi is major. Random House of Canada is major. Between the Lines is not nothing, and I never said it was, but it certainly isn't "major" enough that its mere imprimatur on the spine of a book would automatically render the fact that said book was written by the subject's own grandson into a moot point. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is my final comment for now: Roscoe Fillmore's life is the subject of a reputable, peer-reviewed, full-length book. It has also been written about, to various degrees, in several different journal articles across different decades by different historians. As such, this article should satisfy GNG and be kept.--User:Namiba 18:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I will note that Mark Leier writes about Fillmore's life here. Ian McKay writes about Fillmore here as well.--User:Namiba 19:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per the well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the comments of the nominator Bearcat about why this person fails the notability guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Even if you do not count the peer-reviewed book about his life as a source, it is clear that this article easily passes WP:BASIC.--User:Namiba 02:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep In my mind, the GNG issue relating to his activism is settled by several sources listed in the article. In addition, his gardening books appears to have been very popular with several articles in major newspapers about them. and his gardening skills to be validated by this book. While the gardening aspect probably wouldn't pass GNG on its own, it just adds the already established reasonings that User:Namiba has made. Meanderingbartender (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added a few more sources and details to the article. I'm still searching for more sources including this one. While most of the references I've added are brief, they all call him either a prominent horticulturist or a leading figure in the Canadian radical movement. Meanderingbartender (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - The nominators arguments demonstrate this person lacks notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Have you read any of the newly found sources or evidence of notability established in the discussion? Meanderingbartender (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of the new sources are from pay sites, so I cannot access them. There's also a book about him, written by his grandson. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep - I have JSTOR access through Knowledge Library access (highly recommended) and can confirm it passes WP:BASIC, with multiple, intellectually independent references in independent and secondary sources. Acadiensis journal, page 67-68, describes him as prominent local socialist, and giving speeches at Amherst strike and Labour / Le Travail journal, by same author discusses Roscoe's agricultural contributions in Canada and USSR. While the biography by his grandson is certainly not independent, the extensive review by Michael Earle is. I don't know anything about Fillmore so am assessing purely on the secondary material list in discussions above. I also note he was co-founder of the Labour Progressive Party of Canada per Shushugah (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep, appears to pass WP:GNG with the recently added sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep, per Shushugah. This seems to be a clearly notable individual, I can point you to thousands of less well sourced articles of far less notable individuals. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: I confirmed the JSTOR references mentioned above

,,,,

Along with these newspaper items previously mentioned:

and these Google books refs:

We can argue over whether any individual item above is SIGCOV, but BASIC allows for "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I think a couple of the items above pass SIGCOV, all together I believe this passes BASIC. // Timothy :: talk 15:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Logan Martinez

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

Survived PROD as not being entirely unsourced, but there is no evidence he's notable as a politician (rec'd 8% of the vote, and little coverage of his candidacy) nor as a businessman. StarM 15:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. As always, people do not get Knowledge articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — to actually get a Knowledge article, he would have to either (a) show that he had preexisting notability for other reasons, independently of the candidacy, that would already have gotten him into Knowledge anyway, or (b) show a credible and well-sourced reason why his candidacy should be deemed much more significant than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. This demonstrates neither of those. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable tounced political candidate. In a state house race even if he received 49/9% of the vote I would probably still think we should delete. Back in 2007 we had much laxer inclusion standards, but as of today this guy fails notability by miles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete non-notable politician. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete falls well short of WP:NPOL as an unsuccessful candidate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheWikiholic (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Vikramaditya Singh (politician)

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

The subject is not a president or head of any parties at national level. Fails to establish notability per WP:GNG. Sources are covering mainly about something else rather than the subject. Kichu🐘 15:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 15:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 15:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 15:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 15:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep: meets WP:politician as he was elected to the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council. Mottezen (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:NPOL, representative in legislative body. --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:NPOL as a former member of the Jammu and Kashmir state legislature. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Strong Keep He easily meets WP:NPOL and it's clearly written that he was elected for INC JK Legislative assembely. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or 06:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Absolutely a notable Indian political figure, based on the already-cited sources alone.—Neil Shah-Quinn (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Times of India coverage is notable for that country and considered one of the major media, so it meets WP:GNG. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was Withdrawn clearly my search was faulty. No reason to drag this out. StarM 02:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Mankind (video game)

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

While searching is a challenge due to the name, I can find no evidence that this was a notable video game. This is the best source, and it's definitely not up to sourcing standards, and this one even says we're unlikely to have heard of its operator. StarM 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep The article in its current state doesn't really show anything towards the notability. However, I found several reliable sources discussing it non-trivially, such as Joystick (magazine) , AllGame , Computer Games Magazine , GameSpy , Jeuxvideo.com . The game was also covered by PC Gamer , but sadly it's a mere rant by the reviewer and nothing can be taken from it except for the Reception section. Overall, Mankind meets WP:GNG, meaning it received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: The sources found by Jovanmilic97 meet the GNG standard in my view. DocFreeman24 (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per Jovanmilic97. The sources meet the standard at Knowledge:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Maitha Al-Khayat

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, every writer is not automatically entitled to have a Knowledge article just because her work exists -- the notability test requires certain specific quantifiable achievements, and a certain specific quality of reliable source coverage about her in real media to support them. But after removing two invalid circular citations to the Arabic Knowledge, three of the four footnotes left are primary source directory entries on the self-published websites of her own publisher, a literary festival and a directly affiliated organization for children's writers (none of which are reliable or notability-making sources at all) -- and the only source that comes from a real media outlet is just covering her in the context of giving a Zoom chat during the covidified 2020 version of a book fair, which is not "inherently" notable enough to clinch inclusion in Knowledge all by itself. And the only stated notability claim is that she once won a minor award that isn't a free pass over WP:ANYBIO -- the extent to which any literary award counts as a notability-making achievement for a writer depends on the ability to show that it's an award that gets media coverage in order to establish its notability, not just on the ability to technically verify it in the writer's own self-published PR. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Though the subject is a member of the "Board of Directors of the Emirates Board on Books for Young People", It lacks significant media coverage for a Knowledge entry at the moment. Luciapop (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Nominator was also blocked as a sock. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 01:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Roma Arora

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

Resources are not enough to justify notability of the subject. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LucyLucy (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep Notability is borderline but sources in the article and coverage in the Times of India is enough to squeak over the bar of WP:GNG. The fact that there is no legitimate delete !vote or reason argues for another editor speedily closing this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Procedural close: Nom has been blocked as a sock. I offer no opinon about the article, I firmly believe noms from socks should not be considered. // Timothy :: talk 15:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Skyline Blues

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG, doesn't pass WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 12:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 12:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete fails GNG and MUSICBIO. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Trapezohedron. Eddie891 _Work 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Dodecagonal trapezohedron

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

Doesn't seem that notable. Better to delete or merge it into trapezohedron. Eridian314 (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Eridian314 (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge into Trapezohedron, as it seems that the dodecagonal one has no specific property compared to general trapezohedrons. In any case, if there are specific properties, they would be more visible there (by comparison with others trapezohedrons) than here. D.Lazard (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to trapezohedron, no merge. There are no special properties (or, more to the point, in depth sources) that would distinguish this from the other trapezohedra. Anything here that is not an immediate consequence of what's already in the trapezohedron article is original research, so no merge. This is only one of an enormous number of poorly sourced articles on specific polyhedra, tilings, polyhedral compounds, and higher dimensional analogues of those things (some of which are actually notable but in equally bad shape as this), so much more cleanup along these lines is needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to trapezohedron; there doesn't seem to be anything to merge. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 06:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Florat

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

Article has multiple issues, lacks of references and fails the inclusion criteria for WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep - The subject of the article has been covered non-trivially by multiple sources, including Bota Sot (https://www.botasot.info/mediale-vip-showbiz/1513686/florat-qerimi-talenti-i-repit-shqitaro-zviceran/, https://www.botasot.info/mediale-vip-showbiz/1495010/neser-me-28-janar-vjen-super-projekti-nga-labeli-mrm/), Epoka e Re (https://www.epokaere.com/florat-cerimi-vjen-me-tri-projekte-muzikore-unike/), Intervista (https://intervista.al/web/2021/01/djemte-e-mrm-orges-ft-florat-elbu-sjellin-sh-w-a/, https://intervista.al/web/2021/02/florat-qerimi-talenti-i-repit-shqiptaro-zvicerin/), and Gazeta Direkt (http://www.gazetadirekt.com/estrada/florat-qerimi-talenti-i-repit-shqiptaro-zviceran/) among others, meeting the first criterion of WP:MUSICBIO and general criteria in WP:GNG. I'm not sure how this constitutes "multiple issues" or "lack of references", as the deletion nominator put it. --Λeternus 12:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep - some of the sources above look a bit like the sort of tabloid junk you get in Daily Mail or similar. That being said, the coverage across various different national newspapers is just about enough to satisfy WP:GNG, imo Spiderone 23:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep as has enough reliable sources coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Go Phightins! 16:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Napasorn Weerayuttvilai

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

A non-notable blogger, can't see any other sources rather than youtube. Cuoxo (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment @Cuoxo: There is only one reference which is not YouTube. -Cupper52 16:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment She is an actress, not a blogger. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep She played main role in several Thai TV series, so definitely meets WP:NACTOR, as she "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Sources in Thai to verify her appearance and roles in such films and shows can be found. A Google News search for นภสร วีระยุทธวิไล shows plenty of coverage. VocalIndia (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per User:VocalIndia. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Clear Keep under NACTOR per VocalIndia. She had major/lead acting roles in several notable TV series. This isn't even borderline. MarginalCost (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 12:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Convergence Festival

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

As per several previous PRODs, there is no indication that the subject here meets WP:GNG, WP:NBUSINESS, WP:NEVENT or any other applicable notability criteria. The available references barely support the content, not to mind establish the notability of this event as anything other than a run-of-the-mill conference. In terms of GNG, for example, a search of the Irish Times (newspaper of record in Ireland) returns a few passing mentions. In "events on in Dublin this weekend" type articles. Seemingly nothing substantive where the subject is the primary topic. COI/PROMO/VER issues also a substantive concern. Guliolopez (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete I was only able to find one source that looked independent of the festival that had any shred of reliability. It's just a short interview. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete per my PROD rationale which was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Knowledge:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Knowledge:Notability (companies)/Knowledge:Notability (events) requirements. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep - With a few minutes searching I have added several reputable sources including the Irish Times. This appears to be a reputable, and, according to one source, the longest running, cultural festival in Ireland and also appears to be notable. A little more searching and little more assiduous application of WP:BEFORE might be called for. Velella 21:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Velella, Unfortunately, your best source (Irish Times) fails WP:SIGCOV. It's a WP:INTERVIEW with the organizer of an event 'Being Human' that takes place there, and the article focuses on that sub-event. The main festival is just mentioned in passing as the host of this subevent. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Velella. Normally I don't feel the need to respond to AfD contributions which just happen to deviate from my own. But, to confirm, WP:BEFORE was absolutely undertaken. As part of that exercise I found the various listings, promotional webpages and passing mentions that you refer to. They do not contribute to notability. If you feel that they do, then that is fine. But there can be no suggestion that WP:BEFORE was not undertaken. Separately you suggest that the subject is notable because it is "the longest running cultural festival in Ireland". No source makes any such claim. If they did, it would be transparently fallacious nonsense. Guliolopez (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment - you mean that this and this, just as a quick grab, are wrong, or false? You may also note that I made no assertion that BEFORE was not undertaken. What I said was " little more assiduous application of WP:BEFORE might be called for". This acknowledges past effort but suggests a little more might be of benefit . I remain of that view. I very rarely re-visit AfDs in which I have commented, but a direct ping suggested that a response was required. I have made my position amply clear. I don't expect to need to contribute further. Velella 17:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. Apologies if I misread your comment on WP:BEFORE. But "nom didn't undertake WP:BEFORE" and "nom didn't assiduously undertake WP:BEFORE" is somewhat of trifling distinction. In terms of the links you provide (incl the subject's own website), and while you perhaps mistyped your original comment, neither makes the claim you included in your !vote comment. About the subject being the "longest running, cultural festival in Ireland". Both speak to it perhaps being the "longest running sustainable living festival". Which, in addition to being a different proposition, is unqualified. Being the "first X" (and for all we know "only X") doesn't establish notability. Anyway, I've broken my own WP:BLUDGEON threshold here already, so will shut up now. Thanks for your contributions and time in this discussion. This is exactly why I opened the thread. To capture input and establish whether/where any consensus might lie. Much appreciated. Guliolopez (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

SoftSwiss

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE shows google hits in user generated sources, self published sources and other primary unreliable source. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Advertisement of a company. References that are provided do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep the article: Thank you all for expressing your opinions on the article that I have created. First, I wish to emphasize that I worked hard to write this article, while sticking to Knowledge's writing guidelines and avoiding promotional content and poor sources. I'm fully aware of the promotional editing issues in Knowledge, but this is definitely not the case in this article - I would invite you to read it again. As for the notability claim, please review the article again because I have added a few more reliable and independent sources, such as Bloomberg. In general, speaking as a "professional" gamer, SoftSwiss is a notable company, with huge revenue and a variety of popular products. I didn't note it in the article because then SoftSwiss' article on Knowledge would seem like it has been written by a marketing specialist, but of course this is not the case. Thanks for reading. --Bigball79 (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment — Your hard work as you say, is duly noted & appreciated but unfortunately the organization doesn’t meet WP:NCORP thus isn’t mainspace worthy at the moment. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep article sourcing is decent, and company is clearly prominent in gambling industry. At the very least, it meets WP:BASIC, though it could do a little better with WP:SIGCOV Redoryxx (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Google search of the company's name provides multiple results from diverse sources. As I see it, according to the notability guidelines, the company definitely deserves an article on Knowledge. However, additional citations from sources that aren't related to the gambling industry are needed for the article. I would suggest adding a {{refimprove}} tag for lack of verifiability. HappyHippo1990 (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I vote not to delete the article because it seems adequate for Knowledge's notability guidelines for companies. The content doesn't seem promotional and the company has extensive online presence. I Agree with HappyHippo1990 that a {{refimprove}} template should be added to the article. Novobat (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Neither BASIC nor SIGCOV are relevant guidelines for a company, the topic must pass NCORP. There's 34 references and none meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on company announcements, failing WP:ORGIND. Some are mentions in passing or have a brief company description which echos all the other descriptions used in other announcements and articles, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Its not about the volume (and 34 is unnecessary) of references but the quality of content within the references. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing 21:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have carefully read the above discussions and I believe that there is WP:INCONSISTENT in regard to this article. I have already voted, but I still wish to point out that there are plenty of articles on Knowledge about similar companies that either lack notability, poorly sourced or clearly advocating for these companies. I have plenty of examples: Microgaming, Realtime Gaming, Novomatic, Playtech, Endorphina, Ramco Systems, Rediff.com, Sasken Technologies and Onward Technologies - If the articles about these companies have been published and still exist on Knowledge, I believe that there could be place for my article as well. To sum up, I understand the arguments but I think they are enforced inconsistently; either delete them all or keep this one. Bigball79 (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it is inevitable this will happen when we have millions of articles. It's not a policy or guideline, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sums it up very well. I hope that's helpful. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per HighKing. SK2242 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Bigball79 and 78.26. First impression on Google Search does prove NCORP for the relevant industry. As for the claim of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I think that Bigball79 has a point: Multiple articles on similar companies do exist on Knowledge. Furthermore, after conducting WP:NCTest for Microgaming & Realtime Gaming, I can confirm that SoftSwiss is more notable (and better sourced). Although I understand why others voted in favor of deletion, I don't see a solid argument for it in this case, especially considering the fact that articles about similar companies are far more questionable in terms of COI. Abu Al Adab (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Abu Al Adab, I don't think you grasped what 78.26 was saying. He was rejecting the argument put forward by Bigball79 that this topic should exist because there are others on similar topics that exist. If you believe the topic company is notable, please post a link below to the best WP:THREE article that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 20:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Go Phightins! 21:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sharmila Oswal

