Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 5

< 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 04	March 06 >

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) 03:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Jordan Bolch (musician)

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

WP:BLP of a musician and television producer, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for musicians or television producers. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Knowledge articles just because they exist -- the notability test is the ability to verify that his work has been externally validated as significant (e.g. by winning awards for it), not just that it exists. But four of the eight footnotes here are primary sources (IMDb x2; Apple Music; a business directory) that are not support for notability at all, and the other four are glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that isn't about him, from a university student newspaper and specialist trade magazines of limited circulation. Which means that exactly zero of the footnotes here actually count a whit toward getting him over WP:GNG, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTRESUME, which is the pretty obvious intent of the article. Also WP:NOTINHERITED, as he does not gain notability by association with musicians with whom he played once or for being one of many people in a TV show's credits. The nominator has a convincing analysis of Bolch's other media mentions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete has not done anything notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 11 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. A technical nfooty pass with a single appearance in the final minutes of the final game of a season. Despite appeals that this article should be kept on the grounds that he apparently has an ongoing career, this request is not grounded in any guideline, nor has any evidence been presented that he has an ongoing career. Most importantly though, despite request, not a single source providing significant coverage has been presented, let alone sufficient sources to satisfy GNG. There is absolutely nothing I this discussion to indicate the player has received anywhere near the level of coverage to be considered a notable individual. Fenix down (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Wei Changsheng

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

Despite only just passing WP:NFOOTY, he fails WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

delete Current consensus in numerous other recent footballer AfDs is that BLP with 1 appearance fails WP:NFOOTY too. Search on Baidu shows limited notability of Wei, centering mostly on his sole appearance, with no further information beyond that, backing the assetion that this fails WP:GNG. I would say that this BLP, under different circumstances, may have flourished instead. 2020 was a dark year in China, especially with COVID affecting all aspects of society there. – robertsky (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment - this is a tricky one. He's only 22 so if he has an active career, I would say 'keep', however, if he's packed it all in already, then I would say 'delete' as 3 mins of football and no significant coverage would mean that a stand-alone article isn't needed. Spiderone 09:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep - young player with seeming ongoing career, who we traditionally allow more leeway to. This nomination is far too premature. GiantSnowman 10:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: I am unable to find any sources that his career is ongoing though. The club that he was last reported playing for, Hebei China Fortune, does not have him in the current team lineup. I am also unable to find any new clubs thereafter. – robertsky (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your ping didn't work for some reason. Do you have any sources saying he has left the club? Giant Snowman 14:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Nope. I was looking through their official website in Chinese (there are more details in there than their EN version, which makes senses since their audience is primarily China). There is no mention of him leaving in their news section. However, he is not listed in the main team, substitutes, or even as staff in the U-19 and below lists (). – robertsky (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - Passes the silly WP:FOOTBALL rule despite no evidence of any coverage remotely close to establishing WP:GNG. His age is irrelevant. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep passes GNG, and ongoing career. This can be reviewed down the line.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Have we got evidence that he passes GNG? None has been presented yet. Spiderone 11:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. I will not express a view about whether Wei Changsheng passes the notability guidelines. I will not express a view about whether Wei Changsheng should have a standalone article. I am only commenting to oppose deletion.
The article notes that Wei Changsheng is a midfielder for Hebei China Fortune who was promoted to the senior team in the 2019 league season and debuted in the last game of the season. His team's 2019 season has an article at 2019 Hebei China Fortune F.C. season. Per Knowledge:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, if Wei Changsheng is determined to be non-notable, I recommend a merge to 2019 Hebei China Fortune F.C. season. If and when Wei Changsheng plays more games and receives significant coverage in reliable sources, the redirect can be undone and a standalone article restored.
Cunard (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Wouldn't it be a redirect @Cunard: as a merge would merge all of this information into that seasonal article. HawkAussie (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  - I would support a redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect) to give editors the option to selectively merge some of the biographical material in Wei Changsheng to 2019 Hebei China Fortune F.C. season. The selective merge would need to comply with the due weight policy so any merge would focus on Wei Changsheng's contributions to the 2019 Hebei China Fortune F.C. season but could have a few sentences about him that's not related to the season.
    (To reiterate my comment so it's clear: "I will not express a view about whether Wei Changsheng passes the notability guidelines. I will not express a view about whether Wei Changsheng should have a standalone article. I am only commenting to oppose deletion.")
    Cunard (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep - A young player with an ongoing career. Unless evidence can be found that he has retired or moved to a much lower division with no hope of continuing a career at the top level, I see no reason for the page to be deleted yet. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY subject is 22 years with an ongoing career.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, but the idea that the player passes NFOOTY but no sources indicating GNG, is not particularly satisfactory. Difficult to ignore all the keep votes, but at the same time there is little weight behind them. Can any keep voter provide a single source providing significant coverage? That would be a sensible start to this discussion? The local consensus arguments being put forward are not aligned to any guidelines. Feels difficult to close this as anything other than delete if proper sources cannot be presented following a second week of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Wei Changsheng (simplified Chinese: 危常胜; traditional Chinese: 危常勝; pinyin: Wēi Chángshèng) is briefly mentioned in three Sina Sports articles about Hebei F.C.: (5 February 2021, 3 December 2019, and 2 March 2020). These are passing mentions so are not enough to meet pass Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline. But they are enough to meet Knowledge:Verifiability, so I reiterate my opposition to deletion and my support of a selective merge to 2019 Hebei China Fortune F.C. season if it is determined that the subject should not have a standalone article.
(To reiterate my comment so it's clear: "I will not express a view about whether Wei Changsheng passes the notability guidelines. I will not express a view about whether Wei Changsheng should have a standalone article. I am only commenting to oppose deletion.")
Cunard (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 14:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Johny Messo

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

WP:BEFORE found no significant coverage of this individual in independent sources. (t · c) buidhe 14:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 14:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 14:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 14:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. By my research passes the WP:GNG, if nothing else. gidonb (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Gidonb, What coverage of them is there in independent, reliable sources? Please be specific. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

See below. It's for a reason that folks do not support this. gidonb (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment I was able find some coverage in English, Turkish and Dutch sources: , , , , , , , . ~Styyx 08:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
- The first four are regurgitated press releases with no independent information. The fifth and sixth are interviews, which do not count as independent coverage. The last two maybe count but I don't think they are enough to meet GNG on their own, since they're largely made up of quotes from him. (t · c) buidhe 14:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete I agree with buidhe here having reviewed the available sources. Currently, all four sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY either to an organisation he's involved with or to his own personal website, so it currently fails WP:PROMO. The next question is can it be cleaned up to become notable, and I agree with the press conference/interviews as found above. That leaves us with the Dutch coverage, which translates to a five-part series on community members. That's probably WP:SIGCOV, but considering there's nothing else, on its own, I don't think it establishes notability (as it appears to be less about him being notable, and more about him being profiled as a member of a community.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I was asked to take another look at the article by Sorabino, who voted keep below, but I still don't see any significant coverage of him in any of the sources. Many are still primary or mere mentions, and the article seems to be written heavily about the organisation he's in charge of. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Since last additions, I notified you on improvements I made after your initial vote, and asked you to take another look at the current state of the article. Sorabino (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've taken another look at the article but am maintaining my vote. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment. In order to be kept, this article should be improved significantly. Regarding the delete proposal itself, it seems to me that recent activities of user buidhe are somehow focused on deleting contents specifically related to Arameans and Assyrians. The same user proposed deletion of the article World Council of Arameans (Syriacs), and also deleted the entire list of works from the article Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, not to mention previous undiscussed removal of the term "genocide" from the title of the article that is currently called Seyfo (the term genocide was in all previous versions of the title of that article from 2006 to 2020). Also, the same user is presenting itself as an "administrator" on their user′s page, but admits that they are not! Before deleting articles and contents, maybe one should bring its own user page in order? Sorabino (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. In order to be considered for keeping, this article had to be improved, so I added some referenced contents. I also saw that there are many news articles on political activities of this politician, particularly those on international stage, including articles on meetings with various ministers and ambassadors, but that is another story. Sorabino (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional remark: It should be noted that since 2009 (for twelve years now) this person is holding the office of the SUA/WCA president, a position that is regarded as representative within Aramean/Syriac community: "Among the Syrianska elite, especially those individuals who are personally active in the Syrianska secular organizations tend to perceive the president of SUA (Syriac Universal Alliance) as the person in charge of the 'amo Suryoyo." Quotation is taken from the work of Nuresh Atto, cited in the article on SUA/WCA. Term 'amo Suryoyo designates Syriac/Aramean nation, represented globally by the SUA/WCA, that is headed by Messo. As the long-term representative of his nation, and also as an author, this person is certainly above the threshold of notability, and therefore this article should be kept. Sorabino (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG. While the plight of the Arameans is significant, I don't see how this advocate is notable. Few if any of the sources are secondary. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I would not oppose a selective merge of this into the World Council of Arameans (Syriacs). As noted at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/World Council of Arameans (Syriacs), we could redirect or merge several articles into that target. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

In that case, a redirect would be left to that target? Still, it seems to me that the best solution would be to keep the article, since that author is also the head of an umbrella organization that represents an entire Aramean community worldwide. Since this deletion proposal was initiated, I took some interest in those articles and added referenced content, but much more could be added. When it comes to minority organizations and their representatives, deletion should be the last option, only in those cases where true relevance is lacking, but that is not the case here. Sorabino (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Hm, it seems that deletion proposals for articles on Johny Messo and the World Council of Arameans (Syriacs) coincided somehow with the process of leadership election in that organization (WCA Facebook page: Posts), that ended few days ago, with the re-election of Johny Messo. That is an interesting coincidence, that should be noted. Sorabino (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 14:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Noor TV Afghanistan

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

Does not make any claim to meet the WP:GNG. Hoping sources with better language familiarity can rescue this article, thus I am sending it to AfD and not PROD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete because there's basically zero information in the actual article. —ÐW 17:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Dan Wescher: "Article content does not determine notability". --Usernameunique (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Does not meet GNG, no sources showing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Does not meet WP:BROADCAST, no sources, no indication it produces original programming. // Timothy :: talk 09:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Denham Golf Club

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep Notable golf course. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak delete; I am not finding enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG (only local golf reports/adverts, fairly trivial mentions, and directory listings), so I'm struggling to see how this is anything more than a WP:MILL facility with the curiosity of having a train station named after it. _wjemather 15:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Run of the mill. Harry Colt designed and a railway station. Plenty of other stations were built to service golf courses. Overall, not enough surely. Nigej (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per Nigej. I might be convinced if its age alone made it notable, or if there were periodic charity events there, or famous members. Right now, it seems run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT. Nothing with SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article are a link to the subject's website, a mention in a promo style list article, and a mention in a brief article about the railway station associated with the course. The keep vote above gives no help just stating "notable golf course", no sources, no guidelines, just a vote and this should be discarded by closer as a baseless opinion vote. The delete !votes did the work. // Timothy :: talk 09:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Tarpey Village, California. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Tarpey, California

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

Topos show a facility which is no longer there. Searching was made rather difficult by one M. F. Tarpey who spent a lot of time either in court or testifying to congress. But eventually I found this labor newsletter which identifies the facility as the Italian Swiss Colony Winery. And that is all there was to this railside location. The CDP-designated subdivision of Tarpey Village lies just north of here, and presumably got its name through this proximity, but I see no sign that Tarpey itself was ever a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge Knowledge has a different article about Tarpey Village, California, also in Fresno County. Maybe we could incorporate Tarpey, California into Tarpey Village, California. PrinceTortoise (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)PrinceTortoise
Redirect to Tarpey Village, California: Nothing here that meets GNG or GEOLAND, I don't see any material here that is properly sourced that would improve the target article, so I don't believe a merge is appropriate. // Timothy :: talk 10:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Miriam Abadi

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

Clearly fails WP:NMODEL and the GNG. PK650 (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Not enough news so he doesn't meet general notability guidelines.Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete She isn't notable enough to have a Knowledge page. Kamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 21:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Does not pass NMODEL or GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Reggie Jackson#Early years. Spartaz 14:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Martinez Jackson

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

Fails WP:NBASE. There is no record of him playing in any Negro league games on Seamheads or Baseball-Reference. According to a Washington Examiner article, he drove the bus for the Newark Eagles. Despite being Reggie Jackson's father, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Penale52 (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. He does pass NBASE if he played for the Newark Eagles. Contemporary newspaper articles say that he did, and as I have experienced in looking for minor league stats from that general time period, B-Ref does not have 100% complete stats, so he may well have even though he doesn't have a B-Ref page. There are some sources on Martinez Jackson, not sure if they're enough for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Found this mention of Martinez playing for the Newark Eagles: "When Martinez played for the Newark Eagles in the Negro National League he was paid $7 a game. He shakes his head at Reggie's $600,000 per year salary." Narsk (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep - I am finding a number of reliable sources stating that he played in the Negro Leagues in the 1930s, e.g., , , , , and there are other stories about him such as this which add to his GNG case, even if he didn't play in the Negro Leagues. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I just think it's odd that all the sources are from the 1980s-onward. This source from 1981 says “He joined the Newark Eagles, a highly respected Negro league baseball team in 1933. The quick, lithe, tough second baseman plated professional baseball for five years.” Well Newark, technically the Newark Dodgers at this point, was an independent team in 1933, which would explain why there are not stats available for him, if he played for them at all, since they didn't play top-level that year.

I emailed Gary Ashwill of Seamheads, and received this reply:

"No, I have never found him playing in a game for the Newark Eagles, though it's always possible he appeared in a game without a box score or a game against white semipro opponents."