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

A non notable enterpreneur and fails WP:GNG.Seems like written for promotional purpose.The creator of the article has been also blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Poppified 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Poppified 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Poppified 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Poppified 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Poppified 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete as per nom: I was already about to nominate this for AFD. Clearly fails WP:Basic. The user Speedy King has created some articles that is full of promotional contents. I am currently going through them all. Kichu🐘 14:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BASIC; I have revised the article and added sources - Oswal has WP:SUSTAINED news coverage as an expert and advocate in her role as the founder and President of the NGO Green Energy Foundation, and her work with the Jain International Trade Organisation. I have currently found news coverage spanning from 2009 through 2017, and it seems possible that additional sources WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep - on the basis of recent improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Times of India coverage is notable for that country and considered one of the major media, so it meets WP:GNG.Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep based on Beccaynr's recent improvements. ─ The Aafī 18:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. If, in the future, sources are found, can certainly re-create / happy to userfy if someone wants. Go Phightins! 16:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nabeeullah

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Had a significantly longer career than when I first wrote the article. I wonder if anything can be found about him since it was first written. Bobo . 20:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Well? Did we find anything?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - I likewise could find absolutely nothing showing this person is notable. There is very little out there at all beyond some very basic player profiles. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Has played 5 FC, 9 List-A and 3 T20 matches, easily passing him for WP:NCRIC. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. There appears to be a consensus that the subject clears the notability hurdle, though I note there is some disagreement about the extent to which the reliable sources cited clear the NCORP threshold. Admittedly, more nuanced policy-based arguments tend towards deletion, but I plainly do not see a consensus for deletion and, after two relists, this is a pretty clear keep/no consensus. Go Phightins! 16:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

South West Coaches

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

No evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (that are not local or of limited interest) - fails WP:NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep This is a useful article within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire and is supported by a well-populated category at Commons. I have added some more reliable sources, but they could still be better, I would suggest adding a {{refimprove}} header. Moonraker (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Moonraker: None of the sources added are both sigcov and satisfy WP:AUD, a component of NCORP. Being within the scope of a WikiProject and having related images on Commons do not address deficiencies in notability. SK2242 (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. SK2242, I agree with your last sentence, but this page has enough sources for WP:GNG, which isn’t about importance. Its main purpose is that the contents of an article can be verified from reliable sources, which this has. On WP:AUD, that says “at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary”, and there are several here of those kinds. If we were dealing with a print encyclopaedia, it would be useful to have people weeding out the articles with no national or international importance, but that isn’t the case. Moonraker (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Which of the SIGCOV sources is provincial/national? GNG is irrelevant in this case as the article is about a company, which means the standard is NCORP, a stricter version of GNG. SK2242 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at that, SK2242, and it seems to me that the Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria are simply the GNG, as interpreted there. To me, the sources comply with the GNG. If you say not, you may like to create a source assessment table (as mentioned on that page) and post it here. But there has to be a purposive approach to all policy, and I guess if a WP page is useful, as this one clearly is, that influences people in what they say (if anything) in an AfD like this. On that front, please see also the template copied below. Moonraker (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Moonraker, GNG does not have the extra criteria which is part of NCORP - such as AUD. SK2242 (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

SK2242, on AUD, please see above. Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Just my 2c, the table is useless. It doesn't for example have a part for "Independent Content" which is part of WP:ORGIND, an important section in NCORP. So the interpretation in the table of "independent" is wrong - it seems to only look at whether there are corporate links between the publisher and the organization and does not consider that the content must also be independent. We don't want "echo chamber" references based on information provided by company sources to be used to establish notability. Also, GNG is not the appropriate guideline. A references may pass GNG and fail NCORP - an article may pass GNG and fail NCORP requirements and be deleted. HighKing 22:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Who Owns Whom: United Kingdom & Ireland, Volume 2 (2009), p. 754		appears to be a listing in a book about hundreds if not thousands of companies	✘ No
http://www.countrybus.co.uk/safeway.htm	Enthusiast blog/site	mainly about Safeway	✘ No
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/4668135.End_of_the_Sureline_for_Portland/		Mainly about Sureline	✘ No
http://www.chardandilminsternews.co.uk/news/15627650.Four_letter_rant_from_managing_director_as_bus_company_stops_running/		Mainly about Nippybus	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-41801760		Same as above	✘ No
https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/15506294.first-wessex-announce-changes-to-their-services/		Mainly about First	✘ No
https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/15102789.thanks-to-south-west-coaches-and-cllr-kate-wheller-the-route-between-wyke-regis-and-weymouth-via-lanehouse-rocks-road-and-fiveways-will-run-again/			✔ Yes
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/what-know-nearly-one-month-829806.amp	~ Sister website of Daily Mirror; both owned by Reach plc - no consensus on reliability	Another Nippybus article	✘ No
http://www.countrybus.co.uk/sureline.htm		Mainly about Sureline	✘ No
https://www.chardandilminsternews.co.uk/news/16083658.chard-bus-window-smashed-disgusting-attack/		Similar AfDs have established that news articles about buses on fire or with windows smashed etc do not constitute significant coverage	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete First off, the table above is horrendous and unnecessary. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. For example, that rules out the Dorchester Echo announcement from the table above. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 22:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

v t e Bus operators in South West England
Bristol	First West of England Stagecoach West Transpora Group
Cornwall	Kernow Plymouth Citybus Stagecoach South West Truronian
Devon	Buses of Somerset Plymouth Citybus Stagecoach South West
Dorset	Buses of Somerset First Hampshire & Dorset Morebus South West Coaches Transpora Group
Gloucestershire	First West of England Stagecoach West Oxford Bus Company (via Pulham's Coaches)
Somerset	Bakers Dolphin Bath Bus Company Berrys Coaches Buses of Somerset Somerset Passenger Solutions Damory Coaches First Hampshire & Dorset First West of England Quantock Motor Services South West Coaches Stagecoach South West
Wiltshire	Connect2Wiltshire Faresaver First West of England Salisbury Reds South West Coaches Stagecoach West Swindon's Bus Company
National	Megabus National Express FlixBus

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 16:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The table above is explicitly recommended in WP:NCORP. Whether or not you personally find it horrendous, that is where it comes from. If you think it is inadequate, then take it up with WP:NCORP. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NCORP.Charles (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep. We need to be careful that we don't just delete every independent bus operator as that would leave Knowledge with a distorted coverage that suggests all UK buses are operated by the big groups. As the notability guidelines say, smaller organizations and their products can be notable.

An operator working in a rural area rather than a big city doesn't attract so much fan interest and hence fewer citations. If it is not part of a big group it doesn't attract a lot of press attention, hence fewer citations. South West Coaches has been operating longer and with a fleet and operating area similar to many big group brands which have their own articles.

I would suggest that a 'ref improve' may be more appropriate. There is clearly an imbalance in the article in as much as only one of the predecessor operators is mentioned in detail. I'm sure that Wakes Services, its direct predecessor, can offer some good quality, relevant sources. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep: This seems part of an attempt to destroy all independent bus operators leaving only the big 4/5, losing the history without engaging at WikiProject level, and that in the middle of a lockdown. This is a swamping attack which cannot be defended, and a lot of stuff has already gone.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Except I would have done a mass nom of every independent if they all weren’t notable. All I am doing is identifying articles that don’t meet the clearly established notability guidelines. It is not my fault if they don’t. SK2242 (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep Enough reliable sources here for WP:N, and also a useful article, part of a useful family. Moonraker (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Standard is NCORP, higher bar than N. SK2242 (talk) 06:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The sources also comply with that. Moonraker (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

No they don't? Every source failed the NCORP standards. See HighKing's comment. SK2242 (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not agree with HighKing’s comments. Local press articles written by local journalists clearly have independent content, as do some of the other sources. Not clear what more could be expected in a case like this. Academic articles? Doctoral theses? Moonraker (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:AUD. SK2242 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Leap of Faith (film). Spartaz 13:49, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Janus Cercone

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

Promotional article, written like an advertisement for the subject. No evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG, and no evidence of sufficient biographical reference material for a WP:BLP. The article was put up with approximately this content in 2016 by an SPA. Of the six references, two are dead and only two even mention the subject of the article. WP:BEFORE shows zero coverage of the subject's supposedly notable stage and film career, and a tiny amount of coverage of real estate properties she and her husband try to sell. For this BLP to remain, we need solid, in-depth sources that show clear notability, and sufficient biographical coverage to base an article on. PROD removed claming an "award", which turns out to have been a single nomination in 2012. David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Most of the sources in the article are pretty bad, with little more than passing mentions. At least one is dead. I did some looking online and didn't find any significant coverage in trade magazines or any news sites. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment I think her screenplays would make her notable, but this flowery language ("a true hyphenate?") has to be changed. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- You sure? I couldn't find any evidence they'd achieved note. An award nomination isn't nothing, but it's not a lot. What sort of criteria do we have for screenwriters? But really, the main problem is that I'm having trouble finding just WP:BASIC - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Her real-estate business seems to have attracted some attention in reliable sources, e.g. Variety and Forbes and there's some bio info in this piece in Broadway Buzz about the musical adaptation of her screenplay. pburka (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- The Forbes is a contributor blog, so not usable for notability. I'm not convinced the others swing WP:GNG and don't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE at all - David Gerard (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus unclear, especially with the two comments appearing to support retention
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 10:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep. The Leap of Faith screenplay and musical, combined with some reporting on her real-estate career, seem like just enough to scrape by. The article is highly promotional, and, if kept, I'll give it a trim and remove the puffery. pburka (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Leap of Faith (film). All sources that I found effectively mentioned her in passing, like "Janus Cercone of Leap of Faith fame". I don't think outright deletion would be correct, but redirecting with the possibility of reinstating it with better sources should they appear down the line seems like the most suitable outcome. Anarchyte (talk • work) 11:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Obviously this is not the most notable subject in the encyclopedia, but after much-extended time for discussion, consensus is that it falls just above the scraping-the-barrel line. BD2412 T 05:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Institute of Engineering and Technology, Ayodhya

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

Completely unsourced article that doesn't meet WP:ORG, WP:SCHOOL. Google search didn't return a single independent source. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete very little coverage can be found online. -Cupper52 09:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment - my understanding is that sources for degree-awarding colleges can usually be found. I'm not finding anything myself, but perhaps someone fluent in Hindu or Urdu would be able to find something. I'd frankly be quite surprised if there really was nothing online. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if there was nothing on line, but also note that sources do not need to be online, they just need to be reliable, secondary and independent. Having seen today multiple articles on vocational colleges in the US that lack any source beyond their own website, I am not as sure as I once was that sourcing on all tertiary institutions is easy to find. Although I did no searches just moved on after adding a founding date category to those pages, so for all I know it is really easy to find sources and the article creator was lazy. My current example of this is that Dallin H. Oaks lacks any sources on his bio for the first 2 years it existed, and it has never been hard to find sources on Oaks. I still think we need to use a broader array of sources on Oaks' time as BYU presdient, but it has always been possible to find sources on him. Well, at any time after 1970.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, as per-- User:Necrothesp There appears to be a disturbing trend that South Asian sites are nominated before any research has been done in Urdu, Tamil of Hindi, or in this case deletions are proposed quoting policys or essays that just don't apply. ClemRutter (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep Degree awarding institute in India acceptable. Niceguylucky (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment. Unfortunately the article creator has been in the habit of creating new articles, getting them past draft, then adding promotional content. I have just blocked him temporarily for spamming - he's had plenty of warnings. Maybe it would be a good idea to draftify. Deb (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep accredited school, although sources light, it meets guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" votes suggest sources do exist without clearly supporting that view. Relisting to determine if a clearer consensus and notability can be determined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 10:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep - it exists, but there's not much here. TimTempleton 19:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agdaban massacre

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted after an AfD dicussion back in 2012 and was speedily deleted in December of last year. Now it has been recreated for a third time, and yet it still has the same issues that caused it to be deleted first place: It is important to be aware that the quality of the sources is more important than how many of them there are, and those arguing to delete have made a compelling case that the sources used here are of a poor quality and/or not relevant to the subject anyway. This article is heavily padded with background and aftermath information for the war as a whole that has nothing to do with the article topic. There are only two sources claiming the massacre happened, and both are Azeri sources (BBC Azerbaijani Service is not a neutral source or even a reliable one). That means out of the 31 sources in this article, only 2 of them make any sort of reference to a Agdaban massacre at all. There are no reliable third party sources that give this subject due weight to have an article. Steverci (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. If you want to question if BBC is reliable or not, then this is not the correct place for it. It's a confirmed WP:RS if you like it or not. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose if you think that BBC is an unreliable source, then you should open a thread in the WP:RS/N. Though, there is a consensus on it being generally reliable. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 08:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Noting that a day after making the above comment, SolaVirum, the creator of the article, was topic banned from this topic area, following an AE report. See User talk:Solavirum/Archive 3#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction. Levivich /_hound 21:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete The original issue leading to the deletion has not yet been resolved. It was originally deleted because it relied only on Azerbaijani sources; This article still is being supported now by only two Azerbaijani sources. It should be deleted because the original issues have not been resolved. The Baku-based BBC Azerbaijani Service source still is an Azerbaijani source, so the original complaints for the prior deletion still stands. Even the BBC Azerbaijani Service source itself is largely based on and repeating the district Azerbaijani government website, by its own admission. Context matters, and BBC generally having a consensus of being generally reliable, doesn't mean it is reliable here or in every context; Critically there is no consensus on the BBC Azerbaijani Service being reliable, let alone being reliable on Armenian affairs. Nor is there any such consensus that Azerbaijani district government websites are reliable sources. With just these two Azerbaijani sources the article fails WP:UNDUE. The lack of third party foreign sources is telling. The BBC Azerbaijani Services only dedicates one sentence (or two if you pushed it) to the actual event; How are we creating such a large article from just one sentence of an Azerbaijani source. Maidyouneed (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I note Solavirum has been since topic-banned with regards to discussions relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan Maidyouneed (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - I've scoured the internet and gone through all the English-language mentions of Agdaban I could find. There are no reliable sources attesting to this massacre. Remarkably, the BBC Azerbaijani piece has the hallmarks of being falsified. It may even have some sort of dubious connection with an editor of the Azeri-language Knowledge. I'm shocked at how untrustworthy and heavily biased the article appears to be – I'd thought that foreign-language BBC World Service output would be held to a reasonable standard. In the interest of not swamping the rest of the discussion I'm going to collapse the wall of text that details my breakdown of the evidence.

Extended content
Just as with the previous article, the vast majority of cites here are supporting contextual information about the region or conflict. Setting aside Azerbaijani media and official statements, the only source of note (and one of only two cites in the paragraph actually describing the alleged massacre) is the BBC Azerbaijani Service article, which also provides the article's quoted number of deaths. It has no author byline, and, going off Google Translate, is a soft-news feature piece on the history of the region following the Azeri reconquest in the 2020 war, playing up its mineral reserves and downplaying its Armenian history with a nod to a revisionist theory ("the region is rich in gold and chrome deposits. Industrially important mercury reserves are located in Shorbulag and Agyatag" "There are many historical monuments of the Albanian period in Kalbajar. The most famous of these is the Khudavang temple complex..."). The account of the alleged massacre provides no evidence, experts or authority, claiming "more than 30 residents were killed, hundreds were tortured and taken prisoner." The image supposedly illustrating distraught villagers from Aghdaban is attributed to the local Azeri authority ("Kalbajar Executive Power" – did this organisation even exist while the region was occupied by Artsakh?) yet it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons two days before the article was published by a user named Habil Qudretli, who marked it as their own work. This user made a single edit to the English Knowledge in 2015, then reappeared last October (in the middle of the 2020 war) with a flurry of nationalistic, reverted edits. However, they've been mostly active on the Azeri Wiki, creating articles on Azerbaijani soldiers who died in the war, as well as directly editing the Azeri-language equivalent of this article. I had a thorough look for sources elsewhere. The only reasonably respectable source brought up at the previous AfD was a 1999 report published by Uppsala University and written by Svante Cornell. It's worth noting that according to our own article on Cornell, which cites a pair of European human rights/anti-lobbying NGOs, he leads an institute funded by a lobbyist organisation of the Azerbaijani regime. A reviewer of his work is also quoted as saying he's "generally pretty pro-Azerbaijan"; however, these criticisms may be more recent than the 1999 report. Agdaban is mentioned once in the 162 page document, on page 31: "From early February onwards, the Azeri villages of Malybeili, Karadagly, and Agdaban were conquered an their population evicted, leading to at least 99 civilian deaths and 140 wounded". For starters, this isn't significant coverage and there's no mention of 'hundreds' of civilians being taken captive and tortured. The statement is supported by the footnote Yunusov, Statistics of the Karabakh War, op. cit., p. 9., which is where the trail goes cold. Although Arif Yunusov (a well-respected human rights activist) is probably a trustworthy source, a book on conflict in the Caucasus published in 2000 by Routledge which cites the same paper (for completely unrelated statistics about territorial control) describes it as an "unpublished paper in the author's possession". It's nowhere on the internet and nowhere in print and I can't find any other mention of these numbers. The Azeri-language article has completely different figures: 67 killed, 779 civilians tortured (!), 17 burnt alive (!) and 2 missing. The only result I found on JSTOR for 'Agdaban' was a passing mention in a 2014 article on genocide in the Caucasus in The Sewanee Review (an American literary journal), which, while not an ideal source (it's not a specialist history journal), was the only academic summary of ethnic violence in the region which included a mention of Agdaban that I could find. It describes "tit-for-tat massacres that decimated populations on both sides: 130 Armenians were killed by Azeris in the Kirovabad pogrom in November 1988; the Garadaghly Massacre in February 1992 left as many as fifty Azeris dead, twelve of them children; more than forth Armenians were killed in the Maraga Massacre on April 10, 1992. ... All 130 houses in the village of Agdaban were burned and the Azeri residents driven out. There's no mention of killings, torture or captives at Agdaban. I suggest that the stub covering the village includes a sentence mentioning that in 1992 the entire village was burnt down by Armenians and the Azeri population was forced to flee, citing this source as the best that can be found. A search of my university library's catalogue yielded no results. Google scholar returns no results. JSTOR returned no other results.

Extended content

Just as with the previous article, the vast majority of cites here are supporting contextual information about the region or conflict. Setting aside Azerbaijani media and official statements, the only source of note (and one of only two cites in the paragraph actually describing the alleged massacre) is the BBC Azerbaijani Service article, which also provides the article's quoted number of deaths. It has no author byline, and, going off Google Translate, is a soft-news feature piece on the history of the region following the Azeri reconquest in the 2020 war, playing up its mineral reserves and downplaying its Armenian history with a nod to a revisionist theory ("the region is rich in gold and chrome deposits. Industrially important mercury reserves are located in Shorbulag and Agyatag" "There are many historical monuments of the Albanian period in Kalbajar. The most famous of these is the Khudavang temple complex..."). The account of the alleged massacre provides no evidence, experts or authority, claiming "more than 30 residents were killed, hundreds were tortured and taken prisoner." The image supposedly illustrating distraught villagers from Aghdaban is attributed to the local Azeri authority ("Kalbajar Executive Power" – did this organisation even exist while the region was occupied by Artsakh?) yet it was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons two days before the article was published by a user named Habil Qudretli, who marked it as their own work. This user made a single edit to the English Knowledge in 2015, then reappeared last October (in the middle of the 2020 war) with a flurry of nationalistic, reverted edits. However, they've been mostly active on the Azeri Wiki, creating articles on Azerbaijani soldiers who died in the war, as well as directly editing the Azeri-language equivalent of this article.

I had a thorough look for sources elsewhere. The only reasonably respectable source brought up at the previous AfD was a 1999 report published by Uppsala University and written by Svante Cornell. It's worth noting that according to our own article on Cornell, which cites a pair of European human rights/anti-lobbying NGOs, he leads an institute funded by a lobbyist organisation of the Azerbaijani regime. A reviewer of his work is also quoted as saying he's "generally pretty pro-Azerbaijan"; however, these criticisms may be more recent than the 1999 report. Agdaban is mentioned once in the 162 page document, on page 31: "From early February onwards, the Azeri villages of Malybeili, Karadagly, and Agdaban were conquered an their population evicted, leading to at least 99 civilian deaths and 140 wounded". For starters, this isn't significant coverage and there's no mention of 'hundreds' of civilians being taken captive and tortured. The statement is supported by the footnote Yunusov, Statistics of the Karabakh War, op. cit., p. 9., which is where the trail goes cold. Although Arif Yunusov (a well-respected human rights activist) is probably a trustworthy source, a book on conflict in the Caucasus published in 2000 by Routledge which cites the same paper (for completely unrelated statistics about territorial control) describes it as an "unpublished paper in the author's possession". It's nowhere on the internet and nowhere in print and I can't find any other mention of these numbers. The Azeri-language article has completely different figures: 67 killed, 779 civilians tortured (!), 17 burnt alive (!) and 2 missing.

The only result I found on JSTOR for 'Agdaban' was a passing mention in a 2014 article on genocide in the Caucasus in The Sewanee Review (an American literary journal), which, while not an ideal source (it's not a specialist history journal), was the only academic summary of ethnic violence in the region which included a mention of Agdaban that I could find. It describes "tit-for-tat massacres that decimated populations on both sides: 130 Armenians were killed by Azeris in the Kirovabad pogrom in November 1988; the Garadaghly Massacre in February 1992 left as many as fifty Azeris dead, twelve of them children; more than forth Armenians were killed in the Maraga Massacre on April 10, 1992. ... All 130 houses in the village of Agdaban were burned and the Azeri residents driven out. There's no mention of killings, torture or captives at Agdaban. I suggest that the stub covering the village includes a sentence mentioning that in 1992 the entire village was burnt down by Armenians and the Azeri population was forced to flee, citing this source as the best that can be found.

A search of my university library's catalogue yielded no results. Google scholar returns no results. JSTOR returned no other results.

TL;DR: I followed the trail in search of hard evidence to support the claim that a number of civilians were massacred at Agdaban in 1992; there's nothing at the end of it. There are no WP:RS, so WP:V or the establishment of WP:N aren't possible. There's also a significant risk that a horrific case of ethnic violence, unfortunately commonplace in the region at that time, has been purposefully blown up into a massacre for propaganda purposes, given the regurgitation of unsubstantiated claims in jingoistic, non-rigorous Azerbaijani-language media. Jr8825 • Talk 10:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep Easily. The BBC Azeri article is certainly a reliable source and so is Human Rights Watch. The contention that simply being in Azeri makes a BBC World Service outlet automatically unreliable, as the nominator states on the article talk page, is so ludicrous that I question whether the nominator should be bringing articles to AfD at all. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: I firmly disagree, a critical examination of the BBC Azeri article raises valid and serious questions about its trustworthiness. Did you take the time to read through my break down of the sources above? Your reaction (the BBC would never publish an article of clear nationalistic bias/inaccuracy, its journalistic standards would ensure that it validates the claims it publishes) was exactly the same as mine, until I looked closely at the article in question. I'm now of opinion that, shockingly, this is not the case for BBC Azeri – it seems to have escaped the rigorous oversight that I'd expect of the BBC (perhaps this is a broader problem with budget cuts at the BBC World Service, while writing a complaint to the BBC about this article, I noticed that the BBC recently published (11/02/2021) a correction apologising for using an offensive world for homosexuality in an article written by BBC Persian, that had remained online and unquestioned since 2018 – something unimaginable for English-language BBC output). I encourage you to look through my notes above, machine translate the article and read it yourself, and see if you can find any reliable sources backing up BBC Azeri's claims – what strikes me is that the BBC's extraordinary claims are not repeated anywhere else, other than obviously unreliable Azeri news sites – this is a historically recent massacre that is not mentioned in academic literature, while other massacres occurring in the same time period in Nagorno-Karabakh turn up plenty of literature. The article's photos appear to be inaccurately attributed, it includes anti-Armenian revisionist claims popular in Azerbaijan that have been debunked by historians (again, see my notes above for specifics) and the tone is tabloid and free of expert voices... as a Brit who firmly supports the BBC, I'm utterly dismayed to come to this conclusion, but it appears to be a blog-like nationalistic piece designed to celebrate Azerbaijan's conquest of the region and demonise/delegitimise Armenians in the region. Jr8825 • Talk 19:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: The article's picture is from 1993, per its summary on wikimedia. From other sources Agdaban was rather attacked/captured in March 1993, which aligns with the picture, rather than April 1992 (See the Melkonian or HRW sources which I have since removed as irrelevant to this event in April 1992). This makes the article even more confusing; The Armenians capturing the town in March 1993 is missing, and what would have happened between the first capture 1992 and the second capture 1993 is not exactly clear.Maidyouneed (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: The Human Rights Watch source does not refer to the event. Maidyouneed (talk) 01:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete and salt — it fails WP:V and seems like a hoax, IMO. Human Rights Watch does not make any mention of this "massacre", AFAICS. Neither does the BBC Azeri or any other BBC AFAICS. What BBC Azeri says is that it is the Aghdaban tragedy ("Ağdaban faciəsi", with "faciəsi" being translated in every dictionary I checked as "tragedy", not "massacre"). Further, that entire BBC Azeri article is relaying information from the website of the local government. "Kəlbəcər İcra Hakimiyyətinin saytında bildirilir" machine translates to "It is reported on the website of the Kalbajar Executive Power" or "the website of the Kalbajar Executive Power said". Similarly, "Rayonun icra hakimiyyətinin saytında qeyd edilir ki" machine-translates to "It is noted on the website of the district executive power" or "According to the website of the district executive power". Granted, I'm using machine-translation here and don't speak Azerbaijani, but the only place I can find that talks about this event is the one BBC Azeri reporting on the local government's website. YGTBFKM we're going to have an article about a "massacre" based on that source. See also Jr's thorough analysis above. Lack of any hits in GScholar or GBooks is a massive V failure for a 1992 event and I think a sign of hoaxing. This should be creation-protected due to the repeated re-creation; we need solid sourcing for an article about a massacre, war crime, etc. Levivich /_hound 21:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete and Salt per Jr8825 - this appears to be a nationalist hoax as presented. The BBC Azeri article doesn't claim it verified anything, it simply says that some website in Azerbaijan claimed a massacre happened. The official Azeri communication to the UN claims that a museum to Ashug Gurban was burnt, I believe this means az:Aşıq Qurban. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. After a pair of relists, I just really don't see a consensus here. Go Phightins! 20:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Capitalism: A Journal of History and Economics

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation way too soon." Article dePRODded (by creator of another journal article that I took to AfD) with reason "Announcement by IAS demonstrates notability". A brief press release is far from sufficient to meet GNG, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. This is a serious peer-reviewed academic journal published by a university press with an excellent editorial board. The reason that it is not indexed by resources like SCOPUS is that they never index journals in their first few years of operation. (I know this from my editorial experience with several journals.) A supermarket novel passes with two reviews in trade review rags but an academic journal has to jump through hoops? Zero 07:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not the strongest argument. Yes, it's irritating those supermarket novels. Compare it to an 18-year old athlete who's considered notable after even the most modest accomplishments whereas academics who spent their whole lives researching and publishing don't get any coverage and therefore don't meet our inclusion standards. But that's the way society is (that athlete will also likely earn multiple times the income of even a top-level academic). WP cannot do otherwise than reflect society. So if their are sources on a supermarket novel, it gets an article and a journal (for which we have an essay, NJournals, to make it easier to pass the bar then GNG) does not get an article. --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It should have an article because a peer-reviewed academic journal that has already published 21 papers is worthy of an article. If reflecting society was all that Knowledge was supposed to do, we should close up shop. Zero 11:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Never thought I'd see an admin argue that we should keep an article because it is "worthy"... Do you really think that instead of looking for independent reliable sources we should leave it to WP editors to decide what should get an article ("worthy") and what not ("unworthy")? --Randykitty (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep Agree with Zero,think this needs to be kept and re-addressed in a year or so time to see if it is being indexed. Articles are already being reference - https://academic.oup.com/journals/search-results?page=1&q=%22Capitalism%3A%20A%20Journal%20of%20History%20and%20Economics%22&fl_SiteID=5567&SearchSourceType=1&allJournals=1. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep: Agree with Zero and Davidstewartharvey. AnotherEditor144 09:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Note: blocked sock. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Nobody says that this is not a serious journal, but at this point we don't even know whether this is going to survive. And Scopus et al. only include a journal after it has shown too have some impact, their equivalent of our "notability". As this has only just started, there are no sources indicating any notability. This needs to be deleted and once (if ever) notability is clear it can be re-created, we don't do that the other way around. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete WP:TOOSOON, basically. Can be revisited once notability is actually established. The composition of the editorial board, or the notability of its published is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete All indications are that it's a legitimate enterprise, but without indexing in a selective database or in-depth coverage by secondary sources (say, if it had an innovative funding scheme or peer-review system that attracted attention), we don't have grounds for an article yet. 21 papers is actually a very small number of papers as far as academic publications go, and we'd need many more than the handful of existing citations to them to argue that the journal is influential. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. WP:TOOSOON for WP:NJOURNALS and no evidence of WP:GNG-level in-depth coverage in independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Zero. This journal is indeed notable and certainly worthy of an article. The sourcing demonstrates its notability and legitimacy. I don't think we should have to wait years until a new journal from an important academic press is indexed by SCOPUS and others. Thriley (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Question: Could you please tell us which 2 sources provide independent in-depth coverage as required by GNG? In the absence of those, how does your !vote differ from WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I'm amazed at how much support Zero0000's arguments are getting. Classic don't do this in AfD arguments. Suggest those who want to keep find more and better sources. Of the current sources:

1. ias.edu .. press release with a press contact (upper right side). Not independent in-depth coverage.

2. MUSE - database entry. Is every journal on MUSE notable?

3. Masthead - not indepedent coverage

Currently there are zero sources that show notability per WP:GNG. -- GreenC 22:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Scopus, the least selective of the "selective databases" mentioned in NJournals, currently lists over 41 THOUSAND journals. If it's not in Scopus, you can pretty safely assume that it is not notable yet, except for the extremely rare case that a journal meets GNG before it gets indexed. Project MUSE is not a database but an access platform ("aggregator") and as such not independent: it sells subscriptions. --Randykitty (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - per the above policy based !votes of RandyKitty, Xoreaster, and David Eppstein. Doesn't meet notability criteria currently. Just because it exists, does not make it notable. Onel5969 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had this pegged as a No Consensus close and it still might end up there, but there are some unresolved discussion points in the debate which may allow a consensus either way to form. Relisting a second time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - I've been watching this for a bit, and RandyKitty's most recent comment pushed me over the edge. If the journal is not indexed by even the most inclusive of sources, and cannot otherwise meet GNG (per GreenC's analysis), then it has not established notability yet. Perhaps one day, but it seems not yet. MarginalCost (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment In the section above, RandyKitty claims "If it's not in Scopus, you can pretty safely assume that it is not notable yet", and others have taken that comment seriously. However, Scopus does not operate that way. It isn't in Scopus because it is new, and it is very rare (or never) that a journal is listed in its first few years. One of the criteria for consideration is "a publication history of at least two years" and even then it has to be proposed for inclusion and considered by a committee that can take another year. So not being in Scopus is exactly what should be expected, and is not an indication of lack of notability. Zero 04:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

What you write about inclusion in Scopus is not wrong, but your conclusion is. Scopus has not (yet?) decided whether this will be included. Apart from having a well-functioning crystal ball (mine just broke), we cannot predict whether it will eventually be included. It is published by a respected, but small university press and even large, well-established publishers produce the occasional dud that folds after a few years, without leaving much trace. --Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it takes time for sources to properly assess a new publication. It is just the nature of the beast that we can't get ahead of our sources. As WP:N says Knowledge is a lagging indicator of notability. If that means that we don't immediately have an article on every journal that will end up one day demonstrating notability as soon as it starts, then that's just part of the process.