So, should newspaper's decades after the fact be the sole supporter of his Negro league status, if no contemporary sources are located? I'm honestly curious. What if Jackson himself just told people he played, and everyone ran with it. Would that be enough to pass WP:NBASE, or does the mere mention of his story so many times over the years give him the WP:GNG pass, regardless of any contemporary proof of playing? Or what if sources are found of him playing, but it was against a semi-pro team? Again, I'm generally curious as to how this should be handled. Penale52 (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

1. These are all reliable sources so even if there is some disagreement that should have some weight. 2. Some articles (plus the substantial obituaries) are specifically or substantially (one barely even mentions Reggie) about Martinez Jackson so he passes GNG even if he did not play in the Negro Leagues. Rlendog (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁ 22:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Reggie Jackson#Early_years. If we can't prove that he passes WP:NBASE, then it likely is a WP:NOTINHERITED case. If we find proof that he played in the Negro Leagues we can always undo the redirect and reestablish a standalone article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

List of school education areas in New South Wales

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

This list is very outdated, and also basically non-notable. Nobody in Australia cares much about regional subdivisions of the state education department, they have little importance. I get the feeling part of the motivation for this article is "America has school districts, other countries must have them too, let's find out what they are called in other countries and make a list of them". But other countries don't necessarily have "school districts" in the American sense. In many parts of the US, "school districts" are a special-purpose form of local government with elections and taxing powers, which makes them notable. In Australia, public schools are run by the state government and supported by state and federal taxes, and the ever-changing internal administrative structures of the state government's education department are non-notable bureaucratic trivia. That's all this article is, non-notable and outdated bureaucratic trivia, and that's why I think it should be deleted. Mr248 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - does not appear to comply with WP:LISTN. Any useful information that could be found (of which there is nothing currently in the article) can easily go in Department of Education (New South Wales). I note we already have List of government schools in New South Wales which is a much better way of sorting government schools in New South Wales (and is more compliant with WP:LISTN). Deus et lex (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete I'm not an expert on education areas in New South Wales, but going by the points made here, the article, the guidelines, and my own research this article seems to go against WP:LISTN. Plus, I could be wrong but I think some of the schools could be better covered or are already better covered in the various lists included in Lists of schools in New South Wales anyway. The only difference is that the list items in this one say have "education area" in them. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't meet LISTN or CLN. // Timothy :: talk 14:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ysangkok (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hashgraph

AfDs for this article:

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

notability not established, no in-depth coverage by reputable media exists. See also arguments on previous AfD (result: delete), which are still valid. Ysangkok (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep, although poorly written, there appear to be several new WP:RS that have appeared since the last deletion, and that establish notability, i.e. 1, 2, & 3. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep It's always difficult to subtract the promo features and "we love all things CC" gush articles from these topics, but overall I think this is sufficient sourcing. (Most of the current refs are 2018+ and didn't play a role in the previous AfD) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Reputable media?

Here is Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffkauflin/2018/03/13/hedera-hashgraph-thinks-it-can-one-up-bitcoin-and-ethereum-with-faster-transactions/

Here is Forbes again https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffersonnunn/2018/11/26/hedera-hashgraph-enterprise-grade-distributed-ledger-technology/

Here is Forbes yet again https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesdigitalassets/2019/09/26/hedera-hashgraph-explored/

Here is VentureBeat https://venturebeat.com/2018/08/01/hedera-hashgraph-raises-100-million-for-fast-and-secure-blockchain-alternative/

Here is VentureBeat again https://venturebeat.com/2018/08/04/how-hedera-hashgraph-is-building-a-fast-and-secure-blockchain-alternative/

Here is CoinDesk https://www.coindesk.com/university-college-london-joins-hedera-hashgraph-as-council-member-research-partner

~ Random internet user on 6 Mar 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8A00:D70:20C3:612:AD35:1B82 (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Forbes and CoinDesk are both bad sources, see Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. I don't really know VentureBeat but it looks like a blog to me. It focuses on "transformative" tech so it possibly not very critical at all. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Forbes is hit and miss (depends on the contributor - they do a lot of paid promo features), and CoinDesk we have down as "generally unreliable". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep: The sources in the article (except for Forbes and CoinDesk) are reliable, including the ones indicated by SailingInABathTub. 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 speedy delete. Deleted under G11 by Iridescent on 5 March 2021. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Sage (Expert Marketplace)

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

non notable start up by-passing AFC Theroadislong (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 06:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Doxy (vibrator)

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

Low notability, reads almost purely as an advertisement. AtomCrusher (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge to Wand vibrator as written, but I would note that Hitachi Magic Wand, though much lengthier, is not particularly less promotional. BD2412 T 22:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Speedy keep As even a quick web search will show, this clearly meets the WP:GNG criteria, plenty of mainstream coverage of both the product and the company that makes it: see , , , . . -- The Anome (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep, per the sources provided by The Anome, but is it the brand or the company that is notable? Is a rename to CMG Leisure in order? SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd say the two were synonymous, as the company's only products are the Doxy brand sex toys, of which the big wand vibrators are the flagship product. -- The Anome (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per prior. As for content issues, I'm not sure 'promotional' is the issue so much as 'stub'. "Described as X", with attribution, usually isn't promotionalism alone; it's just that the article is 64 words long, so 13 of them is quite a bit. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Muhammad Athar Qureshi

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep: This is an WP:NPOL pass. Pakistan is a federal republic and Sindh is one of the regional administrative units that NPOL refers to when it grants notability to "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels". Sources establishing that Muhammad Athar Qureshi was a member of the Sindh legislative assembly are easy to find. And articles, including in-depth ones, about his assassination are easy enough to find that there should be no verifiability concerns. - Astrophobe (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Per Astrophobe, he has presumed notability under WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep elected representative of a legislative body, passes NPOL. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Elected member of a provincial assembly - Sindh Assembly (1985 - 1988). Easily passes WP:NPOL after Goldsztajn added new references and cleaned up the article.Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 06:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Roaring Guns

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

No source cited. Fails WP:NFILMS Jenyire2 20:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy keep as meets film notability. Source I added has 3 reviews excerpted. BEFORE was incomplete --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep as notable per multiple mentions in Google Books search results here. Erik (talk | contrib) 00:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Per Erik and DiamondRemley39 Donaldd23 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep as has significant reliable sources book coverage which has been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - sources added to the article are mere listings, not in-depth coverage. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 03:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Not super happy with the relatively sparse coverage, but what I'd expect for a minor yet notable film of its era; considering Google Books' recency bias, there's likely quite a bit more, perhaps even room for some real expansion. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. — The Earwig (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Robert Brian

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

I cannot see significant coverage of this active session musician. The two existing references are deadlinks. I have found and added two interviews but have not been able to find other coverage. The article has been tagged for notability since 2018. There appears to have been a CoI issue in 2009 - editor saying that they are the subject's PA. That person wrote 23.8% of the text in the current version, according to Who Wrote That. Of course CoI is not a reason for deletion but lack of good coverage is. Tacyarg (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Article lacks sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLP articles need to strictly follow sourcing and guidelines. Most of this article is OR which is unacceptable in BLPs and unfair to the subject. // Timothy :: talk 15:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete found no indication of notability on a search. If sourcing I missed is found, please ping. Eddie891 _Work 18:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 14:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Levis, California

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

Searching is hopeless (denim pants, anyone?) but since nearly every topo labels this as an oil pumping station, I think it is safe to say that it isn't a settlement, nor a notable anything else. Mangoe (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note Searching for hard-to-search places by including nearby settlements often helps. A search for Levis Mendota reveals it's the name assigned to a quadrangle (typically named after the most notable named place in the designated area) and a USGS survey of 1916-1918 notes here that the place was not then occupied. The soil there does seem to be of some interest. Whether the name comes from a previous settlement I'm not sure, but both Mahlon Levis and his son John Levis were well-renowned ranchers of Fresno county in the 19th century.----Pontificalibus 20:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: per nom. they do an excellent job researching these geo articles, I see no reason to doubt them regarding a lack of sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 14:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Northwest Post-Grunge

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

Contested PROD. This compilation album fails WP:NMUSIC. It cites one source, which is only a passing mention (two sentences) in a book. I can not find any significant coverage or other evidence of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - ~~Calling something "post-grunge" as early as 1994 was pretty audacious,~~ but the album received no notice and only appears as a listing in various retail and directory sites. This article serves the exact same function, but WP is an encyclopedia and not a directory. Also note the preponderance of non-notable bands on the compilation, and the notable bands don't seem to have discussed their inclusion on it too much. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC) (First half-sentence stricken due to its offensiveness for the overly sensitive.)

Your "delete" description is pretty much a giant red herring. We're not here to comment on whether we like the name or not of the album and it's not relevant to the discussion. Furthermore, the article has a mention in an actual book referenced on the article which goes above and beyond it being a mere directory, but you seem to neglect that fact. The bands being discussed on the compilation is also irrelevant. Yeah the article is skimpy, but your reasoning is flawed. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"Audacious" is a compliment, kind sir. According to dictionary.com: 1) bold, daring, fearless; 2) original, highly inventive. Consider using that site to look up "red herring", "rubbish", and "inquisition" as well, all of which you used incorrectly when stating your disagreement with my vote. The cited book (Street Style in America) is clearly visible in Google Books, and all it does is mention the album's existence in a single sentence. That does not qualify for "significant coverage" at the general notability guideline, and there is no evidence that the album passes any of the seven requirements at the album notability guidelines just because it exists. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I typically look up words all the time at m-w, just to be sure. When I used these words, it was no exception, and I did not use them in error. I took your use of the word audacious as the reckless or rash version, because you also made what I feel is a derogatory statement about the artists included on the compilation. Together, it would seem you aren't praising the work. My main point is that half of the substance of your comment is a non-sequitur, or red herring. It can lead to conversations like these which are neither here nor there. If you had simply commented about NALBUM or GNG, that would have sufficed, but to me, it appeared as if you went out of your way to disparage the work in a comment period about the merit (or lack thereof) of the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Yawn. All of this because of one half of a sentence in which I added some colorful language on the album's title. Ignore that "non-sequitur" of "disparagement" if it hurts your feelings, and then find that it is audaciously unworthy of your apoplexy, because 95% of everything I have said is about the album's lack of notability per WP policies already described multiple times. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

And so it continues. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep - This comp. album is cited by an actual book, which is more than many full-fledged albums by popular groups can make claim to. I think that given some interest Five Fingers of Funk could have a Knowledge article in the future and may be able to reference this article. I linked Nero's Rome to the Dandy Warhols, their followup act. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Are you saying that the article passes WP:GNG based on this short book mention alone? That would require a very different understanding of "significant coverage" than what the guideline says it is. Also, those full-fledged albums by popular groups you speak of, while irrelevant to this discussion, should obviously be deleted too, so I'm not sure how that's an argument for keeping. Lennart97 (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm mostly saying the vote by Doomsdayer520 is faulty by way of an initial rubbish inquisition and a later one too. The premise that is laid out by them is a red herring and of no use. I'm fully aware my statement looks like "whataboutism" and I'm not trying to argue along those lines. No doubt many of those albums have other good articles to keep them afloat. For what it's worth I added another reference. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Leitmotiv, I noticed your PAs on another editor above. I would strongly suggest you strike these comments; I'm certain this was just an unfortunate choice of words on your part. // Timothy :: talk 15:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Done, only because they have acknowledged their comment was meant as a compliment. Still not on topic though. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright. Would you mind quoting the relevant passage from that second reference, as it's offline? Also, I'll just ping Doomsdayer520 in case they're not watching this page, as they may want to reply to the above. Lennart97 (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
What I edited into the article is about the extent of it. It discusses Elemental Records (the publisher of the album) along with 4 other indie labels operating on shoestring budgets. For Elemental they talk with the owner and briefly discuss Northwest Ungrunge as being their first offering and how most of those bands quickly dissolved. The first page shows the owner holding two albums in his hands (one of Floater's Sink, the other of Northwest Post-Grunge). The second page has a listing of all 5 indie label offerings, including Post-Grunge. The Register-Guard is available on Google's newspaper archive. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NALBUM. Sources in the article do not meet SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 15:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Seyed Morteza Sajjadi

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

I have done a WP:BEFORE search and can't find any significant coverage and there is none in the article, so WP:GNG is likely failed. Youth appearances don't constitute a passing of WP:NFOOTBALL either. Spiderone 19:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - fails clearly GNG. Nothing about him on club's website.Diderotd (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ádám Hamar

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

Technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL with only 17 mins of football 7 years ago. A Hungarian search brings us a third tier football match report in a local paper, another brief match report and a transfer report. There is strong consensus that players that only pass NFOOTBALL by a few minutes need to meet WP:GNG. He has been playing in the lower tiers for the overwhelming majority of his career and is unlikely to ever play at professional level again. Spiderone 18:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL (with one or two appearances, or only a handful of minutes) is not enough when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete not even close to meeting the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 14:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Armstrong Teasdale

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

My name is Monica and I work for Armstrong Teasdale. The firm was hoping to improve the page but was advised it may not qualify for one in the first place. I am not aware of any national publications with a broad audience that have published in-depth profiles on the firm to meet WP:CORP. Most of the citations are articles that mention Armstrong Teasdale, but the firm is not the primary subject.

If the page is kept, I will endeavor to remove promotion and bring it in line with Knowledge's content policies in a manner that complies with WP:COI. Mkriegel4141 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mkriegel4141 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps unsurprisingly for a 13-office firm founded 120 years ago, there appears to be a lot of coverage on it. Examples: 1; 2; 3; 4. The notability standards for companies require "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject," which appears to be the case here. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The sources listed by Usernameunique (talk · contribs).
2. Lovelace, Ryan (2019-03-14). "Armstrong Teasdale Nudges Revenue Higher Amid East Coast Debut. The St. Louis-based firm, now with two offices in the Northeast, saw declining partner profits and a modest bump in revenue last year". Law.com. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  The article notes, "Thus far in 2019, Armstrong Teasdale has attracted attention for its high-profile representation of Payless ShoeSource Inc., which has filed for bankruptcy for the second time in two years."
3. Cole, Heather (2008-01-14). "Armstrong's shrinking Kansas City office focuses on litigation". Missouri Lawyers Weekly.
  The article notes, "Armstrong Teasdale's Kansas City office is the product of a 1989 merger with the then-Dietrich, Davis, Dicus, Rowlands, Schmitt & Gorman, whose partners at that time included former Kansas City mayor Ilus Winfield Davis. ... Among the high-profile litigation cases handled by the office's attorneys in 2007 were the defense of a lawsuit filed by the family of a St. Louis firefighter who died in a fire at an industrial building in 2002. Hursh and other Armstrong attorneys represented safety gear manufacturer Survivair Respirators and its parent company, Bacou-Dalloz, which is now Sperian Protection. The plaintiffs, who claimed the firefighter's safety equipment and air mask were defective, won a $27 million verdict. ... Another of the office's attorneys, Jerry King, helped win a defense verdict for a fuel tank parts manufacturer and service company in a product liability trial brought by the family of a tanker-truck driver killed in a fuel explosion."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Armstrong Teasdale to pass Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment The applicable guideline is not GNG but WP:NCORP. Both of your sources fails NCORP. The law.com reference is entirely based on an interview with managing partner David Braswell (also available here. The Missouri Lawyers Weekly reference is based entirely on an interivew with the Kansas City managing partner, the extracts you've pulled are either attributable to him or standard boiler-plate descriptions which appear on several articles (e.g. see this story for the exact same quote as the first line you extracted). Both fail the "Independent Content" test as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing 20:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 07:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete 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, no echo-chamber stuff, etc. None of the references in the article or in this AfD meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing 20:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

HighKing, it's just simply not true to say that the general notability guidelines don't apply. "Organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements: ... the primary criteria for organizations, or the general notability guideline". In any event, your above analysis seriously misinterprets the notability criteria for organizations. First, you quote the criteria as requiring that a source must contain independent content. But then, you say a source must not rely on any "company information or announcements or interviews" and the like—and standard that would disqualify any article in which the diligent journalist called up the relevant companies for comment before publication. In other words, while the criteria actually say what a source must include, you are claiming the criteria say what a source must not include.

Meanwhile, you haven't addressed the thousands of sources (2,691, at last count) found via newspapers.com, let alone the examples provided above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Usernameunique, I disagree with most of what you've said. First if you go back and read what I said, I did not say that GNG don't apply. Rather, I'm pointing out an article about a company/organization *must* meet NCORP criteria. So the point I'm making is that saying this article meets GNG is irrelevant, because it must meet NCORP which is a stricter standard. If it meets NCORP, it will automatically have met GNG. Second you extract a quote from NCORP to show that it is either/or between NCORP and GNG but fail to see that the section in question is entitled "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" and this topic falls outside of these criteria. I would also add that this section of NCORP appears to be out-of-date with the latest changes made to WP:N policy where WP:SNG was recently updated and specifically states that SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies.. Third the purpose of WP:ORGIND is to ensure that the article isn't just another part of a company's PR echo-chamber - that is, the article isn't simply repeating information provided by the company or its officials. So when you say that a "diligent journalist called up the relevant companies for comment before publication", can you point to where it says that in the article? Or is that an assumption? Can you easily and clearly point to "independent opinion/analysis/investigation" *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, or is it just the journalist repeating the same information provided by the company or its officials? Finally Saying but there's thousands of references isn't a legitimate argument. If you've found a good reference, link it below and I'll take a look and if its good I'll change my !vote. HighKing 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 18:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per my longstanding standards at User:Bearian/Standards#Law_firms. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. No current redirect target exists. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Shah Mureed

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Quetta Bears cricketers or similar Has played 2 T20 matches, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:NFOOTY when a player has 1 or a few appearances but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 18:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. No significant coverage, only databases consisting primarily of scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG. Trivially passes NCRIC, but that carries little weight when the matches are few, they are T20s, and they are for one of the lesser regions. Existing consensus is opposed to standalone articles for such players. No suitable merge/redirect target. _wjemather 13:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ritchie333 00:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Anjali Pawar

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

Though the sources provided are mentioning about her, it fails to give significant coverage. I did a WP:Before and could not find anything. The subject fails GNG Kichu🐘 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I expanded the article and clarified some statements after some research. She is topic of some books about Indian social activists and looks like several Indian newspapers covered here work against child trafficking. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Based on revisions and the sources I have added, there appears to be WP:BASIC notability, due to WP:SUSTAINED news coverage of Pawar's work and advocacy for two NGOs from 2010 through 2018, and it seems possible that additional sources WP:NEXIST. Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: In accordance with these improvements.--Ipigott (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Eddie891 _Work 17:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Chittaranjan Yajnik

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

There do not appear to have any significant coverage to establish notability for this person. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep. According to Scopus he meets NPROF C1 easily with 28317 citations, an h-index of 66, and maybe most importantly, multiple highly-cited papers in extremely good journals like The Lancet (citations: 6116 (2004a paper), 1398 (2006), 260 (2017), 244 (2018a), 233 (2018b), 140 (2004b), 57 (2020)), Nature (1870 (2015a), 1386 (2011), 654 (2015b), 84 (2015c)), NEJM (1380 (2019), 603 (2006)), and JAMA (1304 (2009)). Sources almost certainly exist for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
speedy keep clearly relevant per NPROF but the article needs to work to demonstrate notability. --hroest 03:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep, easy Keep with this Google Scholar profile demonstrating PROF C1.--Eostrix ( _hoot🦉) 09:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Clear pass of WP:NPROF. WP:GNG is not what matters in this case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Meets NPROF. --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Eklavya Model Residential School. Eddie891 _Work 17:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Eklavya Model Residential School, Vankuva

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. There are numerous Eklavya model school run by government of India. Why do we need a seperate article for this particular one? Heba Aisha (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Eklavya Model Residential School - I can't see anything to suggest that this one warrants a stand-alone article. Spiderone 17:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Eklavya Model Residential School. Since the article is clearly written like an advert, would take a fundamental rewrite (that I don't think is possible) not be, and the subject isn't notable either. That said, redirects are cheap. So, I zero reason not to redirect it. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Eklavya Model Residential School. article does not have SIGCOV from IS for a standalone article and there is a proper redirect target. // Timothy :: talk 14:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect per WP:CHEAP and above. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 17:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Asim Sarode

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

A non notable activist and lawyer. Fails WP:GNG. The over citations are a part of WP:REFBOMB. Kichu🐘 17:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 17:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 17:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 17:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom, as written. Perhaps more coverage than a run-of-the-mill lawyer, but not much more, and nothing of encyclopedic note. BD2412 T 18:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: General notability guidelines fails. Non notable activist and lawyer. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete not notable as an activist or a lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 17:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Recovery (Eminem album). An editorial decision can be made about whether there is content to merge from the pre-redirect version. I am not going to fully protect the redirect in hopes that the consensus outcome here will be respected. If edit warring continues, please give me a ping. — The Earwig (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Relapse 2

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

Non-existent album, which was the genesis for another album, Recovery, where all pertinent info is covered. Most of this article was copied from that article, (see page history). Should be a redirect, but another editor insists on recreating, so bringing it here for consensus. Onel5969 16:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 16:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, some of the content of the article came from the Relapse page but about 50% of the page is new content. The album did exist as it was referenced by sources such as Billboard, MTV and Eminem himself. Even then there are 126 other articles of unreleased albums. At most I would support it being merged with Relapse or Recovery. — RealFakeKim T 17:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Recovery (Eminem album)--this is blatant WP:CFORK. It is completely normal for albums to have planned titles before being officially released. No point in a standalone article on an unreleased project. Also, I would suggest protect the redirect to avoid recreation. HĐ (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Recovery (Eminem album) - This isn't really an "unreleased album". Instead it was merely the speculated title of a speculated project, with the title arising when Eminem merely announced like anyone else would that he was working on new material during that period. The fact that Eminem admitted that he threw away some recordings and started over means that this was never meant to be considered an "album" in its own right. The aborted sessions can be discussed briefly at the actual album that came next, Recovery. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, if this article has been re-created and un-redirected repeatedly, I second HD's recommended protection. The navigation links in the infoboxes for the surrounding real Eminem albums will have to be fixed too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge with Recovery per User:RealFakeKim's mention of 50% original material. Other unreleased albums (e.g. Yandhi) have a ton of information/notability surrounding them that deserves to be recorded somewhere, and the subsequent album would be the best place. QuietHere (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Eddie891 _Work 18:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Izabela Wagner

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

None of the criteria of WP:NSCHOLAR seem to be met, h-index of 8, high citation count of 53, and assistant professorship just doesn't make it. Onel5969 16:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Three published books with multiple published reviews each is a pass of WP:AUTHOR and (because the reviews provide multiple in-depth reliable sourcss about her work) of WP:GNG. Her rank is mis-stated in the nomination (she's associate, not assistant) but that's largely irrelevant; it's her accomplishments, not her rank, that would make her notable. Because she's in a book-based field rather than a journal-based field, citation counts and h-index are also largely irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Per David Eppstein. --hroest 21:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep As said already, WP:AUTHOR is what we need to look at, rather than WP:NPROF in this case. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Came here despite my usual avoidance of non-Scopus-amenable fields to make the NAUTHOR reviews point David Eppstein mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep As others have said before me, more than enough reviews of more than enough books to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Whether or not she meets WP:NPROF is irrelevant. Samsmachado (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per WP:AUTHOR, as noted above. Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Per David Eppstein. -- Wlod (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep. A strict reading of GNG/NAUTHOR/PROF would make her borderline, but I fully agree those policies need to be relaxed a bit. A strong keep here and in several other cases could be used to adjust the policies themselves. And for what it is worth, I think that an encyclopedia should have entries about such people, much more so than about some minor soccer player who played in one qualifying match for NSPORT and about whom nothing is known about outside few basic resume facts and the match statistics... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep, she's a significant author.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Significant author with published works. Meets criteria for WP:AUTHOR and is interesting / remarkable enough to be of note. A keeper. Stuhunter83 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hyundai Quality Air

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

Substub fails GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. The first source is from the manufacturer, the second is a run of the mill product announcement in a SK business newspaper. The article makes no claim of notability; not an encyclopedic topic Nothing to merge, no objection if someone feels a redirect is appropriate. // Timothy :: talk 15:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. There is a tiny chance there are some reviews in Korean, but that needs to be shown. No ćorresponding Korean Knowledge article. One linked Korean source despite being signed by a named 'reporter' reads like a rewritten press release, which is not surprising given the relatively low quality of minor older outlets for Korean journalism :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

survival. In case of the source, we have added the supplement to currently existing one, but was deleted by ‘Diannaa’. Please kindly note that we are in the process of rearrangement and if the additional contents are to be deleted as well, we will acknowledge the decision. Kkkikki talk 11:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was Move to Discrimination against gay men. Consensus seems to be to merge or move to Discrimination against gay men. But that has been a redirect to Outline of LGBT topics#Anti-LGBT topics since 2014. I interpret this as consensus to keep the article at issue here and move it to Discrimination against gay men, overwriting the redirect. I'm actually not sure that this is what most here had in mind, but if not, editors are free to treat this AfD as "no consensus" and start a new AfD. Sandstein 19:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Gayphobia

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

The conversion of this redirect to an article is being disputed and has been reverted several times this week. It has been cited as a content fork (from homophobia?) although there appears to be zero content related to this term anywhere in Knowledge. Until today, the word didn't exist in any place except this redirect. Now it is in two templates but not apparently wikilinked from anywhere else, so I have my doubts how notable it really is. Certainly the word exists and has been in use in some circles for a decade or so. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per WP:GNG. The term is well-defined within both the fields of queer theory and LGBT history. It has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, including academic monographs, federal-level government documents, and LGBT-related terminology guides. The umbrella term homophobia in an academic sense includes lesbophobia, gayphobia, biphobia, and transphobia, as well as acephobia and other -phobias related to LGBT-identity. The creation of an article (using the litany of well-sourced materials currently available) on gayphobia is no more of a WP:CFORK than articles on these other topics. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC) Changed vote. See below.
Keep WP:WINARS. I think the fact that both this term and the actual material phenomenon of specifically anti-gay male violence have been studied in peer-reviewed academic journals and books is more important than the fact that it's not featured in other Knowledge articles. Jpesch95 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ Move (per discussion below to Discrimination against gay men). When I redirected the page to Homophobia this was poorly sourced (including mostly dictionary definitions and a source to an employers EDI statement!). The sourcing is still not great and I'm concerned about potential WP:SYNTH violations, as many sources refer back to the Homophobia term. Clearly a person who is gay is not necessarily a man, and this remains a synonym of Homophobia (and is stated as such at wiktionary). But any confusion there can be addressed by the hatnote. On balance I no longer believe this to be a WP:CFORK. Polyamorph (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. This is a WP:CFORK of Homophobia. What little most of the sources say on 'gayphobia' is not significant coverage of gayphobia as a distinct topic rather than a mere definition of a neologism. See WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO. This is a WP:PRIMARY study, not a secondary source. Anyone who asserts this is an encyclopedic separate topic is welcome to post WP:THREE. Crossroads 05:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

1. "There is very clearly a difference in mechanisms between gayphobia and lesbophobia, and this translates into different types of aggression. Where the collective imagination over-sexualizes gay men and exerts strong verbal and physical violence against boys and men who are not considered sufficiently masculine / heterosexual; for women, on the other hand, the assertion of their lesbian identity will be further disqualified, minimized, reduced to a fad, or even sexualized as a prelude to heterosexuality." Pride march: 'Lesbians are not necessarily found in the speeches of many LGBT associations'

2. "Gayphobia is a form of homophobia that specifically affects men. Although it is primarily aimed at gay and bisexual men, it can also affect heterosexual men who are perceived as homosexual. Gay men may be targets of physical aggression or devalued by stereotypes linked to feminisation and hypersexualisation." 2020-2023 National Action Plan to Promote Equal Rights and Combat Anti-LGBT+ Hatred and Discrimination

3. "However, parallel to this semantic broadening, there has been an inverse movement of lexical differentiation operating at the heart of the concept of homophobia. Because of the specificity of attitudes towards lesbianism, the term lesbophobia has been introduced into theoretic discourses, a term which brings to light particular mechanisms that the generic concept of homophobia tends to overshadow. With one stroke, this distinction justifies the term gayphobia, since much homophobic discourse, in reality, pertains only to male homosexuality. Similarly, the concept of biphobia has also been proposed in order to highlight the singular situation of bisexuals, often stigmatized by both heterosexual and homosexual communities. Moreover, we need to take into consideration the very different issues linked to transsexual, transvestite, and transgender persons, which brings to mind the notion of transphobia." The Dictionary of Homophobia: A Global History of Gay & Lesbian Experience Louisianajones1978 (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete this POV shit. It's a WP:NEO violation. RandoBanks (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Reading some of the policy pages, this term isn't even in the sources. Page is a big WP:Synthesis clusterfuck. Our Homophobia page is enough. RandoBanks (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Note — RandoBanks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Polyamorph (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, and readers can also look at my contributions and see that I came to this page after rolling back this goof up. I'm not here because of some underhanded scheme, like Polyamorph is implying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RandoBanks (talk • contribs)

Ok, so just to be clear. Your claim is that a term which has been in circulation for over a decade, used in federal documents from both the U.S. and French federal governments, described in peer-reviewed academic studies, defined at a semantic level by queer theorists and gender historians, and used colloquially in journalistic pieces... is a neologism? WP:NEO points clearly to WP:PSTS, which tells us: "Knowledge articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." This article has a combination of all three. I think it's a good idea to address any potential issues regarding WP:SYNTH, but at its core, this article is an overdue companion to the other LGBT-related phobias included under the umbrella of homophobia. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a WP:NEO violation, and we wouldn't need it even if it wasn't one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandoBanks (talk • contribs)