My question is what criteria you think it does satisfy from WP:NJOURNAL? I think that GreenC has shown pretty clearly that none of the current sources satisfy GNG, and the Penn Arts article added since then is just a statement from the editor and obviously not independent. MarginalCost (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep it's well-sourced and reputably produced. It passes WP:GNG.--User:Namiba 19:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Question: which two sources cover the journal in-depth so that GNG is met? WP:ITSNOTABLE is just so much hand waving. --Randykitty (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete lack of GNG or NJOURNALS pass. Can be recreated later if independent RS coverage is published in future. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Erik (talk | contrib) 14:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Miroir (film)

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY Singular source and I am unable to find any further significant information about this film.Theprussian (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - I wish to withdraw my nomination of this AFD, as the article has been improved and information has been added with I feel improves on a lot of the issues present in this article. This article is still below a good standard but it is in my view no longer appropriate to continue with a deletion discussion. Theprussian (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Repeating what I said on the talk page after removing the proposed-deletion template, "Google Books shows numerous results about the film. They may not necessarily be significant coverage, but I think for a 1947 French film that isn't a classic, we would need to refer to offline print sources to write about the topic." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 14:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not know French, so can anyone tell if this is a reliable source that writes about the film? Erik (talk | contrib) 14:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Karima Brown

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

This article is poorly written along with only TWO citations and references. I however I am free to change my opinion if it becomes a better article. SoyokoAnis - talk 14:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. SoyokoAnis - talk 14:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. SoyokoAnis - talk 14:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep This article was nominated for deletion only seven minutes after it was created, so of course it's not going to be in perfect shape. Deletion should be considered after conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE search and examining the entire extent of the subject's coverage in reliable sources, rather than just what's currently in the article. Regardless, this subject meets WP:GNG criteria, with significant coverage in the news, even prior to reports about her recent death. DanCherek (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment But if you're going through the New pages feed and find this article of course you're gonna mark it. SoyokoAnis - talk 14:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Deletion is based on notability, and article content does not determine notability. DanCherek (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Verifiability says that articles must have sourcing enough to verrify their claims and to demonstrate notability. If people do not want articles nominated for deletion when they create them, they should incubate them through to article for ceation process, which is really how we should make all new articles come to be. We have no tolerance for junk articles to improve, we delete them based on their current junk status. The toleration of the past gave us articles like Barahir sitting with 0 sources for 15 years. Down that way lies madness, it must be stopped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep I'm horrified at how quickly this article was nominated (while I am still expanding on it). Karima Brown is extremely well-known in South Africa - as a journalist, as someone who took Julius Malema to court and won, and as someone notable who died today from COVID-19! I was actually surprised she did not already have an article - there's a whole lot written about her in the EFF article. It has has already been peer-reviewed as a stub article. --Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep She was a well known South African journalist. Definitely notable and article on her was also created on the Afrikaans Knowledge.Sobaka (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Notable journalist and political commentator. I was busy translating the article from Afrikaans Knowledge before I realised that this existed. There would be no stubs if the nominating criteria were used for deletion. Let’s hope this nomination hasn’t had a chilling effect on potential editors. Park3r (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per Park3r and others. Lugnuts 20:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Go Phightins! 20:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Robert Lee Wolverton

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. The article was also clearly created by a relative. Lettler 17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler 17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler 17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler 17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak Delete This article was tagged as possibly not notable back in 2008. While Reagan's use of the prayer attributed to him might be considered notable (in terms of the prayer, not Wolverton himself), I don't see much else that is. Most of the sources aren't really what I'd call RS when it comes to Wolverton himself. Intothat darkness 17:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep WP:SOLDIER is an essay and so has no official standing. The story of the prayer appears in numerous books including Words of a Century – The Top 100 American Speeches and so passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. His relatives have been busy, e.g. "Lee Wolverton: Spirit of D-Day warriors needed now", but Knowledge is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Strong Keep Cited by the President Reagan at a D-Day celebration, and he now has his own monument there. Durindaljb (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearer consensus needed, especially as one delete was weak.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 18:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep The D-day Experience museum in Saint-Côme-du-Mont, France, also includes information about Robert Lee Wolverton and his famous prayer, see D-Day Experience — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipp Flach (talk • contribs) 18:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC) — Philipp Flach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Sources are of the self-published memorial variety or lack independence of the subject due to involvement of family members. Fails WP:GNG. We don't need an article on everyone's somewhat interesting grandfather. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Also note that the article seems to have been created in direct violation of COI guidelines by members of his family. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Something of a close call, but there seems to be a consensus that he doesn't meet GNG such that subordinate notability guidelines are less relevant. Go Phightins! 20:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Vishwas Patel

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

BLP of the chairman of a national body. The trouble is I’m not seeing any in depth coverage and I don’t think the awards are notable. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep Found other reliable independent resources about the subject when Googled. passes WP:RS. DoctorsHub (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment could you share the three best ones please? Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep Many references available when looked online http://paymentscouncil.in/Governance.aspx, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/banking/pci-appoints-new-chairman-vishwas-patel-co-chairman-loney-antony/articleshow/64846548.cms?from=mdr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennnyy88 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment thanks but I don’t think these help with notability. The fact that his name is on the website of the organisation he chairs is not a surprise, and a press release about his appointment naturally quotes him. But this isn’t in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Soft delete All I can find are PR blurbs on this guy. However, he might merit a future article. Rogermx (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 18:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

weak keep very poor references, doesn't meet wp:rs, he is founder of CC avenue, so might meet wp:nsoft, needs writing and sourcing. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sima Abd Rabo

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

Political advisor and activist who does not meet GNG. Eostrix ( _hoot🦉) 17:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Several sources are not written in English, can more detail be provided about how the sourcing doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
A simple search shows this activist does not meet GNG or BASIC, however in regards to sources in the article (number refer to current revision 1004677177):
1. Interview in local newspaper on The Da Vinci Code she translated, so primary in nature of little significance.
2. Book jacket of Arabic edition of Imperial Hubris, she translated. Possible to verify that she translated it, but of no significance as a source.
3. Zenith (magazine) from 2020, page (short page), with profile and interview. Probably the best source of the bunch, but it still an interview and specialist publication.
4. Youtube video with 392 views in which she speaks.
5. Partner page of "Network of Democrats in the Arab World" at iri.org, doesn't even name her.
6. Article at Qantara.de, which is about the Gulf Monarchies and doesn't even mention her.
7. Homepage of "THE BAGHDAD POLICY CLUB", has her picture, name, position, and country all of one line.
8. Single sentence quote in alarab.co.uk
9. Piece written by Abd Rabo herself and posted at souriyat.org
10. BBC, which would be great, however it does not even mention her. The BBC piece covers the Lars Klevberg incident, but has nothing on Abd Rabo.
11. Open letter, posted at https://www.bellingcat.com/, in which Abd Rabo is one of hundreds of signatories.
12. Short quote of Abd Rabo at welt.de, in a very large piece not about her (she was elected the three-person spokesman body of the council that the piece is covering).
13. This zdf.de covers an activity involving the council, but doesn't mention Abd Rabo at all.
14. Post at souria11.org covering the appointment of three new spokepersons. Abd Rabo (and Mr. Ibrahim Shaheen) are thanked for their term that ended.
15. This post at rabbiscer.org does not mention her at all AFAICT. She might be present in one of the photos, that unfortunately do not have captions, or in one of the videos.
In summary, there is one semi-decent (though short and an interview) in Zenith (magazine). Everything else here is a combination of unreliable/unremarkable sources and not mentioning her at all or mentioning her very briefly. She has filled very minor political positions, and does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL.--Eostrix ( _hoot🦉) 07:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per Eostrix. Many unreliable sources, and many sources mentioning subject in passing, which does not constitute 'significant coverage'. Very little in terms of sourcing that establishes notability per WP:GNG. Bigpencils (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment As the author of the article I disagree. Regarding the post at rabbiscer.org, the reference pertains to the declaration in general. Here is the link to the organisation's post where SAR is mentioned. Wasn't sure if referencing facebook is a good idea. However the substance seems relevant to me. https://es-la.facebook.com/JewishDiplomaticCorps/posts/weremember-the-holocaust-to-build-a-future-free-of-antisemitism-xenophobia-and-a/2668779769836892/ Emarat Al-Youm might be a newspaper of little international relevance but it remains a serious source. Zenith is a reputable German magazine on West Asia and North Africa. The profile on SAR is not an interview, btw, but uses quotes. The Link to the Network of Arab Democrats does not reference SAR but the organisation itself. It is listed as a partner of the IRI. I see some of the points of Esotrix. However I do not see that this justifies to delete the article. It covers the life and activities of what appears to be a relevant Syrian woman and women's rights activist. JamalFaris 16 February 2021

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep, including per WP:IAR and the points raised by JamalFaris; Abd Rabo is noted in the The Council of the Syrian Charter and Code of Conduct for Syrian Coexistence articles, so deletion of her article and the detailed background it provides seems to interfere with improving and maintaining Knowledge. Beccaynr (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldly relisting for a third time to try and reach an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Proponents of keeping this page did not provide any reliable sources to support the article's notability, meanwhile Esotrix provided a thorough review of the quality of present sources. Kamataran (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Prakash Singh Dadwal

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

A non notable politician who is the leader of political party who has never elected as an MLA or MP. Most of the sources given are about the acrivities done by his party National Students Union of India and not about this person. This article is also written with a promotional tone giving weightage to some non notable things like he was the states social media cordinatior. This person does not pass WP:GNG and do not merit to have an independent article. 37 sources have been given and I could not find anything that cover briefly about the subject. Everything is covering about something else.. Kichu🐘 13:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 13:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 13:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 13:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable political functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Alan George Sholto Douglas-Pennant

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

Son of a British Baron who did not succeed to the title. He served as a lieutenant in the British Army during WWI and was killed. A search reveals numerous passing mentions of his death (the most substantial of which appears to be a paragraph in The Welsh at War: From Mons to Loos & the Gallipoli Tragedy (2017)) but no significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep There is ample respectable coverage to verify the facts and so WP:GNG is passed. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, thanks for commenting. Could you provide some examples of the coverage? I could only find passing mentions in online sources - Dumelow (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The source that is linked in the nomination is adequate. That's not a passing mention but addresses the subject in substantive detail, verifying numerous biographical facts. It further highlights the fact that the subject was one of the first members of the Welsh aristocracy to fall during the war. When we see that the Imperial War Museum has a detailed and carefully curated entry for the subject too, it is apparent that WP:SIGCOV is passed and so therefore is the WP:GNG. I daresay I could find additional sources but they are not needed for this discussion. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we disagree on what counts as significant coverage (I feel the paragraph in The Welsh at War falls far short), but that's fine. Could I ask what coverage you found at the IWM? I could only find this page, which is a brief description of a photograph in their collection? Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

This issue of significant coverage vs passing mention explains much of the confusion about notability. To me, a passing mention is a tangential aside. But if the material is specifically about the subject and verifies facts then it objectively counts as WP:SIGCOV. Our guidelines do not specify a minimum word count and editors have consistently rejected the idea that they should or that the guidleines should be made into rigid policies.

My impression is that some editors expect a topic to be so detailed that it is capable of being made into an FA. But that is an unreasonable requirement because FAs contain far more material than readers usually want from a reference work. In my experience, many encyclopedias such as The London Encyclopaedia commonly have brief entries with just a few long, discursive feature articles. Readers of such works tend to want succinct entries which can be found easily and read quickly. Long, compendious articles are usually too long for a reference work and so are not what we should be aiming for. That's true for paper-based reference works and also for modern devices such as smart phones and smart speakers.

Anyway, the IWM entry to which I referred already appears in the article and so it seems telling that the nominator has not read this. Perhaps this short article is already too long. And note that the IWM entry has six different tabs so it's effectively six pages.

My !vote still stands.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll say no more because I don't want to give the impression that I am badgering you. I was looking for an "carefully curated" IWM page, Lives of the First World War is an excellent resource but it is partly automatically generated (eg from medal cards and the CWGC database) and partly user generated (eg from genealogical records); you can see who has added what in the "evidence" tab. LotFWW has 7.7 million+ entries, pretty much every identifiable British serviceman of the war. There's a great biography of Douglas-Pennant on there but "NEIL116261" cannot be considered a reliable source - Dumelow (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Dumelow is welcome to keep going. I much appreciate their DYK articles such as banging out or Hyde Park pet cemetery and so am interested in their contrary position here. And notice that while the content in question might be locked away from public gaze, this discussion will be kept online indefinitely and so our words will not be wasted. Note the futility of creating a page that does not add to the encyclopedia in order to remove a page that does.

As for reliability, it does not seem that the facts are in dispute here – there are no red flags and sources such as IWM seem backed up by numerous primary documents. The nomination seems to be purely a matter of status; that such a brief life history is not wanted. I'll happy grant that the article is not vital but, now that we have it, what is the benefit of making it inaccessible to readers? There are no BLP considerations or other pressing reasons to delete. No space will be saved by the supposed deletion as the page won't actually be removed; it would just be flagged as for-admin-eyes-only. Dumelow is an admin and so will still have access. Why do they wish to deny it to the rest of us?