Delete or Merge to Discrimination against gay men (per discussion below) – this is a vogue word of French origin (coined by fr:Daniel Welzer-Lang, afaict) that achieved some usage in English, mostly in translated works, but never really caught on. In google ngrams, the term does not register at all. (Compare with ngram results for some other rare terms.) In books, of the top 10 most relevant results for the term, only 3 unique results actually contain the term (1. Kirst-Ashman (2013), 2. Tin (2008)-a French article by Guillaume Huyez, quoting five footnotes, all French; and 3. "Out" mag (Jun 2005)-a quotation by Anne Roiphe). It's telling that result #6 is there because it's another "Out" volume that indexes the same Roiphe quotation as #3. (The fact that Google books includes two magazine results in the top ten, is a very strong indicator that results in actual books are almost non-existent.) Result #7 is a false positive—it does indeed contain the word, but as one of the "wrong answers" in a multiple-choice quiz question about "prejudice towards homosexuality". Three results in books is an incredibly low bar, and you can find all sorts of dreck that have three results in books but don't deserve their own article at Knowledge; pussy phobia (4 results), fagphobia (5), and so on. It's a little harder to pick out the exact count of academic articles that use the term, but looking at the top 10 results in Scholar, there seem to be less than ten results with the term, because normally you wouldn't get three "citation" results in the top ten, unless the term was practically non-existent. In the seven results that are articles containing the term, I see Italian journals or with Italian authors (two), Indonesian (two), leaving three English; #2 is by co-author D Welzer-Lang (French, the coiner), #3 is by C Fraïssé (French?), and one possibly original English article (TF Reed, 1989; 1 citation to it). This is underwhelming, as evidence for the term. On the web, the top ten results for the query gayphobia -wikipedia shows mostly definition pages and Knowledge mirrors; result #10 (indiegogo) is about Uganda. However search aficionados will know that the "20,100" hit count listed on search page one is a relevance tally that doesn't mean the pages actually contain the term; to see the actual number of pages containing it, page forward to result page #10 and you will see that there are actually about 94 pages on the web with this term. That is an incredibly small number for the internet; most misspellings have more than that (homopobia has 163). The internet is a big place, it's not hard to find a few dozen examples of your favorite word, no matter what it is. Plus, in the academic world, it's a crowded, publish-or-perish field; you can't blame somebody for trying a neologism to see if it catches on. Usually they don't, and this one clearly did not. Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of everything findable on the internet; that said, if this word starts to gather legitimate references in scholarly articles (in English), or in books (in English), or on the web in reliable, non-SPS sources, then it could be considered for inclusion. But it falls far short of that standard in 2021. Mathglot (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC) per discussion below

Comment: WP:NEO says instead of using a neologism, it's "preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." Seems like the original point of this article was to describe homophobic discrimination against gay men, analogous to lesbophobia for lesbians. Probably most people could agree the topic is notable (something like a third of the countries in the world which bar homosexuality singularly ban male homosexuality 1). Maybe best course of action is to WP:MOVE what is salvageable from this article to "Homophobic discrimination against gay men" or something like that, with Gayphobia as a redirect to that page? Garcia1865 (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a sensible suggestion.Polyamorph (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

No objection here, either. Or just shorten to "Discrimination against gay men", as the homophobic might be redundant in that context. To the extent that the gay- prefix of gayphobia is supposed to indicate men only, then another alternative might be "Antigay sentiment", unless in that form it might be ambiguous whether it was supposed to include women or not, and just seem like a synonym for homophobia. (Then again, not sure why that same objection does not apply just as well to the term gayphobia; or maybe it does?) An advantage of that term, is that it already seems to be used quite a bit (see search results in web, books, academia). Another advantage might be, that there are quite a few articles already entitled "Anti-FOO sentiment"; usually with a country or ethnic FOO, but I think it's the same general idea. See also, List of anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic terms, although that list doesn't include gender/orientation terms. Mathglot (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Anti-gay sentiment visually looks great and, you're right, it does provide a neat uniformity with other "Anti-FOO sentiment" articles, but to be honest, I'm concerned its general usage broadly does seem to refer to anti-LGBT sentiment. To your first point, I do agree that "Discrimination against gay men" is less redundant than "Homophobic discrimination against gay men." Garcia1865 (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Garcia1865, yes, I'm concerned about it too, for the same reason you identify. It's ironic, because the gayphobia term should be subject to the exact same objection; maybe it isn't, though, because sometimes language works in funny ways. But we shouldn't forget that English Knowledge attracts lots of foreign visitors, and even if our native competence in English might suggest that Antigay sentiment is ambiguous while some other "gay-something" is men only, we can't expect ESL speakers to figure out such subtleties. Whatever term we come up with, it should be something that is clear to someone who speaks some English but is not necessarily perfectly fluent in it. Mathglot (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mathglot, completely agree. It’s additionally hard because gay in Spanish and French already refer exclusively to gay men, whereas in English gay refers to both men and women, so I feel the title should either have the word "man" or "male" if the term gay is also used. We could go along the lines of "Hostile prejudice" with something like “Gay male prejudice”? It’s not quite as punchy as a term like gayphobia but not as clunky as “Discrimination against gay men.” Garcia1865 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Perhaps not, maybe "Discrimination against gay men" makes the most sense.

Merge: Well, if there are no other suggestions for an alternative title, this article should be merged with the current redirect page "Discrimination against gay men." Gayphobia, per the wiktionary definition, should be set as a redirect to this new page. Garcia1865 (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge/Move: to Discrimination against gay men. Louisianajones1978 (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge this FORK to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to House of Loredan. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 06:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Lucrezia Loredan, Lady of Antiparos

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

Article does not meet GNG, BASIC or ANYBIO, no sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The first two sources are menntions of the name (eg: pp.619) the third and forth sources are about the Castle of Antiparos with some information about the family, but nothing about the subject. BEFORE showed nothing that helps notability. Article could be redirected to House of Loredan or Genealogy of the House of Loredan if someone feels the term would be searched. // Timothy :: talk 15:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to House of Loredan. Mccapra (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect as suggested and per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. North America 18:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

T&M (TV series)

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

Article on what is basically a television pilot for a failed TV series that aired all of once on Disney XD in 2012. There is zero reliably sourced coverage on it. The article's current "sources" are a 'dead link' ref to the Disney XD page (and so fails to verify what it is supposed to source), a primary source press release from ABC-Disney that apparently covers one of the pilot's creators (but does not mention this pilot at all), and a blog from the other pilot's creator (which fails WP:SELFPUBLISH). This is so obscure that it doesn't even have an IMDb entry. Clear WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW fail. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - There do not appear to be any actual sources regarding this failed TV pilot. Searching for sources turned up absolutely nothing, and even the primary sources being used in the article currently are now dead links. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: A failed pilot lacking any sort of real coverage. Fails NTV. TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Add in a significant article improvement in the 14 days this was open and we will be unlikely to reach a consensus with a further relist. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Institution of the Counsellors

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:SIGCOV, No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Serv181920 (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per above. -Cupper52 10:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Weak Delete A lot of mentions in books, including this book on the Equality of Men and Women in a discussion on different religions. This journal discusses it as well. Most of the other books and journals look to be tied to the religion itself, so I don't know how much those help to establish the notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Current sources fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep. The article is poorly written and needs a name change, but it clearly has notability as the highest appointed position in the Baha'i Faith, with less than 100 people worldwide. Each person has jurisdiction over several states or countries. As individuals they probably don't deserve notability for their own articles, but the role is covered in any overview of the religion's administrative structure. For example, Peter Smith's Concise Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith (2000) page 112; Paula Hartz's World Religions series Baha'i Faith (2009) page 110-111; William Garlington (ex-Baha'i writing critically) Baha'i Faith in America (2008) pages 52, 66-68, 159; Scarecrow Press covered the Baha'i Faith as part of two series Historical Dictionaries of religions, Philosophies, and Movements (2007) and The A to Z guide series (2009), both have entries for Continental Boards of Counsellors on pages 110-111 and 107-108, respectively; Britannica's very brief article Baha'i Faith mentions continental counselors as a two-paragraph overview of "Organization". I challenge someone to find a source covering Baha'i administration that doesn't mention the continental counselors. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep There are several references in the bibliography on the page and this discussion has brought up several more. We have non-Bahai sources, but I don't think sources totally independent from the whole religion are necessary to establish notability - there are thousands of wiki articles that rely wholly or in large part on the Catholic Encyclopedia. This institution is linked to from the main page on the religion - see Baháʼí_Faith#Universal_House_of_Justice Furius (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep There are many academic sources that cover the topic, several were added to the article yesterday. Here are a few more: (72, 175, 176, 179, 183), the main article about the Baha'i faith on Iranica Encyclopedia: , and these two from the same Encyclopedia: , . Tarikhejtemai (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

All of those are either Baha'i sources or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.Serv181920 (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

None of Tarikhejtemai's sources are Baha'i. I don't think "trivial mentions." Nor are they trivial mentions: the Iranica Encyclopedia gives them a full paragraph; Introduction to Bahai Faith (not a Baha'i source) deals with them on multiple pages. Furius (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As Furius said none of the sources are Baha'i sources. The main article about the Baha'i faith in Iranica Encyclopedia, which is a very credible tertiary source on topics related to Iran, defines what the institution of the counsellors is and so does the Cambridge book. The institution is such an important and integral part of the Baha'i faith that most academic works that deal with the Baha'i faith in detail cover it. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not going to vote in this one, because this article doesn't use enough inline citations and instead uses a long list of books, which is very hard to verify. But in response to a comment above, I will say that one paragraph is not usually considered significant coverage. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I just finished re-writing the page. I count 8 reliable sources (there are variations from the same authors, so really 6) that independently cover the Baha'i administration and all give coverage to the Boards of Counsellors with different depth. There may be more that could be added but I think it's notability is clear anyway. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. This looks much better. A minor point: I think it is a bit weird for the lead to start by defining "Continental Counsellors" rather than the "Institution of the Counsellors" - I don't know whether the best solution to that is re-writing the lead or moving the article to Continental Counsellors, but you're surely best-placed to make a decision on that. Furius (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 05:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Royal Challengers Bangalore in 2021

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

Fails WP:GNG. No source cited Jenyire2 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 18. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to 2021 Indian Premier League until all season details are confirmed. Nate • (chatter) 22:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Notable reliable sources not found about Cricket Player auction bidding price for 2021 IPL.TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Article is updated Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 02:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle 09:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

comment , The article is already updated till the date. The tournament will start on April 9. This article should be keep Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 09:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep: Article is updated--Ts12rAc (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep: Article is well updated and the season details was already published.(Fade258 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC))

The result was delete. Merging back doesn’t require the spun out material to be kept elsewhere. Just dig it out of the history Spartaz 14:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Public housing estates in Ping Shan

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

Reason: WP:OR and bold split of Public housing estates in Ngau Tau Kok and Kowloon Bay (which itself is problematic).

Kwun Tong District is a legally defined admin-district which some department of the executive branch of the government took advise from the Kwun Tong District Council. While Ngau Tau Kok, Kowloon Bay (or Yau Tong, Lam Tin, Kwun Tong) are commonly known neighbourhoods of the district , but not Ping Shan, Kowloon. There are no legally defined boundaries of any of the aforementioned neighbourhoods, so that all aforementioned articles (Public housing estates in X (Kwun Tong District)) should be merged to Public housing estates in Kwun Tong District for the sake of not wasting time to define which housing estate belong to which neighbourhoods (as the folk / community definition of their neighbourhoods are often overlapped), as well as clean up to purge content that read like WP:DIRECTORY to fit the WP:article size guideline.

Evidence of "Ping Shan (Kowloon)" neighbourhood not even exist and the noun is more commonly refer to Ping Shan, (the New Territories) is the google search result of "Ping Shan" site:scmp.com Matthew hk (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

ping @Citobun:, who started a thread in WPHK (Knowledge talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Seeking opinions on "Ping Shan" in Kowloon). Matthew hk (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge back to Public housing estates in Ngau Tau Kok and Kowloon Bay. When I heard of "Ping Shan", I could only retreived the one in Yuen Long, which is not the one specified in this title. Even when searching in Chinese (google:"平山" 香港, google:"平山" 九龍), nothing related can be found except for it being a hiking spot. It is possibly WP:OR to include those public housing estates in such list article. Sun8908 _Talk 15:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Abhishek Raveendran

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ACTORBIO and I can't find detailed sources Padavalam🌂 ► 09:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: No evidence if notability Kichu🐘 08:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Keep arguments neither refute the delete thesis nor advance a policy based reason for retaining this. Wishful thinking and references to other articles are not persuasive. Spartaz 14:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Elvy Yost

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

WP:TOOSOON. The article was draftified by me, but the creator moved it back to mainspace. The actor has played significant role in just one drama series The Catch (TV series) . She also co-starred in the film A Futile and Stupid Gesture (film) , the article doesn't mention much about her role just states that she joined the ensemble. The rest of the roles are all guest appearances. and are just interviews with the subject. So from what I see, the subject currently fails WP:NACTOR since there is no evidence of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and also fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Ashley yoursmile! 07:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 07:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 07:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 07:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 07:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

She has appeared in a significant number of TV series, and currently has a major role in Resident Alien , so keep. RGCorris (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

RGCorris, appearing in a large number of TV series doesn't establish notability unless the roles are "significant". Ashley yoursmile! 11:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say her role in Resident Alien is "significant". RGCorris (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

She's got a significant role in which has been mentioned in the media. So that's significant roles in two tv series, and multiple interviews with the subject. I also think a good definition of significant for these purposes is whether she has a name role,and she has a name role in many more than two series; she's mentioned in a bunch of wikipedia articles, for that reason. People are likely to want to know what else she's done, and look to wikipedia for that, which seems like it's what the encyclopedia is here for. I'd add that wikipedia has a huge problem with not covering significant women, so we should maybe think about that as well before deleting articles about them. KEEP. NoahB (talk) 14:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Also her career spans more than a decade at this point, so I don't think "too soon" makes much sense here. NoahB (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

References

"Martinez and Reggie Jackson." Philadelphia Tribune (1912-2001), May 09, 1980. https://search.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/martinez-reggie-jackson/docview/532783487/se-2?accountid=10977.
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/resident-alien-alan-tudyk-harry-wife-sex-scene. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

KEEP I agree with NoahB. There also seem to be a lot of articles about people less notable than actors from television series (such as a lot of YouTubers), and don't see why being a major cast member a TV series is not enough for notability. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - falls short of NACTOR.-KH-1 (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 05:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Punjab Renewable Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd.

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

I am not sure I see this passing WP:NCORP. I see primary sources but not enough in-depth secondary sources to warrant inclusion on wikipedia. This is the second incarnation of the article which appears to have been deleted before for COPYVIO. Govvy (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep I'm finding a pretty decent amount of independent coverage aside from the normal getting funding and investment from other companies. Most of the articles relate to using rice patty straw in a novel biomass power plant. The article doesn't read like an advertisement, and although stubby, seems fine to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep Per sources provided by ScottishFinnishRadish, meets GNG and NCORP. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep per WP:BARE. Not the greatest stub, but barely makes it. See also Energy law, to which I have linked it indirectly via Renewable energy in India. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Equator Pure Nature

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

Nothing here to demonstrate notability. What appear to be reliable sources are interviews or press releases. The whole tone is very advertorial . Draft was moved to mainspace without any reviews. Fails WP:GNG. Very strong likelihood of COI or paid editing Velella 13:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Velella 13:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Does have some coverage and mentions by some Japanese publications , though a bit less than I was expecting, since their main product "Pipper Standard" is a fairly familiar name. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. I haven't managed to find any references that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing 19:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete As per HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī 14:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Rezarta Smaja

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

The singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep - passes WP:NMUSICIAN due to being runner-up at Kënga Magjike Spiderone 13:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 04:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep Weak notability just barely meeting WP:NMUSICIAN by being runner-up in the music competition. JayJay 05:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Cumberland, Maine. Spartaz 13:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Friends School of Portland

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

This school only goes through 8th grade. Schools in the US that do not go to the high school level need very good sourcing to show notability, which is entirely lacking here. In fact this article has existed for almost 13 years, and the only source is the subjects own website. I did a google search and found the usually review websites we can find on basically any school that currently exists, but since we have never held that every school that exists is notable, there is nothing about that which shows that this is a notable school. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep the school is well-known for its energy-efficient design and to a lesser extent its political activism. Here are some links from a variety of sources.

--User:Namiba 22:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

- The building does not make the school notable. The Banner talk 09:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- None of those sources are substantially about the school, at least one is a caption to a picture provided by this school to a very specialized publication, and the last is about students from many schools and does not specify this school at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  - JPL, you should read the last more closely. The student leading the protest attends the school and the school is named. Given the plethora of independent sources, the building the school has built is clearly notable and should have an article. The school itself should be covered in that article as well. Note that I've added two more sources and begun cleaning up the article itself.--User:Namiba 13:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    - Having someone from a particular school be a leader of some random protest march, does not make the school itself notable. Knowledge needs less presentism. Until we have articles on every elementary school that fed key children in civil rights action in the early 1960s, having this article based on such a passing presentist case is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
      - Presentism has nothing to do with it. There are now 2 full-length newspaper articles, sources from 4 independent non-news sites, and an academic journal article on the page.--User:Namiba 21:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Redirect - to the settlement it's located in, Cumberland, Maine. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:ATD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.193.169 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online." This is an independently accredited institution.--User:Namiba 15:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a K-6 institution, that is elementary level, it does not grant a degree. So it does not fall under that rubric. The quote you cite is refering really to tertiary institutions, although for other reasons we generally treat secondary institutions as notable. We only accept that a very, very few elementaries are notable. You are misapplying and minsinterpreting the text you are quoting. It in no way refers to this elementary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Leaving aside SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I agree that most elementary schools are not notable. However, most elementary schools don't have two major newspaper articles about their unique beliefs and values, nor has the building they built and occupy been discussed by a half-dozen or more sources because it is among the first of its kind. That's why this school in particular is notable.--User:Namiba 19:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 00:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirect and partially merge. The school is clearly not notable. The school building is arguably marginally notable, which is the wrinkle here. I think I still support deletion, but I'm not sure the school guidelines are the best way to decide this one. A sentence in Cumberland, Maine is probably appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 22:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is part of Maine history on a historical island, its cited and should stayGeneraluser11 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect - to Cumberland, Maine per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:ATD. Sourcing does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT for the subject, sourcing above about the building does not meet NBUILD, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Looks like a wonderful school with a good facility, but this is not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 16:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't think the sources are sufficient to meet NBUILD? They are numerous, independent, and in-depth.--User:Namiba 18:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, but Namiba, may I make a suggestion? Why don't you pick the three best sources, and make arguments on how they show NORG? Perhaps an organized argument might sway myself or others. 174.254.198.242 (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Here are 4 unique, independent, in-depth sources. There are more available. , , , .--User:Namiba 03:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

None of the above shows historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. It shows someone built an energy efficent building and it has nothing to do with the subject of the article - the school and does not have SIGCOV about the school. Namiba I suggest you write an article about the building if you think this is notable coverage. // Timothy :: talk 17:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

My plan is to add several sections on the building itself. It doesn't make sense to delete the article and simply start it over. Moreover, the two full-length Press Herald articles on the school itself constitute significant coverage.--User:Namiba 17:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Schools, churches, and clubs/fraternal lodges are in special circumstances for notability purposes. Sometimes they are notable for the organization that operates in the physical structure. In other cases, they are notable for the historic or architecturally significant structure in which they operate. In such cases, we typically have a single article that can discuss both the organization and the building/structure. See, e.g., Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States by city, Category:Masonic buildings in the United States by state, Category:Schools in the United States by city or town. If this school is notable on either count (the organization or the building), it should be kept. Cbl62 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 18:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Amir Shaikh

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

Non notable politician who does not have enough SIGCOV. Poppified 13:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Poppified 13:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Poppified 13:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Poppified 13:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Poppified 13:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete state level student union presidents are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per OP. — Czello 16:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete clear GNG fail. SportingFlyer T·C 17:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Non notable student union leader. TheDreamBoat (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. The deletionist views are weakly expressed and not sufficient to reach that consensus. Some suggested redirect, which may be done outside of the AfD as no clearer consensus has emerged since the 2nd relist. (non-admin closure) Bungle 11:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The Two of Us (mixtape)

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

Non-notable release per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS received little/no coverage beyond its existence and track listing. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep: The mixtape has received some coverage. I also found some reliable sources about it: , , , , , , , and . With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The majority of the sources you refer to only have passing mentions about the existence of the project and little else. Coverage has to beyond the mixtape existing and being released. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Lil-unique1, sources 1 and 2 have a paragraph talking about the mixtape. The rest of the sources fully talk about the album, with source 6 being a review of it. Therefore, your claim that these sources "only have passing mentions about the" mixtape are baseless since they really talk about the mixtape, whether fully or by at least a paragraph. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd talk 04:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Chloe x Halle discography per nom. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, no chartings, certifications or accolades. --Ashley yoursmile! 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Chloe x Halle discography. Does not meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:NALBUM. The sources as cited above said that the sisters themselves don't call it a "mixtape" (what?), and most sources only discussed this because it was kind-of endorsed by Beyonce. This review by The Yale Politic seems good, but it is a student newspaper, so I don't think it is credible as a reliable source. HĐ (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Astig and HD. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 12:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. I'll just quote one participant who I think really encapsulated the consensus here in a breath: there is not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to merit a stand-alone article. And that's that. El_C 05:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexander Zaytsev (businessman)

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

The entity fails WP:GNG and also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Also, it fails WP:THREE as per WP:RS/WP:RSP. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

COMMENT: I invite Jabbi (the creator of the article) and Þjarkur (the reviewer of the article) to participate in this discussion. Also, I would like apologize for putting this article first through WP:CSD... it's always better to have an opinion from the creator. As per my editing principles, I put my views once during the nomination and it covers majorly all my concerns. The floor is yours. - Hatchens (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I’m failing to understand what is supposed to make the subject notable. —Kbabej (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- In addition to the discussion below. You could compare Yury Chyzh. Do you note anything that makes him notable but not Zaytsev? If not, should Yury Chyzh be deleted as well? --Jabbi (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. 05:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment In google search there are lot's of articles for "Alexander Zaitsev" who is CTO of company called RAISON. See this TechCrunch article. He is based in Moscow according to this. Do we know if this is the same person? If so, perhaps he could be notable for keep and if not then it's a delete for me. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Not the same person – Thjarkur (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This all looks like WP:SIGCOV to me. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Strong Delete Not notable figure for a Knowledge page. Self-advertisement/COI. Also, the article is not neutral, does not mention anything about corruption, and written vaguely "Zaitsev is said to have lived..." Partizan Kuzya (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Can you explain in what way it is not neutral? What do you feel should be mentioned about corruption? You are correct that the sentence you quote is vaguely written, I wrote that because I felt I did not have good enough sources to make the statement without qualifying it. I suppose it can be changed to be more decisive. Jabbi (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment Might I begin first of all by thanking Hatchens for starting this discussion by nominating it for deletion, it is important due diligence, selfless work, and asking those users that have already contributed to this debate, User:Kbabej, User:Expertwikiguy & User:Partizan Kuzya to read my argument below and reconsider their stance. Secondly, I would suggest that this entity requires some familiarization with Belarusian politics because, as I will argue, context specific information is necessary to understand why he is WP:GNG. Third, Belarus does not enjoy freedom of speech. In my view, this means that WP:SIGCOV should not be as stringent a requirement because, in addition to the above, most sources will be written in Russian or Belarusian (of which I speak neither). These two elements combine to raise the bar, there are fewer sources of information out there because of censorship and those sources are difficult to find and fully understand by non-Russian speakers. In that vein, I urge all editors reading this to consider the issue of systemic bias in the English Knowledge.
- Responding to WP:GNG: Zaitsev is number 10 in the "TOP 200 successful and influential businessmen of Belarus - 2019" according to the Belarusian business website Diary His rise on that list has been meteoric, nobody knows really where he's gotten his money from. Alexander, who is still a relatively young man, had an unremarkable career in public service up until the early 2000s, when it seems he went to the UAE before returning a rich man. Alexander has not made his fortune in IT unlike fellow countryman and businessman Victor Kislyi (of Wargaming computer game franchise, who fails WP:GNG) but in minerals according to his Diary profile . This is then made all the more conspicuous by the fact that before ending his career as a civil servant and leaving for UAE, Zaitsev was an aide to Viktor Lukashenko, the son of Alexander Lukashenko, who has ruled Belarus since 1994, albeit illegitimately according to Western authorities, since the 2020 Belarusian presidential election. Here is a 2018 source from Belarus.by, the official website of the Belarus Republic, where the president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, is not only giving his blessing for “Bremino-Orsha”, a special economic zone but actually ordering its progress to be expedited. Who is the chairman of the group behind the project but Alexander Zaitsev. One might ask how it comes to be that a public server and aide of the presidential son, with no known business interests a decade earlier, is all of the sudden one of Belarus' top influential businessmen, clearly supported strongly by the Lukashenko family (and there are unsubstantiated rumors). In other news, Zaitsev has been busy with his pet football project, a la Abramovich but on a smaller scale, he flew Diego Maradona in to have him sign up as chairman to FC Dinamo Brest(). Vytis Jurkonis says that Zaytsev should be considered a "politically exposed person – or PEP – due to with the Lukashenko regime."
- Responding to WP:SIGCOV: I have already made the arguments above but with summarize them here again. This is a non-English and even a non-Roman alphabet entity which brings challenges for English Knowledge consumption. There should be a less stringent requirement for the above reasons. Nonetheless, I feel there are sufficient sources gathered in the article itself and in the above discussion both by myself and User:Thjarkur.
- Responding to WP:THREE: 1 Belarus president wants industrial, logistics hub in Orsha District sooner, Belarus.by, the official website of the Belarus Republic, 11 Jul 2018 2 Alexander Zaitsev, Diary TOP 200 successful and influential businessmen of Belarus - 2019. 3 Businessman Zaitsev left the football club Dynamo Brest, which became a state, Tut.by, January 13, 2021
- Responding to WP:RS/WP:RSP: The fact that Belarusian web sources do not appear on the list of debated reliable sources is not surprising in the least, it would in fact be surprising if they did. The Belarusian sources cited are among the most popular Belarusian news and information sites. Is there any specific reason they should not be consider as valid per WP:RS#News organizations.
- Finally, I encourage you to think critically about in what ways Yury Chyzh or Vladimir Peftiev meet your requirements but Zaytsev does not. Thank you, --Jabbi (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Excerpt: "Freedom of the press in Belarus remains extremely restricted. State-owned media are subordinated to the president and harassment and censorship of independent media are routine."