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG, numerous passing mentions as a minor noble don't pass that threshold. Mztourist (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per Andrew. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Lacks any assertion of notability and significant coverage above routine, brief mentions. The IWM source mentioned above has "more than 7.7 million Life Stories" that are contributed as a sort of wiki and is decidedly not a reliable source or one which establishes notability, unless such genealogical resources are notability for millions of veterans. Reywas92 19:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Leaning for Delete I feel the paragraph in Welsh at War is possibly more than a passing mention but it is only one RS. The IWM content seems to be user generated or otherwise a collection of primary source information that could be found for most soldiers of the time. I'm not convinced it is a RS. Zawed (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Fails NBIO. Assertions of HEISNOTABLE are not backed by sources. The only claim for notability he has is being born into a noble family, that is not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Briefly merge to Baron Penrhyn. The life expectancy of a junior officer in WWI was about a fortnight. There were 1000s of officers casualties, and he is NN. The article on the title might mention that this man did not succeed because he was killed in WWI and he might be named (but indented) in the list of holders of the title, as a heir apparent who did not succeed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per Mztourist and Zawed. I'm concerned that an admin would see a paragraph in a book and a user-generated source as proof of notability. Lettler 21:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per above delete comments. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The sole Keep vote above does show SIGCOV and there is no real claim of notability that satisfies any guidelines. There are not enough mentions put together to meet BASIC and ANYBIO is not met either. Being noble does not make an individual notable, same for almost holding a title. // Timothy :: talk 09:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of Assam cricketers. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Naba Bhuyan

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep - WP:GNG is irrelevant here, as he passes WP:CRIN, which is the relevant notability guideline, by virtue of having played in a first class match. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Assam cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to List of Assam cricketers. No significant coverage so fails GNG, which trumps the trivial pass of NCRIC, which is by consensus a very weak SNG for cricketers such as this with very few recorded appearances and no consequential contributions. Redirection is an accepted ATD. _wjemather 17:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per parallel discussion, same arguments — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Stephanie Saliba

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stephanie Saliba

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

I saw Knowledge page of an Arab actress who was high level than this subject was nominated for deletion because of notability. Please check out to to understand does she meet the notability guidelines of WP:NACTOR or not.Fatzaof (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fatzaof, what exactly might be the reason that you are nominating an article for deletion which you created ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:12, 25 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 25. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep - while I don't read Arabic, there seems to be significant coverage here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Probably WP:TOOSOON. Insufficient sources to establish GNG. Lacks of reliable sources.Brayan ocaner (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete There's not enough independent references. Fails all three criteria of WP:NACTOR. Knowledge is not a website for introducing all of actresses. Alibilbao (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Clearly she isn't notable for English Knowledge. Only acting on several non-notable series. Kamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Mohammad Baluch

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep WP:GNG is of no relevance; he has played a first class match and therefore passes WP:CRIN. DevaCat1 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers or similar Has played 1 FC match, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has played 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete GNG is the general notability guidelines so it is always relevant and it is failed here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers. No significant coverage so fails GNG, which trumps the trivial pass of NCRIC, which is by consensus a very weak SNG for cricketers such as this with very few recorded appearances. Redirection is an accepted ATD. _wjemather 17:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete (or redirect) per nom and also Rugbyfan22's analogy with WP:FOOTY, which is valid. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

JMI Equity

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

I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. All I can find are references based entirely on company announcements or inclusion in lists with a bare description. HighKing 14:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Out of six references cited, three are their own website while reference #3 is a 404. Sourcing inadequate outside routine funding announcements which do not contribute to WP:NCORP. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep A Google news search turns up many, many articles about the company, the last being a Wall Street Journal article published in the last day. May need to be updated, but would seem to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oaktree b, Just a note that I added that WSJ source to the article. TJMSmith (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Response the quantity of references isn't a factor, but the quality. Please read our guidelines for corporations/organizations, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. For example, the WSJ reference relies on information provided by an affiliated "investment analyst", fails ORGIND. HighKing 12:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Routine coverage regrading funding, rest other sources are of their own site. Even on searching I can't find on internet.
Delete per WP:NCORP, particularly pointing at WP:ORGIND, in agreement with HighKing's assessment of the WSJ source. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was merge to Sound of Silver. Daniel (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A Bunch of Stuff

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

Information is already contained in the article "Someone Great (song)" and therefore aside from the Pitchfork review (which could also be merged to the aforementioned article) there's no requirement for an article with no information beyond a track listing. Not notable per WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge to Sound of Silver: Since it's an EP containing remixes of most of the songs from the said album, it's best to discuss it there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 07:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge per above. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Go Phightins! 20:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Matt Masters

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest potential notability claims here (songs being used in film or television soundtracks, touring) are either badly sourced or completely unsourced, while the more reliable sources are almost all coverage within his own hometown local media market in local-interest contexts (such as unsuccessfully running for political office, serving as the city's "busker liaison consultant", and winning a municipal arts award that doesn't satisfy NMUSIC #8) which aren't notability makers. And even the two extralocal Toronto Star hits consist of one glancing namecheck of his existence within an event calendar, and one article covering him solely in the context of having had a campaign video briefly go a bit viral on the internet -- which would just make him a WP:BLP1E at best, not a person who would pass the ten year test for enduring significance on that basis per se. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one hit of coverage beyond his hometown. Also likely conflict of interest, as the subject's real-life surname is Burgener and the article was created by an editor named "Burgtheburg". Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep: CBC is national, not local; other CBC coverage includes this (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/matt-masters-curbside-concerts-1.5546746) which is marginal and this interview (https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/927002179668) which is primary. Adds up to not a lot but not nothing. I did, however, also find this review (https://exclaim.ca/music/article/matt_masters-centennial_swell) in Exclaim!, another national Canadian music publication, and the most substantial of the lot in this feature (https://www.nodepression.com/matt-masters-his-new-album-and-the-spaghetti-western-festival/) in No Depression, a general (i.e. not Canadian only) and well-respected country music print publication. Was leaning weak keep until I found that. The election stuff is weird, not sure what to make of it, probably nothing. Adding these now. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the CBC is a national entity does not mean that every single thing it publishes is automatically "national" coverage — the CBC most certainly does have local news bureaux in the cities that publish local-interest content independently of the national news division. If you see the name of an individual Canadian city above the headline or in the URL, such as the "Calgary" that's present both in the URL of that CBC hit and in grey text just above its headline, then that means it's local interest coverage from the CBC's local bureau in Calgary and not notability-clinching national coverage. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hence my summation of that source as "marginal." I ended up not using it, but did find several other sources, which are now in the article. Now I would say it meets WP:MUSIC criteria 1 (multiple non-trivial published works independent of the musician; note there is no exception for regional coverage, although national coverage is now also in the article), arguably 7, 10 (it met 10 before), and 12 (one of the sources added was a national CBC segment). Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 07:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nominator's well reasoned argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom, and I looked at the discussed CBC sources, and they're of exceptional triviality — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Trell (application)

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

Appear to be a non-notable company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. I previously proposed this article for deletion but the pord tag was removed by anon so bringing it here. GSS  03:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS  03:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS  03:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete I see coverage from the Times of India and other sources, but it appears to be a one-off event about the wave of users that emerged after Indian authorities banned Tiktok. I can't find any other secondary coverage about the topic, at least on the anglophone and sinophone internet. Would propose that the article be deleted and redirected to the 2020 China–India skirmishes Indian response section. BrxBrx(talk) 03:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 06:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep Added 10-12 reliable sources which are covering other than TikTok ban coverage. This helps for secondary coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the high quality sources added by Sonofstar. Mottezen (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sandeep Singh Rissam

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

A non notable activist and politician. All the sources provided are covering about some other people, other events and organisations. As a politician he has been not elected as a member of parliament or member of any state assemblies. So much source is given here to make other users think that the subject has got enough coverage. But in reality, majority of sources are covering about something else. The subject clearly fails WP:GNG Poppified 12:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Poppified 12:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Poppified 12:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Poppified 12:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Poppified 12:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete A president of the Indian Youth Congress is notable. A local position holder is not. This article has been WP:REFBOMBed. Some of the citations () fail to mention Rissam at all. Quite a number of citations are dead links ( and others). Quite a few mention him only in passing ( and more). There is little in the way of coverage that is directly about this person. There's not enough to build on here to establish notability per WP:GNG. Ok, a prominent local figure. So is a mayor, but that doesn't make them notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete despite the reference overload nothing actually adds up to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Briony Scott

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

High school headmistress in Sydney. Author is Laurabscott (talk · contribs) (2008) who only has 3 edits and may be related to the subject. No distinctive pedagogical achievements disclosed Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable educator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - John Pack Lambert, do you even bother to check articles when you put your comments here? A 5 second Google search would have shown that is simply not true . You need to stop inserting these random and unhelpful contributions to AfDs and actually engage with the discussion properly. Deus et lex (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep - Scott is a well-known educator in Australia, she frequently is cited in media articles and the like relating to education and has frequently been cited or featured in external sources, for example, Daily Telegraph, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Sunday Extra), Sydney Morning Herald, Another Sydney Morning Herald, Guardian - those are just examples (this is not an exhaustive list). The article may have been created by a COI, but that was 14 years ago and it has been substantially worked on by other users since, so the COI argument carries little weight. Deus et lex (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I did do a google search of the subject and am aware that she pops up in the media, but most of these are because she is a guest pundit on education issues occasionally. However, they coverage was not actually about her activities as an educational administrator, ie policies, new educational techniques or specific improvements/achievements. Most of the in-depth stuff in those articles was that she became ill and the personal journey related to that Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said, Bumbubookworm, the articles I posted are not exhaustive, and not all of them are about her illness. There are a number of profiles about her, which constitute independent significant coverage and go towards meeting WP:BIO. Many educators are not notable for Knowledge but this is one that should be kept. Deus et lex (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

keep per Deus et lex, this seems to clear GNG; covered in multiple media, contributor to international outlets. --hroest 02:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. For school headmasters and education columnists, the correct notability standard is WP:GNG, not WP:PROF, and the sources listed by Deus et lex look good enough for a pass to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep - the article needs revision to incorporate additional sources, but WP:GNG appears to be met. All of these sources are about her activities and expertise as an education administrator: ABC News Australia, 4BC, SMH (opinion), Financial Review. Beccaynr (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. I have expanded the article and added multiple IRS citations. The subject, let alone the page, clearly satisfies GNG. Keeping this is a no-brainer. Cabrils (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep A strong page meeting WP:GNG significant coverage standards, and should therefore remain. LindaSaunders (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per Deus et lex. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Colchester and East Essex Football League

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

This league's premier division sits five levels below the notable level. This article in a local Colchester paper does have some coverage of the league but does concede that there is no info available about the league for at least 60 years out of its 100 year history. Searches of Brightlingsea Minor League, Brightlingsea and District Junior Football League, Colchester and East Essex League and Colchester and East Essex Football League are all not coming back with any significant results in newspaper archives. Also nothing of note in ProQuest, Google News, Google Books etc. Spiderone 12:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - per above. Not notable. Nigej (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. If anyone wants a copy of this to work towards any kind of merge, let me know. Go Phightins! 20:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Bernard Kilkeary

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

One of the survivors of the Birkenhead sinking, I am not convinced he passes WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions in a handful of books in addition to this 1902 work in which his career gets a couple of pages. Of the sources in the article one is not reliable and the other is the (blank) search page of a genealogy site. The article claims he held commissioned rank for two years but it was certainly not that of General which is stated in his infobox. There is no mention of a significant gallantry award. Dumelow (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak delete per nom. Cannot find evidence that the expectations of WP:NSOLDIER, WP:SIGCOV, WP:VICTIM are met. WP:BIO1E would seem to apply (in that the main/only material claim to notability is that the subject, together with 193 other people, survived the sinking of the Birkenhead). Any relevant detail, relating to the subject's role in that event, could likely be covered in the HMS Birkenhead (1845) article. If cited/needed. Otherwise, while the article itself doesn't state as much, the description of the subject/image used in the article seems to imply that the subject was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal. I am not an expert (on how "important" this medal might be or how we now apply the former notability standards in this area) but I'm not sure this contributes much to notability on its own. Absent other sources or evidences, mine is a "delete" recommendation... Guliolopez (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

As a note the MSM was awarded either for long service and good conduct (in which case it adds little to notability) or as a gallantry award. In this case the image description seems to suggest it was awarded in 1905 for gallantry. The history of British gallantry medals is a little complex (partly due to a distinction between medals awarded to officers and those to other ranks) at this time I believe it would have been the lowest-level gallantry award for other ranks, ranking below the Victoria Cross and Distinguished Conduct Medal - Dumelow (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Usually it would have been awarded for non-combat gallantry, with the VC and DCM reserved for gallantry in action. However, given he was 78 at the time of the award I suspect his MSM was for long and meritorious service, not for gallantry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete agree with others RE lack of SIGCOV. Zawed (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge a very brief summary to HMS Birkenhead (1845)#Legacy. I do not believe this old soldier was separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Guliolope; apart from the mere fact of surviving the sinking, content is mostly about a military career that doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Eson xorgol

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Knowledge:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Knowledge:Notability (companies)'s section for products requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I did find some mention in but snippet view prevents me from confirming it is significant and I am not seeing anything else. Please also note which could be an indication of either interesting trivia - or a partial racist hoax." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with copy-paste rationale. Let's discuss here, then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The nominator mentions Google Scholar, so I am rather surprised that it does not show him doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.10.026 and , which at least need refutation to not be regarded as reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Phil Bridger, There is not much refutation needed. I can't find any mention of the game in the linked pdf, and as for the academic article, the sole mentions a footnote for the sentence "The African game of Awari"... that states "There are numerous other names for the game, including adi, congkak, mokaotan, maggaleceng, aggalacang, nogarata, owari, mancala, awele, oware, bantumi, bao, gebeta, omweso, wari, congklak, warri, round-and-round, adji-boto, abapa, gabata, nam-nam, tampoduo, omweso, marabout, mandoli, ba-awa, uri, tampoudo, ayo, ayoayo, jerin-jerin, ayo-j’duo, eson-xorgol, toguz-xorgol, pallanguli, and sungka. In addition, there are variant rules." So this source suggests a potential redirect target (plus more to create, and a bunch of articles to review). I'll note here that the researcher includes Mancala as an alternate name, but we list Mancala as the main article for the family of games of which Awari is a variant. I haven't yet had time to think if more of those articles may need merging. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  - The pdf that I linked says that this is an alternative name for "Tchuka Ruma" on page 361, with a translation to "game of nine dung balls". It seems that this family of games needs to be covered in a more coordinated way than this plethora of different articles based on the accident of whether any particular variant has coverage in an English-language (or at least Roman-alphabet) source readily available online. I'm not volunteering to do the work involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Măeriște. No consensus to merge here but that can be explored by editors if so desired on the relevant destination talk page, and if so, the content can be rescued from behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Măeriște Church

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

No real indication of notability for this parish church. It’s not a historic monument, or architecturally significant, or really anything that stands out. Lacking sources that demonstrate notability (and no, “welcometoromania.ro” doesn’t count), we should delete. - Biruitorul 19:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - It doesn't have significant coverage as it doesn't have much notability, I've searched the Romanian counterparts and still nothing. And it is actually in an article already... Măeriște but in the gallery subhead... not information about it but that's still something. And the name is ambiguous because that town also has other churched like the reformed one and the name should be after its official name because that's the one is recognized after, and that is "Sfinții Arhangheli Mihail și Gavriil" but neither conditions are met. Editoneer (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge with Măeriște. The picture is already in the gallery. All that will be needed is to add that the church was built in 1898. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as above as it is valid content for the town article in my virw Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per advocates of delete. Nothing in this article should be merged. (the infobox? – no; the image? – already in the gallery ...) — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

St. Gallen MBA-HSG

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

81.221.151.183 (talk · contribs) proposed deletion with the following rationale: "I work for the MBA program at the University of St. Gallen and we would like to have it deleted as it adds no value to wikipedia and has not any additional information that isn't on the main page of the University of St. Gallen".