Delete I am suspecting WP:COI here. I checked the articles with Google translate. A lot of the content are not supported by these articles. to Jabbi : for example: How would you know that "Alexander was born in Ruzhany in Brest Region in 1976?" none of these articles have such info. In addition, only 5 news from foreign publications that do not look credible is not enough to meet WP:GNG. If you are connected contributor, you must also declare this. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- It is verified in the cited source, but you have to click on the plus icon to see it : "Alexander Zaitsev was born in 1976 in Ruzhany." I don't see any signs of a COI. I also don't see any signs of these being unreliable sources, we have an article on Tut.By. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I do not have WP:COI here. Can you point to any other content that you think is not supported by these articles? How can you say that the foreign publications do not look credible? Please consult WP:RS#News organizations before making such a claim or support your statement with arguments. Jabbi (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Once again, besides COI and lack of notability, the article is not even close to be neutral. No words of corruption. See at least one source on corruption here. --Partizan Kuzya (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I take exception to your unsubstantiated accusation of COI. You do not answer specific questions about why it is not neutral. You then go on to provide a blog as a source for your claim of corruption. I am finding it hard to take your contributions here seriously. --Jabbi (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

→Tribuna.com is not a blog, but online media with up to 200 employees. One more soure about corruption from Belsat TV. Here is another source about corruption from AFN.by. Please read the sources that explain corruption. COI is highly plausible as none of the information about corruption is mentioned in the article. --Partizan Kuzya (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Partizan Kuzya: I am still not certain about how reliable your sources are but I would be happy to include a sentence about alleged involvement in corrupt business practices citing them. I assume this assuages your concern about COI. Do you then still maintain that the article still is not notable ? Could I ask you to compare with Yury Chyzh and tell me what is the difference? --Jabbi (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I have explained my reasoning in detail above. I request contributing editors substantiate claims they wish to make about any issues they might have with the article. To give more context on my reason for creating the article (and I am perhaps a bit inspired by Navalny's recent documentary), Zaytsev seems like a suspicious businessman involved with the Lukeshenko family. I would not be strongly against deleting it. In the event I would merge information here into the Viktor Lukashenko article. I do think though that if a deletion is carried through, the same editors in favour of that should take up the same discussion for the article Yury Chyzh, because I see the two articles as entirely compatible. --Jabbi (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hatchens, do you want to weigh in here? I don't want this to go stale. Since you are following up with an AFD here I would expect you to apply the same to Yury Chyzh or failing that, explain the difference between these articles. --Jabbi (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep: He seems plainly notable to me based on coverage I can find, notwithstanding the backdrop of censorship and corruption in Belarus. Tut.By, a leading news site in Belarus, published a decent piece of Zaytsev in 2018. (Title, "“Friendship with Rumas”. The businessman who brought Maradona to Brest"). And This article in By.Tribuna.com is also significant coverage of Zaytsev; (RSF (Reporters Without Borders) relays that this is a very popular Belarusian sports news website that sometimes crosses into political territory.) The Russian wikipedia has had an article on him since November 2019 with no apparent questioning of his notability (for whatever that is worth). I find it somewhat amusing that this apparently powerful person in Belarus likely would have no article if he hadn't bought the football team he rooted for as a child. In the 2018 article, he says "I have not been and do not intend to become a public person." Well, don't buy a football team, the sport that spawned WAGs for merely being around the sport.--Milowent • 22:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggest this article should not be deleted. Hatchens who has twice nominated it for deletion has not responded or participated in the debate despite me having courteously asked him to participate in what he started. He seems to be very selectively active. Other users have mainly mentioned WP:COI which is rather plainly not the case IMO (there is a Russian page with more critical information, the English version I created is not based on it, I did not know about it). Charges of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV seem therefore wide of the mark (perhaps the reason Hatchens is busy with other random stuff). --Jabbi (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear Jabbi, kindly read my comment which I posted along with this AfD nomination. The reasons given by me at the time of nomination is more than enough to justify my view on an entity and then I always prefer the group to take the call. If there is a general consensus to keep this page, then I'm fine with it. But, I guess ... consensus has not been achieved at all. More than that, each Knowledge has its own standards, and the acceptance of an article's topic or of any part of its content in one language is no guarantee that it will be accepted in another. For more details, click here. Secondly, what I have also noticed that you are comparing this entity with other entities and asking why they should be also kept live (in AfD discussion). This is not good reasoning... at all. - Hatchens (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Jabbi, if you need any assistance then kindly ping some subject matter experts such as seasoned editors or admins. If you want me to do that... I would love to oblige. - Hatchens (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy pings: Dear @Timtrent, TheAafi, Umakant Bhalerao, Ktin, MarioJump83, Kashmorwiki, Blablubbs, and Fences and windows:. Your unbiased assessment is required to close this Afd. Thanks in advance. - Hatchens (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Hatchens: Thank you for responding and pinging the editors that are collaborating. Nominating a page twice for deletion and not participating in the debate about its deletion is sloppy. I suggest you limit your activities to finishing what you start. It is impolite, although I appreciate how consistently polite and civil your tone is. You will note that after repeated prodding and your pinging now a consensus is being reached about deleting it. This would not have happened had I not prodded you, it is there fore not me who needed assistance but you in concluding what you started. I know very well that requirements and norms between Wikipedias is different, I am a veteran of my native Icelandic Knowledge. Finally, comparing articles is very good reasoning, the standard for articles to be allowed to exist has to be consistent of course, if you can not explain why A is ok but B is not then your argument is arbitrary and weak. Good luck with your further work and if you need any assistance, kindly reach out. --Jabbi (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after inappropriate non administrator closure
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nick (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep While the article is not that neutral (being little bit of promotional tinge), I believe that being an owner of a notable association football team is enough to get this thing kept. Mario Jump 83! 11:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I am recusing myself from participating in this AfD moving forward and I am also striking my !vote in here. Mario Jump 83! 13:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep I can be convinced otherwise (ping me with your rationale, please), and it will not take much to move me to deletion.Delete. I have reconsidered and am persuaded that he is, after all, on the wrong side of the border of notability. I have spent some time in the rather small article and analysed/machine translated its sources, removing one from two areas it did not verify, and called for more sources. ~~I have fond the gentleman to be just sufficiently notable to cross the threshold into notability.~~ He has a certain notoriety, too, in the manner that Russian (etc) businessmen who appear suddenly on the scene do.I find the article itself to be of poor quality and lacking in useful sources. Fiddle Faddle 12:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

delete this is nothing more than PR spam about a run of the mill business person who lacks serious independent coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 13:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: The subject is a non notable businessman.This is written for promotional purpose. Fails WP:GNG Kichu🐘 13:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete I'm not able to note even a borderline notability. Fails GNG and relevant SNG criteria. ─ The Aafī on Mobile 14:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep per all the RS coverage presented by other !voters. The article is not really promotional in its current state, and the addition of his corruption would certainly balance it out. Mottezen (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- Mottezen, Although the sources are reliable, that's just one part of the criteria. Another vital part is that the references must contain Independent Content as described in WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: There is not enough coverage in independent reliable sources to merit a stand-alone article. References posted above are largely interviews and routine coverage which do not establish notability. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The source you provided isn't rs coverage but I think you need to read this. Knowledge doesn't exist, especially in the context of articles on living people to serve as a takedown of authoritarian or corrupt government. We simply need in depth, independent coverage. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist and we cannot make special exceptions to that. BLP is a hardline policy and applies to this discussion as much as it does in the article, so please review those policies before commenting with unsourced speculation about a living persons dealings. CUPIDICAE💕 14:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of those policies. They nonetheless have a flipside which I think reinforces systemic bias here. Authoritarian regimes limit free media and coverage, which shrouds power in secrecy. There are no allegations in the draft article for a reason, it only contains verifiable facts which has given rise to WP:GNG but also accusation of WP:COI because it's found to not be critical enough. A more in-depth comment by me was removed here where I discuss the possibility (supported by the Lithuanian newspaper source) that Zaytsev might be a wallet (Nick seems to think this is an allegation of criminality). --Jabbi (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It was an allegation and was a BLP violation. That's why I pointed it out. Please read WP:RGW. Combatting bias on Knowledge does not mean ignoring core tenets. CUPIDICAE💕 15:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of this. The discussion about whether a political figure is a wallet in these regimes is hardly a BLP violation as it is not an accusation of breaking any laws. I am not proposing breaking core tenets, but intepreting them in context. --Jabbi (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Speculation about criminal acts are still blp violations unless there are multiple RS reporting on it - in both of the sources you supplied in your revision deleted comment, neither mentioned the subject and even if they had, they don't even discuss what you're saying and the one from Charter97 isn't RS for such a claim in a BLP. I strongly advise you rethink your comments and strategy here because you're still inserting BLP violations after you were warned. CUPIDICAE💕 15:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Belarus does not have strong private property laws. Being a wallet in such a country just means you have the favour of the politician. There is no implication of wrongdoing, only lawful collusion seen as corruption in Western countries. --Jabbi (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Legality is irrelevant. Insinuating wrongdoing, which you are, repeatedly and without adequate reliable sourcing is still a BLP violation. Stop. I don't know if something is lost in translation but there is no definition in which corruption doesn't imply wrongdoing. CUPIDICAE💕 15:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You should re-read what I wrote "seen as corruption in Western countries". This is a problem of WP:Systemic bias in a nutshell. You want to apply Western values to Belarusian facts. --Jabbi (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Which is negative, unsourced BLP violating information. Corruption, by definition, is negative regardless of where in the world it is. Implying someone is corrupt, unsourced in a discussion or in an article violates Knowledge's policies, drop the stick. CUPIDICAE💕 15:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay --Jabbi (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement from original creator of article: I am content that there is consensus for deletion. I ask I be given a grace period to salvage information here which I will move unto Viktor Lukashenko. Thanks to everyone for particiaping. --Jabbi (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Digital evidence. Spartaz 13:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Video evidence

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

Per Knowledge is not a dictionary. This article is a definition with examples (and the source cited only mentions two of the examples). Magnolia677 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep stub just needs expansion; the concept passes WP:N with flying colors. fgnievinski (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:N says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if... It is not excluded under the What Knowledge is not policy". Magnolia677 (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:N also says: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry..." fgnievinski (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Delete: the articles in the "See also" section collectively cover just about anything that could possibly be added here. Maybe redirect, I don't know if this is really a likely search term though. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep Passess WP:GNG my search returns multiple secondary references. There are multiple incoming links. Looks like a stub that needs to be improved to me. Jeepday (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly valid law stub. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirect this is clearly a reasonable topic for an article, but none of the content is good. We have one sentence and a bunch of wiki-links; the "examples" listed are arbitrary and don't aid in understanding. Digital evidence better handles the topic now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:05, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to digital evidence for now, without prejudice to splitting out into a separate article if the amount of content justifies. I agree with power~enwiki, but more wordily, which is my wont. For now, there's just not enough in this article to justify a separate article. It's just a one-sentence unreferenced definition and an arbitrary list of examples. This would be better-suited as a paragraph in digital evidence, which would help to provide additional context. I recognize that historically, not all video evidence is digital; but the reality is that the vast majority of it today is, and furthermore the most significant evidentiary challenges arise in the digital realm. I have no doubt that the subject of video evidence itself is sufficiently notable to merit its own article if and when it's developed (the Google Scholar link above turns up a lot of articles devoted to the subject), but for now, that separate treatment is not justified; the reader is better served seeing its treatment in context than a one-liner. In the absence of a merge, though, keep is my backup !vote. TJRC (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@TJRC: your rationale seems to contradict your vote, as per WP:NEXIST. fgnievinski (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I can see how you might read it that way, so let me put it another way. Although an article could be written on this topic, and if such an article was written, it would be sufficiently notable to be retained, at present, it is essentially a mere WP:DICDEF. The fact that sources exist that could be used in an article does not mean that dicdefs should be retained, and I don't think WP:NEXIST says otherwise. TJRC (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Spartaz 13:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-Tech Belt

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

Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Comment: The article lists three sources:
1. 知识经济与区域经济. Dunfu Zhang (1 ed.). Beijing: China Light Industry Press. 2000. p. 141. ISBN 7-5019-2900-9. OCLC 48062776.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: others (link)
2. Proceedings of the 23rd international symposium on advancement of construction. Singapore: SPRINGER Verlag, SINGAPOR. 2020. p. 203. ISBN 978-981-15-3977-0. OCLC 1236132663.
3. http://www.most.gov.cn/fggw/zfwj/zfwj2001/200512/t20051214_55046.htm
Cunard (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A fourth source was added:
1. Geography and Society Office of People's Education Press (2001). Geography(4). Beijing: People's Education Press. p. 24. ISBN 7-107-14676-9. OCLC 70225744.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Cunard (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: The article creator, Seine River (talk · contribs) wrote in response to the AfD notification on User talk:Seine River:

Thank you for discussing. 1.The article introduces a region around China's capital Beijing, it already has a Chinese version in Knowledge so I think an English version will be needed. 2.It objectively introduces a economic region without any exaggeration and obey the Wiki term, Book and Document from the Government resources are already given to be further check. 3.If you want more explanation, please leave a message Seine River (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Seine River

talk

contribs

Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline

presumed

significant coverage

reliable sources

independent of the subject

Would you describe how the sources in the article provide significant coverage about the "Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-Tech Belt"? How many words or paragraphs do each of the sources spend on discussing the "Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-Tech Belt"? Are there any additional sources you can list that discuss the "Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-Tech Belt"? At least two sources that discuss the "Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-Tech Belt" in detail will be enough to establish notability per Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see my latest version, ①source 3 on page 24 says"京津石形成高新技术产业带"，mains Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang is growing into a Hi-Tech Industrial Belt in 2001(the year the book was published) ②Soure 4, The Document from China's Ministry of Technology, listed growing Hi-Tech areas in mainland China, aiming to give official support, also mentioned "京津石"(mains Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang in English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seine River (talk • contribs) 03:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Current redirect ↪ Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-Tech Industrial Belt

Logs: 2021-02 move to → Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-Tech Industrial Belt

Comment: I think it would be good to at least keep the content of this article somewhere in WP, maybe to be moved into a draft or to merge it into other articles, eg. Jing-Jin-Ji or Bohai Economic Rim. So, if the article will be more developed, it can be forked again as a stand-alone article. I can't judge whether or not he has the notability to stay separate, but I think the content doesn't deserve to be deleted permanently.--Anas1712 (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 06:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 06:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you, Seine River (talk · contribs), for your explanation and for adding another source. Would you discuss how many words or paragraphs each of the sources spend on discussing the "Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-Tech Belt"? If at least two sources each spend several paragraphs discussing the "Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-Tech Belt", that will be enough to establish notability per Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ! In source 3, the middle school geography book,it say the three areas(Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang, Shanghai-Nanjing-Hangzhou and the Pearl River Delta)lays in Eastern China, where near the sea, the economy is developing fast and so is the transportation condition, they have a good foundation of Industry, and both have big cities, which mains they are rich in well educated labors and first-class universities in the country, so they are developing into three Hi-tech industrial belt in China. Soure4,the government files published by Ministry of Technology in China, says Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Industrial Belt should be the center of BER Hi-tech Industrial area, Shanghai should be the center of the Yangtze river Delta and Shenzhen leads the Pearl river Delta, other cities like Wuhan , Chengdu and Xi'an could developed into Hi-tech center in the middle and western China. As a matter of fact, both of the two sources don't say much things based on Beijing- Tianjin -Shijiazhuang only, so what I do is to make a clear and credible explanation of the phrase.Also, as an important Industrial Area in China, the notion deserves to be known by much people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seine River (talk • contribs) 08:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC) See what I found ! See book ISBN 7-80656-671-6 on page 69, There is a whole paragraph to introduce Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-tech Industrial belt!I already added it into new version source No.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seine River (talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Seine River (talk · contribs), thank you for the explanation and for finding another source, one that discusses Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-tech Industrial Belt in an entire paragraph! Please continue to look for more sources, as that will strengthen the case for retaining the article. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the sources found by Seine River (talk · contribs). There is enough coverage about the Beijing-Tianjin-Shijiazhuang Hi-Tech Belt in the sources to justify covering it on Knowledge. No prejudice against a merge if the content fits better within a larger article. Cunard (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Add a book written by a famous professor in Tsinghua University, on source 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seine River (talk • contribs) 10:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I found two sources relating to the subject. You can find them on the "Zhongguancun" article, in the "Further reading" section. The first source is more interesting, because it is written in English, and related to Hi-Tech Zone Developpement in China. However, since I didn't know where to insert these references in this problematic article, I posted it in the older article, since they are good for the two at the same time.--Anas1712 (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 5 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. North America 18:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Chenab Valley People's Association