While that isn't exactly a reason for deletion, the following are: it's been tagged as an advertisement since 2013, and it's not obvious how this university degree is notable (WP:N) separately from the university that awards it. Either deletion or a redirect to University of St. Gallen would be appropriate. Sandstein 11:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 11:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 11:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 11:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Individual courses at colleges and universities are very rarely notable, and in this cases aren't even discussed in the University of St. Gallen article, so a merge would not be appropriate. A redirect from this title would also not be appropriate as the appending of "HSG" (a colloquial abbreviation that refers to the University of St. Gallen) to the course title appears idiosyncratic and isn't repeated by any sources so is an unlikely search term.----Pontificalibus 15:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per above detailed argument. It's strange to even see such an article, and conceive of articles for individual courses (are there any good examples?). — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 12:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

2009–10 Luton Town F.C. season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as the club as playing non-league football that season. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG just from the sources in the article. WP:NSEASONS has been used to justify deleting articles which pass WP:GNG in the past even though nothing about WP:NSEASONS is exclusionary. The policy needs a rethink. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Passes GNG—by a mile—with its 124 references to independent reliable sources. ——Serial 12:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per GNG. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 13:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - fails GNG as far as I can see. Lots of sources does not mean "significant coverage" - it all appears be ROUTINE/NOTNEWS. Giant Snowman 20:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

How is the coverage any different to 2008–09 Luton Town F.C. season (which would pass WP:NSEASONS)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs)

Keep per WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep - meets WP:GNG. There was plenty of coverage of this season: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. LTFC 95 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep - I'm convinced that the sources above add up to a GNG pass. The season did get attention in national papers, for example The Times as well. Spiderone 22:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 12:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

2010–11 Luton Town F.C. season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS. The previous discussion about 5 years ago was no consensus but I can't see any reason to keep this. The club finished 17th and didn't do anything worth mentioning. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep As with the other topics up for nomination, this clearly passes WP:GNG just from the sources in the article. WP:NSEASONS has been used to justify deleting articles which pass WP:GNG in the past even though nothing about WP:NSEASONS is exclusionary. Deleting this doesn't improve the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 12:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Passes GNG—by a mile—with its 127 references to independent reliable sources. ——Serial 12:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per GNG. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 13:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - fails GNG as far as I can see. Lots of sources does not mean "significant coverage" - it all appears be ROUTINE/NOTNEWS. Giant Snowman 20:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

How is the reporting any different to a team in League One? SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep - meets WP:GNG. After a quick search, I have found the following: 1, 2, 3, 4. I'm sure I could find more, but for the purposes of this discussion, this should be enough to demonstrate notability. LTFC 95 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep looks like a GNG pass to me. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep - considering sources provided by LTFC above, there is enough significant coverage of this season. Their run to the play-off final got plenty of coverage. Spiderone 22:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 12:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

2010–11 Cambridge United F.C. season

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep There's a very good reason to keep this: the article clearly passes WP:GNG. WP:NSEASONS isn't exclusionary, and certainly how a team finished has nothing to do with whether or not the season qualifies for an article - it's all about whether secondary sources substantively said sufficient stuff supporting a season article. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep under criterion # three (The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the page in question) as the nomination's claim that the club didn't do anything worth mentioning is roundly refuted by the number of reliable sources who found plenty worth mentioning. ——Serial 12:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't have nominated this if I thought there was anything notable taking place. Such as gaining promotion or making the finals of some competition. That is a perfectly good reason and why I have asked for others opinion by AFDing it instead of PRODing it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment - a large portion of the sources used are not even about this season. For example, this source shows significant coverage but it's from 2005... Spiderone 12:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per GNG. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 13:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
It's odd, I just looked and NSEASONS doesn't say you "can't" create season articles on non-league clubs. What bit of it are you saying this article contravenes? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Presumably N57 is basing his argument on the sentence "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues", although let's face it, that's staggeringly vague. What is a "top" professional league in England? Just the Premier League? That's the top league in the strictest sense of the word. If not, then at what point does a league stop being a "top" professional league......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Well that's why I asked the question really. I think "per NSEASONS" is an invalid response to this and an invalid reason to nominate for deletion because it clearly doesn't state that this kind of article should not exist. And I, for one, can tell you that having watched League One for two years now, it is most definitely NOT a "top" professional league. And ultimately the idea of deleting in this way is absurd, if a club spent a couple of seasons in non-League before coming back into a "top" professional league, should we have a gap in their history just to satisfy this curious interpretation of an abjectly badly worded guideline? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
This is why I say above that NSEASONS is not exclusionary. There's been consensus Conference/National League seasons don't "count" in the past (for the year Leyton Orient dropped down, I believe), even though they clearly receive consistent media coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 15:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - fails GNG as far as I can see. Lots of sources does not mean "significant coverage" - it all appears be ROUTINE/NOTNEWS. Giant Snowman 20:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

How is the coverage here any different from say 2014–15_Cambridge_United_F.C._season? SportingFlyer T·C 20:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Or pretty much every league season of every league team ever who didn't do particularly well in any trophy, get promoted or relegated? A good question indeed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Like 1958–59 Liverpool F.C. season for example. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep - I'm not really convinced by any of the sources in the article, many of which focus more on other seasons. I have found articles in The Telegraph and The Guardian which reference this season as a massive low point in Cambridge's history. This, along with only a couple of the sources in the article, gives me hope that more significant coverage can be found. Spiderone 22:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Jason Downs

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

Page fails to meet the general notability guidelines for biographies of living persons via reliable sources independent of the subject. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for either actors or singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep as he passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC with a chart hit on the UK national chart and also has significant coverage in reliable sources such as this AllMusic staff written bio so deletion is unnecessary in my view,Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep as cited in the article, he had a charting single and therefore unambiguously meets WP:NMUSIC JonnyDKeen (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution

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

De-prodded. All 12 sources appear to be primary sources. Many are database-like websites presenting school data. My WP:BEFORE searches did not turn up quality secondary source coverage such as newspaper articles or books. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment. A good redirect target may be Jaynagar Majilpur#Education. Also, looks like this article's author has created articles for six other high schools in this city: Jaynagar Institution, Jaynagar Institution for Girls, Jaynagar Chamatkarini Balika Vidyalaya, Majilpur J. M. Training School, Majilpur Shyamsundar Balika Vidyalaya, Majilpur Atul Krishna Vinodini Bhattacharya Vidyapith, which may also need attention. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment. This article is now 2 days old- we need to give it far longer to develop before we pass judgement, as we don't bite newcomers. So far the enthusiastic editor has mastered in-line referencing, mastered the infobox. Mastered how to structure an article into sections. That is in two days- in fact it as a pretty good stub. It needs to be improved, it is a real advantage that an editor is addressing 7 other articles in the locality. The best thing we can do here is to help him out and show him our expectations. ClemRutter (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Articles should meet inclusion criteria when they are created. We do not need to give them any time to develop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Disagree totally We are here to build an encyclopedia, and we all enter the process at different points on the timeline. Almost all editors get it wrong on starting. We personally are fifteen year ahead of editors starting today. They are seeing what we saw then- a tagline- saying anyone can edit Knowledge-

They are not entering the ring having absorbed fifteen years of policies, essays and unwritten but approved (by concensus) POVs. Now from the point of view, of KISS, and jargon free- what is this weeks way forward? Most editors start as content creators with an idea of a hole that needs to be filled- and all our welcoming material talks about creating a new article. We then get them hunting and referencing- the old in the tooth Google warriors just limit their reference sear to online sources. (we still have kids in London whose internet connection is so bad- that they take their laptop on a bus to use the free WIFI- in order to study under lockdown! )

So we now have an enthusiastic youngster writing a stub on schoo;l that we cannot prove isn't notable in reliable paper sources. As stubs go it is a good one and had give enough primary sources to show it exists. Quality wise it is good enough to join many other stubs. We are always in danger of judging things as if were a GA review. We do have flexibility in the semantics of 'should' and 'must'.

To build the encyclopedia, we take all these stubs, and give advice on the talk page, and demonstrate interesting improvements. We KISS and watch the article grow- and if after two or three weeks it hasn't become a start- we step in and use our advanced skills and consolidate the articles into one article (merge). ClemRutter (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Draftify Agree that articles should meet the inclusion/notability criteria on creation and that this one clearly doesn't meet either. That said, I see zero problem with giving the creator the benefit of the doubt that it is notable or will be notable by drafting it so they can work on it and hopefully get feedback on it eventually through an AfC. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT, BEFORE showed nothing, sources in article are not IS with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 14:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Source	Evaluation
"Fact and Figures". Wb.gov.in. Retriev…	404, government database site, not IS, from other entries on site, not SIGCOV, just a database report
"52nd REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR…	Government report Does not mention the school, fails SIGCOV, IS
"Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution". Co…	Government report Does not mention the school, fails SIGCOV, IS
"School Details Circle Wise". Departm…	Database listing in government database, no SIGCOV, not IS
"Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution". iC…	Database report, school listing site, no SIGCOV
"Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution". Sc…	Database report, school listing site, no SIGCOV
"Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution". Ed…	Database report, school listing site, no SIGCOV
"Jaynagar P. C. Paul Institution". Sc…	Database report, school listing site, no SIGCOV
Google maps…	Google maps, no SIGCOV
. Shiksha o Sahitya: Teachers' Journal…	School name is mentioned in a list, no SIGCOV
. "West Bengal Board of Secondary Educ…	Database listing in school district database, no SIGCOV, not IS
"West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Affiliated	Database listing in government database, no SIGCOV, not IS

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Nwankwo Nwankwo

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

G11 borderline eligible promotional piece on a non notable Nigerian businessman and king of a very small clan who doesn’t satisfy any notability criteria for inclusion, they do not satisfy WP:BASIC, WP:BIO, WP: GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The king is an author but doesn’t meet WP:NAUTHOR also. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The author might not be notable but the book is an important piece on the history and culture of the Ndoki ethnic group. This article is part of Nigeria Wikimedia user group effort to give Ethnic groups and Communities south eastern a presence in Knowledge. By bringing important knowledge and facts about them to this platform for posterity sake.(talk) 3:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment — @IchingaSamuel, I don’t understand, if you knew a person wasn’t notable why did you create an article on that person in the first place? Secondly, I don’t agree that the book is notable, it was launched barely eight days ago and hasn’t been reviewed critically but just appears on sites where to purchase it from. The closest thing to a review on the book was the one done by you, so I’m not sure you are seeing this from an objective stance at the moment. In summary, the king isn’t notable a before search doesn’t turn up anything concrete. Your intentions may be good but on this collaborative project, if someone's alleged notability cannot be verified by RS then it shouldn’t be on Knowledge. Per your comments above there are many other ways to bring awareness to this King & his clan but creating an article for the sake of its subject to have a Knowledge presence is what Knowledge is WP:NOT. Celestina007 (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment — @Celestina007When I say not notable I mean perhaps from your perspective. The author has served in the Executive council of the Government of Rivers State Nigeria. And the book was published since 2018. It was made available online as part of sensitization effort. It is available for free in free ebooks downloading sites this article was not for promotional reason.

I think I used the wrong language when I said online presence. The fact is many young people in developing countries like Nigeria trust wikipedia when it comes to fact and knowledge about people and places. The may not search vigorously beyond the first search results. Articles like this will make them get easy information and perhaps direct them to sources where they might get more. Ichinga Samuel (talk) 3:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete I don't see any reliable, independent, published sources being cited, let alone enough to demonstrate sigcov — the one from The Sun comes closest, but I don't know how RS it is. (And that's to say nothing of how the vast majority of the article is entirely unsupported, and in any case consists largely of promo fluff and peacockery.) The only way this could be kept is if the referencing is significantly improved, otherwise there doesn't seem much to debate. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Rough consensus is to delete: Two of the "keep" opinions are expressed as weak, and none point to any reliable sources covering this person in some detail, which is what we need for any article and certainly for a WP:BLP. Sandstein 08:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Geert Stuyver

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

This bishop of an extremely small sect doesn't have the necessary notability, as it lacks reliable independent sources (I guess the best, if not the only one, is this which mentions him briefly). Fram (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It has an article in Dutch and Italian. If they weren't deleted at all, this shouldn't be. It is not an extremely small sect. Though it is not big, the IMBC is definitely not a small sect. Also, if it is, why do Donald Sanborn and Daniel Dolan not have their articles deleted, if their number of chapels are fewer compared to all IMBC chapels? I have tried to add more sources, including the one you mentioned, hope it suffices. King Pius (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that is more of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. There are a whole number of Traditionalist and independent Catholic organizations, with many leaders saying that they are bishops. I think a stronger argument would be how much coverage Geert Stuyver has received. Donald Sanborn is not the leader of a particularly large congregation but he is well known in the Sedevacantist and traditional Catholic community. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Donald Sanborn is well known in the Sedevacantist and traditional Catholic community because of the fact that the traditional Catholic community in the United States is somewhat noisy. IMBC operates in Western Europe, Hungary, and Argentina. Also, it's not as if Bp. Stuyver is that unknown. A fair amount of Americans know him because of the 2018 consecration of Bp. Selway. You state "There are a whole number of Traditionalist and independent Catholic organizations, with many leaders saying that they are bishops." He's an acknowledged sede bishop in general. Not unlike many others. He's cooperated with Bp. Sanborn many times. I think this all stems from the fact that the IMBC really is just not that heard of in the US. Another important note: Mexican Martín Dávila Gandara's page is approved. He is obviously less known and has less chapels than Bp. Stuyver. So I guess the objection that he's not well known should be dropped because it doesn't apply. King Pius (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The claim that A fair amount of Americans know him because of the 2018 consecration of Bp. Selway is absurd, almost no Americans care about any consecrations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, must have made it more clear. I meant a fair amount of American sedevacantists/traditionalists. The accusation here is that he is just a shadow of the sedevacantist community(ies), which is false, because he isn't. King Pius (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak Keep this article could certainly be improved with more independent sources, but I do think that it does just pass WP:GNG. Most of the facts in the article are cited, so its mostly just an issue of finding more coverage for the subject. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment I am not sure if this article meets GNG, because I am not sure of the reliability of the sources. However the sourcing is 100 times better than what we have on the vast majority of articles on Catholic bishops, most of which are source to one blog.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: The issue here is that technically Stuyver is not a Roman Catholic bishop as commonly understood. Sedevacantists (to whom he belongs) are a minority within a larger minority of Catholic who reject Vatican II, who themselves are a subgroup of Traditionalist Catholicism who in turn form a subgroup of Catholicism! Stuyver and other Sedevacantist bishops lead denominations that are at most a few thousand. Perhaps an example that you might be familiar with is if that an article about a Mormon leader comes up on Knowledge, but not in the well known Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, but rather in the extreme splinter group Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. So the question of notability should be determined by the coverage Stuyver has received rather than him just being a bishop. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop with your pejorative refering to modern people with the name of an ancient prophet. I can not hear you through your use of the wrong terminology any more than an African-American could hear you through the use of the term Negro. That said, yet I know he is part of a splinter break away group, but that does not change the fact we rubber stamp keep articles with atrocious sourcing. We need to expand the BLP prod procedures to other types of articles, because right now people will double down on an article that has sat for 14 years with no sources at all and remove a prop from that article without adding any sources. Knowledge needs to solve the unsource problem now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please I didn't mean any harm, and there is nothing in the article that says it's a prejogative. My apology if the term caused you distress. Anyway I don't see what any of this has to do with the deletion discussion, so good day. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep -- Yes this is a splinter group. I have no idea how large, but suspect that it is small. I note that he celebrates in a chapel (not a church) and in three chapels elsewhere. I approach this on the basis that he is a leader of a small denomination. We have articles on the principle of sedevacantalism, but not on this as a Catholic denomination. It looks as if he has episcopal oversight of several congregations. If so, I think deletion inappropriate, but only by a narrow margin. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a link listing Mass centers of IMBC so you don't need to suspect. https://www.sodalitium.biz/sante-messe/ You said we don't have an article on "this Catholic denomination". I don't know what you mean by this. Are you referring to this article on Istituto Mater Boni Consilii? How does he look "as if he has episcopal oversight of several congregations"? Which congregations are you talking about? He heads the IMBC. Where did you get that he heads others? Can you clarify more? King Pius (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete as a member of an obscure sect, the presumption of notability for Roman Catholic bishops does not apply. Several of the sources are to the sect's website, and the "Centro Studi La Runa" reference only trivially mentions him. WP:GNG does not appear to be met. I suppose a redirect to Istituto Mater Boni Consilii is a possibility, but I don't see enough coverage to even justify that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The accusation that he lacks notability since he is a sedevacantist does not count, because bishops Donald Sanborn, Martín Dávila Gandara, and Clarence Kelly have their Knowledge pages alive with no issues. Bishops Daniel Dolan and Mark Pivarunas also have their Knowledge pages. About the sources, I think the problem has been fixed. I think it's sufficient, and if it's somewhat lacking, it can be supplied in the future, just like in a lot of articles. I'm fine with having a template attached, but it shouldn't be deleted because it will make Knowledge extremely ever inconsistent. King Pius (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was weak keep. Daniel (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Induna.com

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Timberlack (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep - A notable E-commerce / Online retailer of India, was launched long time back. Removed dead links and updated active links. Rajeshbieee (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 02:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep, the citations in the article demonstrate significant enough coverage from reliable sources for WP:NCORP. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

VR Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO - much of the coverage is WP:MILL, routine coverage related to companies: press releases etc, and does not take the subject pass WP:BASIC or the WP:GNG. It should be noted that this article was previously deleted via AfD in September 2020. The article was re-created by the original editor in February 2012 without addressing the issues that it was previously deleted for. Dan arndt (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the person is a well-known business personality & deserves to be on Knowledge as people keep searching for details about him over the internet.Rohitnwi (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete The consensus to delete in September 2020 was based on numerous !voters who failed to find significant coverage that would meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Barring a major notability-conferring event in the last six months (and none is indicated), it's likely that the subject continues to fail to meet those criteria. Per the nom and the arguments in the last AfD, his press coverage continues to be more of the same routine passing mentions. Notability on Knowledge is rooted in significant coverage by reliable, independent sources, not search frequency. DanCherek (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
delete per dan, and nomination. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Ivan Horsky

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

Not notable as a tennis player, does not meet WP:NTENNIS. Does not pass GNG. Eostrix ( _hoot🦉) 14:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eostrix ( _hoot🦉) 14:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eostrix ( _hoot🦉) 14:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Eostrix ( _hoot🦉) 14:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If it wasn't for the tennis academy, this would have been a prime A7 candidate. Iffy★Chat -- 10:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep Founder of IQ Tennis Academy, as well as ATP, WTA coach & for Davis cup player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:1F21:58D8:B841:663F:83A7:E246 (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 00:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Per nom and 1st above. SoyokoAnis - talk 14:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - my searches are not coming up with any sources addressing Horsky in depth to show a passing of WP:GNG. In addition, his tennis career was way short of meeting WP:NTENNIS. Spiderone 16:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Evelio Otero Jr.