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

A non notable local organistaion without any significant coverage. Fails WP:ORGCRITE Kichu🐘 10:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 10:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 10:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 10:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per Kashmorwiki. -Cupper52 10:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

All Trap Music

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

Notability not established, potentially promotional & existing solely for brand exposure via SEO. Acousmana (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete--reads like WP:PROMO. No indication of notability. HĐ (talk) 08:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Their 2013 compilation album got some buzz, but the company itself has received very little notice as an entity in its own right, per company notability guidelines. The nominator is probably correct about the the promotional goals of this article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Unnotable record label. COI also applies, as this was the user's sole Knowledge activity (the edit he did in the Trap music article was that he added a link to their album). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Nominator's withdrawal comment: The article has now improved a lot after doing some required cleanup. I should have gone for the cleanup instead for nominating for AFD. Kichu🐘 13:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fairoz Khan

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

I could not find any signifact coverage about this politician. The subject has not been elected as a member in any legislative bodies and fails WP:GNG. The sources provided are mainly covering about the events or activities in which this person was involved with. I also doubt that the article has been written for promotional purpose on going throug the artcle in whole. Also please have a look at this edit by the creator and major contributor of this artcle . I have a detalied look on this articles edit history and found these edits by another major contributor. So its clear that this article is completely written for promotional purpose. Regards Kichu🐘 09:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 09:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 09:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 09:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable student leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. I accept the article is not perfect, but I have found plenty of references for it, and could quite easily find more on google. The subject is clearly notable as the national president of the student wing of the Indian National Congress.— TheWikiholic (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I had plenty of time before nominating this for AFD. So these are m findings. There may be plenty of references. But none of them is actually covering about the subject in depth. They are mainly about something just some other events and there is only mere mentioning about this person. Also being the president of a students wing of a party does not make some someone inherenty notable. And the article is clearly written for proomotional purpose. Kichu🐘 19:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NPOL as a student-politician. The coverage is not in-depth or significant enough to merit a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep notable as head of a national organisation representing 20 million people, subject of major sexual harassment scandal inside the INC, connected to the MeToo movement in India, multi-year coverage in RS. Passes NPOL and GNG...and consider WP:HEY, I did cleanup in spite of my mantra: AfD is not clean up. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like to withdraw the nomination: Now the article seems fine after necessary clean up. It does not seem promotional amd is written in neutral point of view. Thanks to Goldsztajn. Regards Kichu🐘 12:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Pittston Coal strike#Daughters of Mother Jones. Ritchie333 00:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Daughters of Mother Jones

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

Creates a fork from Pittston Coal strike where a section exists on this topic, of broadly similar scope and depth. If this was intended as a split, then it hasn't been discussed on, or tagged accordingly from, the said page. I therefore propose a merge, delete and redirect. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Pittston Coal strike#Daughters of Mother Jones, that section covers this topic better than the actual article, there is no need for a WP:SPLIT anyway. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect as above, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, the "notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page." Beccaynr (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge and redirect: This article is better sourced than the current section on Pittsburg Coal strike, and it would be a shame to lose any part of this text and its attribution. Mottezen (talk) 06:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 13:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Sweetaj Brar

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

Non notable singer with no evidence of passing WP:SINGER or WP:GNG. The references are announcement of her music release and cover the subject trivially. She has sung a song in Chhalaang and has received some coverage for the same. However, they lack sufficient depth to meet the criteria. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Draftify Chances are good that she will be notable soon enough. Put it in draft space and revisit if she becomes star. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Draftify or Delete per WP:TOOSOON. VocalIndia (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hannah Riordan

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

The subject doesn't meet the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:BIO as the only news articles about the subject mention her in passing. The subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSPORTS. She did not compete at the Olympic level, only at the junior level, which does not confer notability. Subject was a college athlete but does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. In summary, this person is an accomplished athlete but these accomplishments don't rise to the very high bar required for inclusion. The only coverage of this person seems to be WP:ROUTINE SwimproUSA (talk) 08:15, 5 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 5. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete there is a lack of the significant coverage needed to create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

THEO (fashion brand)

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

Notability tag for several years; seems promotional. -- Beland (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete, or possibly weak delete. The article is certainly promotional, but the large number of citations bears investigating. Upon investigation, the vast majority of them are just WP:ROUTINE coverage mentioning someone wore a design by the firm. Some of the earlier sources do have a little more text (often on Theo Dekan the person, rather than THEO the brand), but these are basically just interviews and extended quotes, and aren't independent. GNG not met, as there is no demonstration of significant and independent coverage. MarginalCost (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 05:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

About the Civilization of Death

AfDs for this article:

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

This book was nominated for deletion over a year ago with the argument: "The book fails WP:Notability (books). No reviews, no awards. This article's purpose seems to be a veiled attack at BLP subject Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. Most of the article focus is not even about a book but about a controversial interview/lecture by said subject". While the result of the past discussion was "keep", I note most keep votes, came from users now blocked as socks, two of which came from an editor who was indefinitely blocked for (among other transgressions) BLP violations against the book's author. This needs to be revisited due to socking in the past discussions, but besides, I fully agree with User:Piotrus who originally suggested this should be deleted - the book is simply not notable in light of the policies he cited back then. GizzyCatBella🍁 07:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GizzyCatBella🍁 07:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. All I said in my original nom still holds true (the article hasn't change since). This (pretty crappy) book fails WP:NBOOK and GNG. It had no reviews, and the little controversy it generated was about a presentation (author talk), which had the same title. The controversy lasted justs few media days and was forgotten quickly, so it also fails WP:NEVENT. A summary of this incident can and is already present in the biography of the author, there is no need for a spin-off article, which as noted, is little but an attack page created by a now-idenf banned editor (and his socks). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. KidAd • SPEAK 07:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz - The book itself does not appear to have been notable itself, as the coverage is largely about the controversial talk he gave while promoting it, rather than the actual book. This controversy is already covered on the main page of the author, and so this should merely redirect to that page. Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
*Redirect to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. If someone feels strongly that there is sourced content that could be merged and this would improve the target article, I have no objection. // Timothy :: talk 10:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Prathima Korada

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

The notability has not been demonstrated per WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the presented sources do not meet WP:RS. Not able to find anything substantial in Google searches either. Hitro talk 07:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: No coverage that I can find, let alone significant coverage, indicating a failure of BIO. Java Hurricane 07:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Have the standards fallen that far. scope_creep 17:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per above. Tucker Gladden 👑 23:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NSINGER and lacks WP:SIGCOV. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Devoke water 17:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. As always source analysis wins over hopefulness and non policy based arguments Spartaz 13:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Lizbeth Robles

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER (SPC with no significant decorations) and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. The first female Puerto Rican to die in Operation Iraqi Freedom (vehicle accident, not combat) is not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep - Being the first Puerto Rican female to die in combat while serving our country may not be notable for some, but it is notable for us Puerto Ricans. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

She didn't die in combat, she died in a vehicle accident. The page says "when they had an accident and the vehicle flipped over", so why did you revert my edit and restore the false claim that she died in combat? Mztourist (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep - Agree. Lots of officers have died in accidents -- General George S. Patton, etc. Lots of Iraq War accidents just from aircraft -- https://en.wikipedia.org/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_Iraq_War "A third of U.S. military injuries in Iraq, Afghanistan not from battle, Reuters ... about 34 percent of injuries were not sustained in battle. Injuries off the battlefield often involved motor vehicle crashes; other incidents involved operating machinery or playing sports..." Durindaljb (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So? What is your policy-based argument for keeping this page? There is a big difference between dying in combat and dying in a combat zone. Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep WP:SOLDIER is an unofficial essay which lacks consensus and so is not a valid reason to delete. It is easy to find sources for the subject such as this book which provides coverage prior to her untimely death, "Typical of the new recruits is Lizbeth Robles. Although not from Hartford , her story exemplifies that of many youth who are. A young Puerto Rican woman from a working-class family, Lizbeth was active in her church, did ..." This demonstrates that WP:BEFORE has not been followed, that the topic has potential per WP:NEXIST and so our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

As you keep making the same comment about SOLDIER I will keep making the same rebuttal, it is MilHist consensus until the discussion closes. Finding one passing reference does not prove that BEFORE hasn't been followed, I did see that in the Books search but didn't regard it as in any way significant. There isn't SIGCOV of her in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER now states "The notability guidance previously provided by the WP:SOLDIER essay has been deprecated as a result of this discussion. It is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people, and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project." Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes it has been deprecated since this AFD was opened, but it was never the sole basis of this AFD, which also referred to GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The subject passes WP:GNG as there is WP:SIGCOV as demonstrated. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Marine 69-71 on Frances M. Vega (died 2 November 2003) you claim that she was "the first female soldier of Puerto Rican descent to have died in a war zone" and here you claim that Robles (died 1 March 2005) was "the first Puerto Rican female soldier to die in combat" so which is it? Vega was on a helicopter that was shot down, which sounds a lot more like combat than Robles who died in a vehicle accident. Mztourist (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- I assume that "Puerto Rican descent" is different as Frances M. Vega was born in San Francisco, California, went to high school in Puerto Rico, and is buried in Puerto Rico. The article does not appear to describe her family. Durindaljb (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Mztourist you want to know the difference between both female soldiers? 1. SPC Frances M. Vega was born in San Francisco, California and was the first female soldier of Puerto Rican descent to die in a combat zone. A surface-to-air missile was fired by insurgents in Al Fallujah and it hit the U.S. transport helicopter (Chinook) which Vega was in. She was one of 16 soldiers who lost their lives in the crash that followed. 2. SPC Lizbeth Robles was born in Vega Baja, Puerto Rico and was the first female soldier born in Puerto Rico to die in the War on Terrorism. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Marine 69-71 so the difference is Puerto Rican descent vs born in Puerto Rico? That is about the most tenuous basis for a claim of notability I have ever seen. I realise that you want lots of pages about Puerto Rican "heroes" but this is too much. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That is your opinion. There is a difference since Puerto Ricans have a Puerto Rican citizenship and a limited American citizenship. That it is about the most tenuous basis for a claim of notability that you have ever seen, again that is your opinion. Yes, I have written about Puerto Rican heroes, because they deserve it and I for one am a proud Puerto Rican and American who wants the world to know that we, the Puerto Ricans, as a people have made positive contributions to our nation even it meant sacrificing our lives in doing so. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Which is fine if WP:GNG is met, but on too many of your pages it clearly isn't. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Redirect to Puerto Rican women in the military Pretty much every state/territory has a first man/woman killed in Iraq/Afghanistan/wherever, and this is not basis for notability. Sources are not adequate biographical coverage. Reywas92 20:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Redirect Support the redirect, not much notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment - According to Jorge Mariscal, writing for CounterPunch, "The story of Lizbeth Robles teaches us much about young women in today’s “volunteer” army," including because "Although women are not technically given combat arms occupations, assignments such as that of Robles account for many of the killed and wounded," and "Despite the harsh realities for women in the military, some like Lizbeth Robles decide to make the military their career."

Per WP:RSP, there is currently no consensus on if CounterPunch is a reliable source. TJMSmith (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Fails in my view to meet GNG. Similar to too many other poorly-sourced articles claiming notability for one very specific reason. Intothat darkness 02:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The book coverage is brief (few sentences). The Denver Post content (obituary) doesn't contain much biographic content. The other sources are primary or not reliable. The award/decoration section is currently unsourced. Where is the citation for the claim "first Puerto Rican female soldier to die in combat when she perished during Operation Iraqi Freedom"? TJMSmith (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Knowledge is not a memorial and this appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. I would support a redirect and mention in Puerto Rican women in the military if a little more reliable sourcing could be found. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep - has enough sourcing to warrant an article. Additionally, WP needs articles about woman and people of color, we should not be trying to delete this, especially with such grey-area technicalities as an excuse. - wolf 16:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment Just to be clear, had she not died, her career was ho-hum routine. I'm not sure her death makes it that much more important. Oaktree b (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG, specifically WP:SIGCOV - simply has not received enough coverage in secondary sources to pass our notability threshold. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep a notable soldier, similar to Nichola Goddard and María Inés Ortiz.--RZuo (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment And those look like more memorial pages as well. Intothat darkness 15:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep - I found more reliable sourcing and added to the article. She is a notable soldier with coverage in Reliable Sources.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was going to close but new sources added to article, and unhelpfully not listed here. Can we have some detailed source analysis here please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 06:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment The new sources look like more namechecks to me, not unlike what we've seen with other articles recently added to AFD. Nothing that, in my view, meets GNG or establishes notability. In short, nothing that would lead me to change my !vote. Intothat darkness 14:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment per Spartaz's comment in the relist, none of the new sources look to do anything other than list her name. I don't see any new WP:SIGCOV, the only SIGCOV that's been brought up in this conversation by anyone wanting to keep the article is Andrew Davidson's book source and even that is arguable. I am still a firm delete on GNG/NOTMEMORIAL grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Intothatdarkness and SportingFlyer, sources are namechecks only which add nothing, page still lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to pass GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: I think the first three sources mentioned can be considered together to meet BASIC (see below). Here is a source table.