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

Retired Colonel with no significant decorations, awards or honors. Failed political candidate. Lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The claim of notability that he "led the establishment of the first ever U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Qatar. He founded the Polish and Colombian Joint Special Operations Commands while he was assigned to United States Special Operations Command." is not supported Mztourist (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete does not meet the inclusion guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete does not meet GNG. No support for claims as mentioned by OP. "Instrumental in founding" is standard OPR-speak and LinkedIn isn't exactly RS. Intothat darkness 17:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep - He is notable! Tony the Marine (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete He just seems to have held various office jobs in the army, nothing special. Non-notable eitehr as a politiian. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete, promotional article about a soldier who doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER, a political candidate who doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and a person who doesn't meet WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete does not meet GNG or any other inclusion guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep seems notable enough to me when you consider everything -- especially for someone for Puerto Rican history as Puerto Rico is sometimes considered to be a separate country.
"led the establishment of the first ever U.S. Central Command Headquarters in Qatar."
"founded the Polish and Colombian Joint Special Operations Commands"
"the Electronic Security Command 6931 in the US Air Force Headquarters in Crete" -- important Cold War-era post
"congressional candidate"
son of the "first television anchorman in Puerto Rico" who has the same name
"colonel" high rank; lots of colonels in wikipedia. -- Durindaljb (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment I have yet to see any RS evidence that he founded the two special operations commands mentioned. All I found was a reference in LinkedIn that was pulled directly from an Air Force OPR and is meaningless. If you happened to be in the room when someone talked about it they list you as "instrumental in founding". And what RS says the Electronic Security Command mentioned was an important Cold War post...especially since we don't know exactly when he was there (although it would have been VERY late in the Cold War, since he was only active between 1988 and 1991)? Intothat darkness 23:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

To piggyback off Intothatdarkness, it looks like he was in grad school in Alabama until mid-1989 so he was likely only stationed in Crete for the last 18 months of the Cold War at best as a first lieutenant or captain, so he likely did not play a significant role. Additionally, per WP:POLOUTCOMES being a congressional candidate and the accompanying routine coverage doesn't establish notability in rare exceptions (ex: Christine O'Donnell) and what his father did is completely irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete pretty clear WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

José L. Santiago

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

Retired Sergeant Major with no significant decorations, awards or honors. Lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The claim to notability of being the First Hispanic Sergeant Major and first Sergeant Major of the 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines since its reactivation is too narrow to justify inclusion. Mztourist (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete not even remotely close to passing the notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep - Being the first Hispanic Sergeant Major and first Sergeant Major of the 2nd Battalion, 9th Marines is just as notable if he were of another race or nationality. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't have pages for the first Sergeant Major of other states/territories/ethnic groups/nationalities. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete The Marines currently have 31 active battalions in the infantry alone, being the "first" for a specific battalion is not particularly notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Naveen Maryada

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 07:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:ENT. None of the sources are reliable. --Gpkp 07:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Fails NACTOR. GNG is out of question. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - badly fails WP:NACTOR with one role in a non-notable production and nothing else. Fails WP:GNG as zero coverage in independent sources available. Borderline WP:A7 as there's no real assertion of notability. Spiderone 18:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Neera Shastri

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

Already, there are no sources present in the article to establish notability. So I did a WP:Before and could not find anything other than some blogs and unrelibale sources. The subject was never elected into any constituencies at national or state level. Clearly fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 07:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 07:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 07:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 07:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 07:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable party functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. TheWikiholic (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Aan Baan (1956 film)

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

I was unable to locate critical reviews or other significant coverage of this film - appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFILM criteria. DanCherek (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete or redirect Provisionally for now. It very well could be that this film is notable, but we can't tell based on easily accessible online English sources. Could be a lot of sources from academic books, or historical non-English sources. Or English Indian sources like The Bombay Chronicle. Redirect it to the director D.D. Kashyap for now and someone else could re-make it if they have sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete there are no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A. M. Saleem

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

A politician who is only a leader of some party. Has not elected as an MLA or MP. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 06:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 06:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 06:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 06:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete does not pass wp:politician Vikram Vincent 18:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Mystifly

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

Run of the mill startup company which fails to pass NCORP. Unable to find any independent coverage beyond fundraising and product launch reports. M4DU7 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep The article does have issues, but could quite easily be cleaned up. The sources are not particularly strong (as in, trade mags, rather than The Guardian or WaPo, probably reflecting the nature of the business), but they are there, and there's enough of them. And clearly this isn't a 'startup', as the nom suggests. So it's a 'keep & improve' from me. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is a weak argument. Please link independent, reliable and secondary sources which have covered this company in detail. The only sources I could find were routine funding news and product release announcements which are not sufficient to establish notability per CORPDEPTH. It is indeed a run-of-the-mill startup company. M4DU7 (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep Instantly perturbed by their website rocking the default WordPress favicon (seriously?), but the sources that can be found, while not exemplary and, as stated above, mostly trade mags, barely push it past the point of no return for me. AngryHarpy‍ 10:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Per DoubleGrazing. Article needs some clean-up. Other than that, the company, NOT a startup, has received some coverage and the sources in the article seem reliable. I also found a couple more reliable sources about the company: and . That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Swapan Banerjee

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

A politician who was never elected an as MP or MLA. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 06:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 06:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 06:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No where close to WP:POLITICIAN Vikram Vincent 09:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

George Paddison

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Mayor of Eau Gallie, Florida in the early 1900s (population <500 at the time). Most of his news coverage consists of passing mentions in stories about the local yacht club, and per NPOL, simply being an elected local official does not automatically confer notability. DanCherek (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 06:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Eau Gallie is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic inclusion freebie on all of its mayors just because they existed as mayors, and this features neither the sourcing nor the substance necessary to actually get a mayor over WP:NPOL #2. The notability test for mayors is the ability to write and source genuine substance about their political significance, not just the ability to locate the names of their parents and spouses and business partners. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete a mayor of a non-notable place. For what it is worth the place he was mayor of has since been merged into a neighboring city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Small town mayor with no significant or lasting independent media references. Not notable or newsworthy so deletion is appropriate in this case. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

John Martin Law Sr.

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Mayor of Eau Gallie, Florida in the early 1900s (population <500 at the time). Exceedingly little news coverage that I could find, outside of reports of his death in 1950. Per NPOL, simply being an elected local official does not automatically confer notability. DanCherek (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Eau Gallie is not a large or important enough city to confer an automatic inclusion freebie on all of its mayors just because they existed as mayors, and this features neither the sourcing nor the substance necessary to actually get a mayor over WP:NPOL #2. We are not allowed to source Knowledge content to genealogical data in FamilySearch, and once you discount that the only other reference left here is the city government's own internal archive in its own city clerk's office, which is not a notability-making source. The notability test for mayors is the ability to write and source genuine substance about their political significance, not just the ability to locate the names of their parents and spouses. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete the place he was mayor of is not large or significant enough to make mayors notable. The county had a population of less than 5,000 at the time he was mayor. It is hard to trace the population of Eua Gallie, since in 1969 it was merged into Melbourne.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete doesn't pass WP:NPOL. The population Eau Gallie didn't even reach 500 total residents until ten years after his term ended. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Treetown

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

Completely unsourced article about a television show. (There was a source here, which I had to strip because it was a travel memoir published about 150 years before the theoretical concept of television broadcasting even existed, and thus obviously didn't contain any content about this show.) As always, however, TV shows are not exempted from actually having to have any sources -- on a search for older sourcing that may not Google, I've been able to find a few stray namechecks of this show's existence in coverage of the channel that aired it, but nothing that's about the show for the purposes of getting it over WP:GNG, and the show has no notability claims (such as Gemini Awards) that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete fails notability. is Kathleen Le Roux's professional CV from 2017, she mentions being on "Treehouse TV" but not "Treetown". I can't find anything non-trivial about the show. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of television series canceled before airing an episode#M. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Murder Police

AfDs for this article:

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

Minimally sourced article about a dropped television pilot that never actually went to air. As always, this is not grounds for a Knowledge article in and of itself, as WP:TVSHOW only extends a presumption of notability to shows that have actually been broadcast by a network -- to be notable despite having never actually aired, a TV show would have to be able to claim something that would make it much, much more special than most of the dozens upon hundreds of failed pilots that get filmed every year. But with just two deadlinked footnotes here, offering technical verification that this was in development and then passed on, this isn't demonstrating that at all. Note that the first discussion is not definitive; our inclusion and sourcing rules were very different in 2013, and it still seemed possible at the time that it might just get picked up by a different broadcaster -- but that never happened, and 2013 is nearly a decade ago now but there's still no evidence that this would pass the ten year test. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to List of television series canceled before airing an episode#M I only asked for keep the last time under the assumption it would find another place to air since it was so early in the 2013–14 TV season when it got canned. It never did. Redirect is mainly to keep it in the categories it's currently in, and it has an entry on that list. Nate • (chatter) 23:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Aquaflight

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

Only scant references to the company, in my opinion failed WP:CORP and WP:GNG. The company did exist, but I don't think it pass the notability bar of inclusion in Knowledge. SunDawn (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Aidan Vass

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

An 18-year-old composer who has won some high school competitions for composing. Not yet notable by Knowledge standards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Most of what I found of him online is his own social media, his website, and a couple of pages related to competitions, none of which demonstrate notability (see WP:COMPOSER). ―NK1406 02:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete The five references fail the RS test. Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Appears to be a vanity page by SPA editor. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Sources fails in passing WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for UPE. MER-C 13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - The kid is talented and has potential, but he has only received brief notice for high school awards and various one-off collaborations with professionals. This article might be an attempted promotion, and otherwise he is only visible in his own social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Golden diamond

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

Original research / not a notable mathematical concept. The only reference that appears to mention this is the ArXiv paper, and I can't find coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. I agree that references are lacking. Indeed, given the content, I would be surprised if reputable sources were referencing this topic. It is just one of many possible iteratively constructed diagrams one can build, not notable. Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. It's a pretty-enough structure but that's not a notability criterion. All but the first of the ten references is background, and the one exception is an arXiv preprint, not reliable, so this appears to fail GNG. The article is written to appear as if the Northshield reference also describes this structure, but it doesn't: the geometric structure it describes is built of squares, not equilateral triangles. (One can't merely say that they're the same because if you throw away the geometry and turn them into graphs you get the same graph; the geometry is what makes it a fractal. And they're not even the same graph unless you add horizontal diagonals to Northshield's squares.) So we don't appear to have any of the multiple reliable independent in-depth sources required by WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The graph of the Northshield article is fundamentally the same as the one in the ArXiv paper; the "horizontal diagonals" are only a superficial difference. @David Eppstein: The main significance of the geometry derives from the underlying tree structure and its relation to the Fibonacci diatomic sequence, which is studied in both Northshield's JSTOR article and Tezlaf's ArXiv paper. From a careful read of both papers, it's clear that the authors do actually focus on the same properties of the fractal, but the current wiki article could address this more. This wiki article is being edited to include more content in this regard, emphasizing the overlap of these papers, in addition to outlining the more notable features of the fractal, which have not yet been included.
Significant additions to the article have been made with particular emphasis on the most notable features of the geometry, of which there are several: namely, the complete embedding of the Fibonacci diatomic sequence, the entire set of Fibonacci words, and the entire set of integers of the phinary (base-phi) positional number system. These features are unique and noteworthy, and I strongly disagree with the statement of @Ebony Jackson: that the geometry "is just one of many possible iteratively constructed diagrams one can build", as these properties are not at all trivial. As someone interested in this topic, I have made an effort in compiling this wiki article for others like me to understand the work of the authors cited here—as it is relevant. I do not agree it is justifiable for deletion and kindly ask for your reconsideration. —Giver grey568 16:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
An additional peer-reviewed journal source (Fibonacci Quarterly) was found and added to the article. The reference provides an additional description of the occurrence of the Fibonacci word pattern in the fractal, in addition to other "numerous interesting properties" of the geometry, which have been covered in the wiki article. —Giver grey568 18:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Starting with a non-notable structure and then bulking it up with mentions of similar structures, themselves rather marginal, seldom leads to a high-quality article. This appears to be no exception. Indeed, the article appears to be not just based on arXiv:1806.00331, but heavily copied from there, including figures uploaded to Commons and marked as "own work". This is either a copyright violation or self-promotion. XOR'easter (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. The arXiv preprint is not a reliable source. As for the papers by Northshield, they don't establish this diagram / figure / fractal / graph itself as an independently notable topic. (I could imagine A000119 might plausibly be a subject of a section of some article, and if so, it's possible that some combinatorial interpretations or visualizations a la Northshield might be noteworthy there. Similarly, if there was a main article for Stern's diatomic sequence, some content referencing some of what Northshield writes about may be worth a mention there. The point is, there are ways for Giver_grey568 or other editors to contribute on related subjects using some of the assembled references. But what the references don't do is show that "Golden diamond" itself is notable.) Adumbrativus (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
@XOR'easter: The figures were uploaded to Commons by myself but were originally created by S. V. Tezlaf, who gave permission for their use as I contacted him about writing the wiki article; however, I do not personally know the author and am not involved with the research. The marking of figures as "own work" appears to have been the incorrect procedure. If that can be altered, I would elect to do so to avoid copyright issues.
The heavier reliance on the arXiv article over Northshield's was based on the clarity and breadth of the work. Whether or not the arXiv preprint is considered a reliable source does not change the mathematical facts therein. A proof is a proof. The choice of using the name "golden diamond" as the article title was due to its appeal over Northshield's various and slightly more obscure names, S_{2,3} and Fibonacci Representation Graph; however, all names are now added to the introduction of the wiki text. What is important here is that both authors deem the geometry significant. Looking through Northshield's work, there appears to be even more significance then has yet been addressed: namely, that that the graph represents a quasicrystal. —Giver grey568 11:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Clarification of relevance, definition, and notability have been made to the introduction. Additional references have been added. —Giver grey568 12:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Never heard of this before but I agree with the author or authors (?) of the wiki article @Giver grey568: that the topic is significant and noteworthy. At least I know others in this field who would be interested in this, as well. The number of reliable sources does seem to run thin but I don't see any problems with the content, which easily checks out. Not sure what Adumbrativus is on about... the cited papers all remark on the notability of this tree / fractal. The Northshield author expresses several times that the graph has particularly interesting properties, which is corroborated, apparently independently, in the preprint, as well. Anyway, would be a pity to censor info like this. Don't see the point really... other than preventing others such as myself from learning and building upon what is known. Fractalphile1618 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC) — Fractalphile1618 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to the paucity of RS coverage. The only published academic literature that mentions this graph (under the name of "Fibonacci Representation Graph") appears to be Northshield, Sam (5 May 2015). "Three Analogues of Stern's Diatomic Sequence" (PDF). The Fibonacci Quarterly. 52, 5: 168–186. arXiv:1503.03433., an article which itself does not appear to have been cited nor significantly covered in other published literature. — MarkH₂₁ 16:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus leaning keep. There were strong arguments on each side, but no feasible reason to delete. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography of Greece

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

Indiscriminate list fails WP:LISTN. Knowledge is not just a list of unrelated books, ranging from ancient history, travel guides, and biographies, on a vast topic with no inclusion criteria. Unclear what makes this an encyclopedic compilation any more than typing "Greece" into your library's card catalogue, or what the title of a guide to visiting Greek islands being next to the title of a book on Alexander the Great's death is supposed to provide readers. Reywas92 01:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 01:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 01:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment. This seems to be a complaint about WP having any bibliography page, and not anything specific to this one that could not be addressed through page development. postdlf (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep We have bibliographies for many/most countries and Greece is especially notable on account of its classical importance. Here's an extensive bibliography on its climate alone and it's easy to find more sources demonstrating a pass of WP:LISTN. Andrew🐉(talk) 01:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- WP:OSE is not a valid argument. That book is a ANNOTATED selection of books on a SPECIFIC topic. How in the hell does that justify this as an encyclopedia article?? Like, in 1960 that was useful, but what purpose does this serve on Knowledge on the internet?? Reywas92 01:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  - Per OSE: "In Knowledge discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes...Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Knowledge:Five pillars." So if we have made a practice of maintaining bibliographies (and we have), then that's a valid observation to make to counter a nomination that is arguably arbitrary in targeting just one of them. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep As per above. SoyokoAnis 01:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Our bibliography articles are often the labor of love for one person or otherwise completely neglected. Still, they are considered a valid form of list (although there's a good question of whether they belong in projectspace or mainspace). There is a good point about scope here, though. What is the inclusion criteria? What sort of inclusion criteria would be reasonable? Is it even realistic? My initial reaction is that we should Keep and Split as/when needed. — Rhododendrites \\ 01:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- No, a valid list has useful inclusion criteria. This has no criteria besides "Book. Is about something that has something to do with Greece". There must be tens of thousands of these when spanning mythology to modern tourism, and I cannot imagine reasonable criteria here. We are not the library, and there are much better organized lists of books at places like Greek_mythology#Secondary_sources and Ancient_Greece#Bibliography that are not such a random jumble and are more relevant presentations for the reader. Reywas92 01:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep While we should be careful of NOTDIRECTORY, this list can be a lot more useful than that. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete I can't think of a solid, irrefutable argument one way or the other (WP:NOTDIR perhaps coming closest, although not quite on the mark). But policy considerations aside, I find this list fundamentally useless in conveying information, and therefore not fit for an encyclopaedia. If the list contained some metadata on each entry (say, year of publication and/or general topic area), and ideally were laid out as a sortable table, then it might have a purpose; alas, neither is the case (and I for one won't be 'improving' it to that effect, before someone suggests that). Random selection of books on a subject so broad as to be not really a subject, is all this boils down to. (PS: WP:OTHER should not be used as argument for keeping this; if anything, it's an argument for deleting the other stuff also.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep, so long as we maintain bibliographies, individual countries are certainly a valid topic for them. No criticisms of this one have been raised that are not addressable through discussion and development. postdlf (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Here's how I'd address this: Use WP:Further reading sections within specific articles like Ancient Greece, Greek mythology, Alexander the Great, and Tourism in Greece rather than lumping unrelated and indicriminately selected books together. Wide subjects like this are very poor topics for bibliographies, and much better ones are more particular like Bibliography of Mount Rainier National Park or Bibliography of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Reywas92 19:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see the use of this list. Yes, these books apparently all have something to do with Greece, but I don't know how that helps encyclopedia users. The only information provided about each book is its author and title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Rename Bibliography of Ancient Greece. Any entries that don't have an article for the writer or their works about Ancient Greece should be removed. This is a valid navigational link. Dream Focus 02:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Agree with postdlf that this is a valid article as long as we allow for bibliographies, which is currently apparently clearly allowed. If this is a problem, maybe somewhere like the Village Pump to get a better consensus. Improper content is not a deletion rationale here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Compiling bibliographies is a major activity of historians and scholars here on Knowledge. We do this so anyone can do research....best not muckabout with academic endeavors. Editors need to understand its not the text they write that is researchable but the sources and bibliographies we provided are. All tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Knowledge, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information.--Moxy- 02:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is a pretty crappy resource for historians and scholars. If they're looking for book sources about Ancient Greece, they should see what's linked at Ancient Greece. If they're looking for book sources about Greek Mythology, they should see what's linked at Greek mythology. If they're looking for book sources about tourism in Greece, they should see what's linked at Tourism in Greece, etc. etc. Every article can have further reading and reference sections for those doing deeper research to use, but lumping disparate topics in one place is not the way to do it. Anything in this jumble of a list should be moved there, but I laugh at the idea that this is where academics would go. Reywas92 03:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

OK completely misunderstood my point...... students doing research utilize our sources and bibliographies..... scholarly editors are the ones who compiled them Knowledge:List of bibliographies. We have guidelines for them and also make historiography articles to accompany many biographies...like Historiography of Canada for Bibliography of Canadian history. We link these from the main articles because they contain many sources already in main articles.... would be lots of regurgitation. We make these lists available to educational forums and to our student editors here on assignments. We are here to help facilitate knowledge.--Moxy-

04:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

But a scholarly editor didn't compile this? This was made by a user who bulk-created a bunch of these without evidence they'd read these books. Again, why would a student need books on the Peloponnesian war lumped together with "Alice: Princess Andrew of Greece" – Are these students too dumb to use Peloponnesian War#Further reading or Princess Alice of Battenberg#References if that's the respective topic of their assignment? This is a mish-mash of unrelated themes...without organization around a narrow topic this facilitates nothing, and respective reference and further reading sections give better context. If this were narrowed like Bibliography of Canadian history to Bibliography of Ancient Greece as suggested above, that'd be a bit more useful to a student than interspersing "The Lawrence Durrell travel reader"! Though it also duplicates Ancient Greece#Bibliography... Reywas92 07:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I don't understand why there have been so many "keep" recommendations. This article was created 10 years ago and appears to be predominantly the work of one editor with only minor contributions by others, and as far as I can tell has never been much better quality than it is now. The fact that the idea of a "Bibliography of Greece" could be something very scholarly and significant doesn't match the fact that this bibliography of Greece is not scholarly or significant, nor has it ever been in the 10 years since it was created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thankfully, Knowledge articles aren't static or owned by individuals, so anyone is free to add to it, organize, etc. — Rhododendrites \\ 17:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  - Yes, I know. I guess if we keep this low-quality list around for another decade or two, someone will finally get around to improving it. Or maybe they won't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep apart from a general dislike for bibliography articles (which isn't currently supported by policy or consensus) I don't see a reason to delete. The article would be improved if articles on Ancient Greece and Modern Greece were not intermingled, but that's not an issue for AFD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
keep: The article definitely needs to be improved and expanded, but it is a notable topic for a bibliography. // Timothy :: talk 20:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:IINFO: the scope of this list is so broad that it could include hundreds of thousands of entries. Any useful and maintainable bibliography would need to be much narrower in scope. Sandstein 07:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sandra Lindsay (nurse)

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

Besides being the first person to get the COVID-19 vaccine, there is nothing notable about this individual. She had practically no coverage and was basically a nobody beforehand. Classic case of WP:ONEEVENT. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:11, 4 March 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 March 4. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Agreed per nom, that this is the case for WP:1E and didn't pass WP:GNG. Every country will have their first vaccinated person and I don't think those people are notable. SunDawn (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Agreed for the reasons outlined above. She seems to be only notable for being the first person to get the vaccine in the US. Plus, looking at all the other COVID-19 vaccination country pages, no-other country has a page for the first person to be vaccinated in that country. Edl-irishboy (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - clearly a case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 14:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete She is the most extreme case of BLP1E I have ever seen. She is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO1E. Love of Corey (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Super Ψ Dro 09:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete WP:BLP1E applies in the same way it applied to the first person to get it in the UK, Margaret Keenan. Andysmith248 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Benjamin Stuart Thompson

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

Benjamin Stuart Thompson is the grandson of actress Gloria Stuart but from what I read here his own work fails WP:ANYBIO and all four criteria for WP:DIRECTOR. The page reads like a professional resume and was created in 2013 by an editor with no other contributions whatsoever. While the promotional tone could be re-written I see nothing where he himself has established nobability. The AVANTI Lab is a non-profit that helps groups use something called "parlay group-to-group" technology. It's been around since 1988 and from what I can tell it's not his invention. The professional achievements mention a show on Jewish Life TV(JLTV). While important to its target audience it's not a major broadcast network. The "large scale media events" mention a Santa Monica, California Public Library evening honoring the work of his grandmother. The other event was being a summer guest instructor. Per WP:NOTINHERIT a person is not normally notable solely because they are related to a notable person. Blue Riband► 00:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 00:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 00:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete not independently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of Justice League enemies. There's consensus to not have an article on this. There's no consensus between merge and delete, so I'm redirecting to allow editors to decide whether and what to merge. There's also no consensus as to the merge target, so I'm picking List of Justice League enemies for now because the topic is already mentioned there. The final redirect/merge target is up to editors. But I'm protecting the redirect because of the repeated recreation. Sandstein 07:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Injustice League

AfDs for this article:

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

Even though it was just deleted through AfD, an editor insists it go through again, removing the appropriate speedy G4 tag. Onel5969 00:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 00:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete The same issues that resulted in deletion a few months ago exist in this iteration of the article. There is no substantive change in sources, notability, verifiability, etc. Paisarepa 01:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. SoyokoAnis 01:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per my rationale in few months ago, nothing has changed. Then salt to prevent recreation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep - Let this page stay. There are some good sources on the page added by @JosephWC: unlike the previous version. I wasn't there for the previous AFD, so I am making my claims here. If the page is deleted, I suggest that it be merged with List of criminal organizations in DC Comics in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment The page was just deleted by an AfD. You can't really do that. SoyokoAnis 13:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A recent precedent suggested otherwise. Haleth (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - The article was already deleted by consensus in an AFD just five months ago, and nothing has changed since then. There is still no substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources that provides anything but plot summaries. Rorshacma (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Selective Merge to Justice League per WP:ATD and WP:Preserve as a compromise, oppose proposed salting of the topic. Since its concept is to serve as a direct and literal villainous mirror of the Justice League, and I note as well that issues featuring the Injustice League as protagonists is listed under the topic's publication history in its article, it makes sense for me to have a summary-style paragraph in Justice League explaining what the Injustice League is. Haleth (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to List of Justice League enemies. Daranios (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC) Or keep as a list. - See discussion below. Daranios (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC) I did not see enough enough coverage for a full article in a quick search. I am happy to change my opinion if appropriate sources can be shown. As Rorshacma found in the last discussion, there are many mentions and plot-summaries in secondary sources. The concept seems to have made an impact so that it's mentioned in very independent contexts like this secondary source. So it should be treated in some form in Knowledge rather than deleted and salted. As Haleth has said, there are secondary sources to WP:Preserve, which can improve that target. Daranios (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Knowledge is like DC's notorious reboots – continuity can change and so nothing is ever settled and nobody ever dies permanently. The previous discussion clearly got this wrong as it was poorly attended and poorly informed. The subject team appears in numerous reference books such as the DC Comics Encyclopedia; The American Villain: Encyclopedia of Bad Guys in Comics; The Supervillain Field Manual; &c. And there's plenty of coverage elsewhere such as The Injustice League: The Team's 5 Best & 5 Worst Line-Ups; The Top 10 Most Vile Members Of The Injustice League and Why An Injustice League Movie Would Be Good .... So, there's plenty of WP:SIGCOV, the WP:GNG is satisfied and the usual policies apply: WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, The listicles at CBR and fellow clickbait sites which might as well be written by a bot are quite far from what SIGCOV requires... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  - A big part of the topic is listing the particular supervillains in the various incarnations of the team and so listicles are perfect for this, demonstrating that the topic passes WP:LISTN. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    - A bot that evaluates the overall quality of comic characters across different media and decades? I think that's an over- (or under-?)statement. Academic aspirations aside, I am wondering if there's doubt as to the reliability of CBR ("the premiere comics-related site on the Web") and the others. I've seen lists of reliable and unreliable sources, but I can't remember where to find them. If they were not considered unreliable, I'd also say with these articles the topic fulfills WP:GNG. What I am not sure about one way or the other is if there is enough non-plot information there.

Here I find Andrew's reference to WP:LISTN interesting. Seeing that many of the characters featured in the Injustice League have articles or at least article sections, this seems to me to fulfill the criteria for a stand-alone list. And lists, to my knowledge, are not necessarily concerned with WP:ALLPLOT. Daranios (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

CBR was generally reliable until it was sold in 2016. Since then, it has seen a drastic drop in quality in favor of clickbait. There are still some decent reviewers and Brian Cronin's stuff is excellent, but most of the other content is thoughtless and not an indication of notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There is still no established, formal consensus which determines that CBR is no longer reliable. A recent RfC discussion for Screen Rant, which is under the same ownership and seems to be operating in a similar manner as CBR, does not result in any solid consensus about Screen Rant being unreliable, other then an observation that it is probably not advisable for BLP articles due to the same concerns of dip in quality and clickbaity presentation you have raised. I can't see CBR being judged differently if it is up for a RfC now. Haleth (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Was that discussion about ScreenRant being used as the primary evidence of notability for the subject, or for details about the subject? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe it was an attempt to ascertain whether there is broad consensus for its reliability as a source, which would also affect its suitability as evidence of notability for topics on Knowledge. The closer determined that it is marginally reliable, in other words a situational source, in that it is fine for entertainment or fictional topics but likely not appropriate for BLP articles, which is not applicable here since this topic isn't a BLP which would demand higher standards of sourcing quality. Haleth (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge to an appropriate target per ATD and PRESERVE. Etzedek24 22:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Recently axed article reinstated without discussion. Dark knight 2149 06:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was merge to Jasper, Indiana. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

List of mayors of Jasper, Indiana

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

List of not-notable local politicians. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Jasper, Indiana is not a large enough city to confer an automatic notability freebie on all of its mayors under WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist, with the result that exactly none of the names here are actually linked to Knowledge articles — and the entire list is referenced solely to a list on the self-published website of the city government as a footnote to its biographical sketch of the current incumbent, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about the mayors to suggest a basis for notability. As always, information like this has to clear a burden of significance, and there's no reason why a list of names of otherwise non-notable people would be critically important enough to waive the need to cite considerably more than just a single primary source for the information. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge into Jasper, Indiana Americanfreedom (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete not even close to being large enough of significant enough to justify having such a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete or Merge per nom and Bearcat. Clearly not a stand-alone article. I don't think it's necessary to have this list on Jasper, Indiana but there's at least an argument to do so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)