Source	Evaluation
lko-Bauer, Barbara; Whiteford, Linda M.;…	Does mention the name and have some details. Giving this the benefit of the doubt it might be SIGCOV, but it is debatable. I added the page numbers to the reference (note: this equals about one paragraph worth of content. 13:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC))
lón Dávila, Javier. "APASIONADA DE LA MI…	El Nuevo Día is a significant news source and this does have non-trival coverage. I think people should look at this for possible SIGCOV
riscal, Jorge (January 24, 2006). "Bush'…	I think people should look at this for possible SIGCOV
zbeth Robles Obituary - (2005) - Vega Ba…	This is an obit. No idea who wrote it, it is a source for basic facts, but since the author is unknown it is unknown if it is IS
mp up to:a b "The Fallen: 2005". The New…	List of fallen soldiers; database style information
llen Heroes Memorial…	Memorial site, Not SIGCOV, unknown editorial oversight
orces: U.S. & Coalition/Casualties - Spe…	List of fallen soldiers; database style information
War's realities hit home again". The Den…	Brief coverage in DENVER POST. Not SIGCOV by itself
ang, Hyoung (March 29, 2005). "FORT CARS…	Getty images, not SIGCOV
MVEE CRASH KILLS SOLDIER WITH FLORIDA TI…	Article about the solder she died with, mentions her name. I updated the link to newspapers.com since the orginal was just to the site and the article wasn't archived.
rkan, Ross (2005-10-18). "2,000 Troops D…	Memorial listing, no SIGCOV
BC News Honors U.S. Casualties". ABC New…	Memorial listing, no SIGCOV
S. Casualties Announced By The Dept. of…	Memorial listing, no SIGCOV
peration Iraqi Freedom". Valor Run. 2001…	Memorial listing, no SIGCOV
erto Rico National Cemetery - Bayamón". …	Memorial listing, no SIGCOV
hemical Regiment remembers fallen with O…	Name listed in article about monument dedication ceremony

The second source profiled over sixty different fallen Puerto Rican soldiers. It's honestly very sad - I read several of them - but I don't see it lending itself to notability. The third source accepts reader submitted articles so has self publication issues. I cannot access the first source apart from the index, but we're still clearly short of WP:GNG as your table shows. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Reply: SportingFlyer, its borderline on sources, the author of the third piece is a Professor of Literature and Chicano Studies at UC San Diego, so I think it carries weight. I don't see why the number of articles written by the second source impacts the source for this subject. I found the first source (can't post it), its borderline, the weakest of the three. You are right the rest are just to puff up the article. // Timothy :: talk 20:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: My issue with the second article is that's not discriminate about who it was covering. If she were the only person featured it'd be a very strong source, otherwise it would make ~60 people borderline notable. The third one probably isn't unreliable but it doesn't make it not self-published, especially since it looks like the author cross-posted the link on their blog. It's not enough for me to think this is worth keeping. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue thanks, but your table clearly shows that there isn't SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy GNG. Mztourist (talk)

Switch to Delete: Mztourist and SportingFlyer are more right than wrong about the sources, I made the best argument I could (which I knew was a weak one, from my own comments) and returned to see if I had convinced anyone. I thought a rename could deal with WP:BIO1E issue but without the sources, it cannot be overcome. So based on a lack of SIGCOV and 1E, I'll switch to Delete. The keep votes haven't provided anything based in sources and guidelines to work with (other than what I have in the source table above) and don't address the 1E problem. Note to closer: let me know if you'd like me to count the words from the first source (book).

If there is a consensus on a redirect target, I would support a redirect. (comment added 13:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)) // Timothy :: talk 13:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep despite the argument about sources above, cannot see why to delete ratheer than per Andrew rather than improve per wolf due to the notability of her death in combat service, her race, gender make combined case of GNG, cited in them all per The Eloquent Peasant . Alternative the article could be renamed 'the death of Lizbeth Robles' per Tony the Marine and discuss issue of accident versus combat, find sources for decorations. Kaybeesquared (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Considering race and gender in any way as a factor to ignore notability guidelines and lack of sourcingc is by far the worst suggestion I've heard at AfD. // Timothy :: talk 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I voted Keep in the first round and my vote is still keep. I think it's important to keep the article as she was the first Puerto Rican woman to die in a war zone and the Connecticut General Assembly used her in the context of Hispanic-Americans fighting for the US. I added another "new" cite, that she's mentioned when considering the loss of life by Hispanic-American soldiers... "In 2007, the Connecticut General Assembly was reminded that Robles was the first Puerto Rican woman to die in a war zone because "According to the Pew Hispanic Center, while Latinos make up 9.5% of the actively enlisted forces, they are over represented in the categories that get the most dangerous assignments, infantry, gun crews, and seamanship, and make up over 17.5% of the front lines." I added sources that I thought would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Eloquent Peasant (talk • contribs) 01:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The Eloquent Peasant, IMO, it makes sense to mention Robles and possibly create a redirect to the Military history of Puerto Rico and/or Hispanic and Latino Americans#Military. I haven't seen the in-depth or sustained coverage of Robles I would expect to meet notability requirements for an independent article. I still think this looks like a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. TJMSmith (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: If there is a consensus on a redirect target, I would support a redirect. I've added this to my above !vote. // Timothy :: talk 13:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete lack of military impact and reliable sources Bumbubookworm (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Mariscal, Jorge (January 24, 2006). "Bush's War Viewed from the South". CounterPunch. Retrieved 21 February 2021.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Voices_of_the_Puerto_Rican_Middle_Class/P6enDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=ISBN+ISBN+9781480967199&pg=PP3&printsec=frontcover
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/vadata/chr/2007VA-00213-R001100-CHR.htm

The result was speedy delete G5. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Miroslav Milovic

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 06:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy delete per G5. I blocked the creator as a sock Sro23 (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand. Spartaz 13:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Not A Party

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete This page was created by Richard Goode, founder of the party, as a self-promotional exercise. This page fails to demonstrate notability. Nexus000 (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep, New Zealand has a history of joke political parties in recent decades, see Category:Joke political parties in New Zealand, and this one has lasted for two general elections and increased its number of candidates.-gadfium 02:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. KidAd talk 03:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Keep: The test for notability (at its simplest) is that there is independent, significant coverage. Most sources in the article are non-independent (from the subject of the article) or are not significant (passing mentions only such as election results). The only two possible signs of notability are the two Stuff articles. However, these only provide scant details about the party. For example, a commenter above described them as a "joke political party", but there isn't even enough information in the articles to determine if that's true, or if the people involved actually take their beliefs seriously. Without significant coverage, this subject doesn't meet the notability requirements. (A side note: the fact that the article was created by a person with a conflict of interest isn't relevant to whether it should be deleted.) HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Editor IdiotSavant has added a number of new citations, including these three articles. One article is solely devoted to an NAP candidate. I would be comfortable considering these articles to be "significant coverage", and I would ask other editors who voted delete to say if (and why) they feel these three articles do not constitute significant coverage. HenryCrun15 (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete This article easily fails the WP:Noteworthy test and the editor probably also violates WP:COI as well. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐ 18:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Unlike our other joke parties this one failed to get significant media attention, was never registered, and failed to be funny. ~~Only reliable reference is one sentence in an article that mentions everyone who managed to fill in a candidacy form for a by-election.~~ -- haminoon (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Striking last sentence based on Idiot Savant's edits. -- haminoon (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep Five candidates in an election is significant for an unregistered party in NZ, as is lasting for more than one electoral cycle. I've gone through the references, eliminated a lot of the self-sourcing and found media references to replace them. --IdiotSavant (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete as lacking proper coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment Even with recent edits, still support deletion. Nexus000 (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment One of the problems with articles on tiny unregistered political parties with so few references is the lack of independent analysis, which leads to us relying on the party's self-description. This is a major problem here as members of the public who have turned up to local candidate debates have witnessed NAP candidates advocating far-right policies and sounding off with barrages of racial slurs. Their website is made by people with Nazi-like usernames such as "FÜHRER", and contains calls for competing candidates to be euthanised amongst alt-right-style anti-Muslim misinformation. -- haminoon (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment I'm confused. It says here "After seven days, links to discussions are automatically moved from Knowledge:Articles for deletion#Current discussions to the below section Old discussions." This conversation started at 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC), it is now 05:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC). This is 8 days, 3 hours, 42 minutes. Nexus000 (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussions need to last seven days, but it still needs an administrator to review the discussion and make a final decision. Since there are only so many administrators, there can be a backlog. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need a but more input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 06:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment This discussion has had 5 delete, 2 keep, 1 weak keep. It might seem unclear and messy when you first read this discussion, but when you count the responses it appears to have a clear consensus. Nexus000 (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional comment Now 7 delete, 3 keep, 1 weak keep. Nexus000 (talk) 07:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep While this discussion has already had 5 delete and now 4 keep entries, that is not a concensus. This is one of those situations where we risk introducing political bias into Knowledge by omitting a legitimate and notable viewpoint. Keeping or deleting an article should be an objective process, not one that is based on ones own (perhaps unconscious) political bias. Notability is permanent and independent of noteworthy article content. These people have stood multiple candidates in 3 by-elections, a local election, 2 general elections (in 5 electorates in 2020) and their candidates have achieved over 2000 votes in the process. In the next election, voters are going to ask who are these people and what is their history, and, if we delete this one, somebody is going to write a new Knowledge article, and we will go through this process all over again. I think it is far better to keep this existing article that we know than debate about a new article that we don't. Also, given the likelihood of this article being resurrected by the next election, I don't think deletion is the best solution in any case. Retaining this article has other benefits, like providing an excuse to not to have separate biography articles for each person who stands as a candidate for office. Anybody who stands for political office is already halfway notable in any case. Because its politics, I think we need far more than 9 people to achieve a consensus that everyone can agree upon. Please remember this is a consensus debate, and that means an overall agreement, not just a majority vote should decide. As to the article's importance or quality, that is a very different story that should not be a factor in a deletion debate. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment NAP is not a legitimate and notable viewpoint. If you look at the talk page, we have trouble even figuring out what their beliefs are and can barely find references covering it, or find any references covering the party at all.
I strongly doubt this article will be revived if it is deleted. They hardly have any media coverage, most of which are trivial mentions, and likely won't in the future. They also don't appear to make any attempt to promote themselves at all.
The total number of votes all candidates have gotten does not demonstrate significance. The lowest votes a candidate has gotten is 5 votes (0.11% of the vote) and the highest is 112 votes (0.29% of the vote), both of which are very low. I believe barely anyone will ask themselves who NAP are, let alone know it exists. If people were asking who they were, naturally news outlets would notice and NAP would also be getting press coverage, but they aren't.
I don't think this is a decision on political bias. People are assessing it based on WP:GNG, as we should, which it clearly fails to meet. Nexus000 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment in reply If NAP does not hold a legitimate and notable viewpoint then we would have 100% voter turnout in all our elections. Not holding or expressing a viewpoint is a viewpoint and it is notable because a lot of people, perhaps 20% to 50% of the electorate hold it, so don't vote. We don't know why these people don't vote but we know they hold that sort of viewpoint because their votes are missing. this is a Known Unknown. In some respects, NAP are an oxymoron, a political party that is trying not to be one and standing for election in the hope that no-one will vote for them or anybody else. The fact they have set up a website to apparently publicise their cause suggests they are not being as true to the cause as they claim. They are apparently been successful because they have such a low number of votes. Arguing that a low number of votes and lack of media engagement means these people are not notable is displaying a political assumption that you must vote and be reported in the media to be counted. Yet about a quarter of the electorate, in recent times, has not bothered to vote in elections. NAP claim success by not receiving votes, so perhaps everyone who did vote for them misunderstood their claimed lack of policies (aside from the implied one about not wanting to be elected). The fact these people stood in an election makes them halfway notable, the fact they have stood in several seals the deal, they are notable in my view. What they stand for and how many votes they get provides for interesting content as does their website and what limited media reports we have of them not participating in democracy and while that is their right, I don't see Knowledge has the right delete the article about them just because they don't play the game like other people do. While a lack of media coverage makes them harder to produce a good Knowledge article, I think these people are going to continue to stand in elections and only become more notable as a result, in the future. I am happy for this article to be redirected or merged into some other article about New Zealand politics or election results but I don't believe the stand-alone page should be simply be deleted because that would be as if the party never existed. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment in reply We're going to go in circles if we keep going, but I will say this. You used over 2000 candidate votes overall as an argument for its notability, so I demonstrated why that doesn't mean anything. If we do follow their objective of not getting votes, then we need to use significant media coverage (which is more important) to determine if they are notable, which they fail at.
NAP has ran in 12 elections total and as it stands fails to pass basic WP:GNG, so I'm not convinced they will become notable in the future. The possibility of a subject becoming notable in the future is also a weak argument to keep a page as it is.
I believe this party is so irrelevant it hardly exists, but if someone feels passionate about maintaining it on Knowledge, they are welcome to create a section on NAP on a relevant page. This page is the most relevant I could find. But as it stands, it is barely covered by reliable media, is barely known by people, has failed to reach the members needed to register as a New Zealand party, and does not meet the standards of WP:GNG for having its own page. Nexus000 (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I don't consider the coverage in reliable independent sources to be significant enough. Nurg (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand where it is already listed. Article sources are mentions or are not about the party but about unelected candidates from the party and contain brief mentions, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. They do not appear to have any elected candidates and do not appear to impact New Zealand politics in any notable way. This might be TOOSOON but CRYSTAL; the redirect can be converted back into an article if they being to receive SIGCOV and the content will be preserved in the history. // Timothy :: talk 10:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ritchie333 00:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Priscilla Lord

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Unsuccessful candidate for U.S. Senate; per NPOL, simply being an unelected candidate for political office does not automatically confer notability. None of her other roles in life—teacher, real estate investor, city councillor, attorney—have garnered significant coverage either. She comes from a politically active family (see Miles and Jim), but notability is not inherited, of course. DanCherek (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete an unelected candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:NPOL, not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not notable either in law or politics. BD2412 T 18:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep I've added some national and state press coverage about her role as Al Franken's "most visible Democratic rival" (NYT/AP) (NPR) in the 2008 primary campaign, including after she lost (Star Tribune) (MPR News), which supports WP:NPOL notability and appears to demonstrate more than WP:BLP1E due to the significance of the event and the documentation of her role. Due to other non-campaign news coverage after the campaign 1 (2015), 2 (2010), and an opinion article in the Star Tribune, 3 (2014), she also has not remained completely WP:LOWPROFILE. Beccaynr (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC) (comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC))
- The bit about her ad being repurposed by Coleman could be added to 2008 United States Senate election in Minnesota. The rest is run of the mill coverage of Senate primary candidate. BD2412 T 23:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Her reported impact on the general election (including the commentary), as well as the national news coverage is what makes this seem not WP:COOKIECUTTER and more than WP:ROUTINE coverage. I did look at other articles to consider whether merger might be feasible, but neither the election article nor Franken's article seem to have a place for her distinctive role. Only adding the bit about her ad being repurposed would lack key context without her article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Political candidates are going to get media coverage during the campaign, but that does not constitute WP:NOTEABLE in and of itself. Failed political candidates are not notable simply because they were in a campaign. There’s nothing else notable here. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. People do not get Knowledge articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win — and Goth4prosper is correct that the existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself a "GNG"-based exemption from having to pass WP:NPOL, because every candidate in every election always gets some campaign coverage literally by definition. So the notability test that a candidate has to pass is not "does some campaign coverage exist": it is "does a reason exist why her candidacy should be seen as uniquely significant, in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance", but that hasn't been shown here. GNG does not just count the footnotes and keep everyone who happens to surpass an arbitrary number: it tests the sources for the context of what they're covering the person for, and discounts some types of coverage as much less notability-making than some other types of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment The reason why the national news coverage and commentary stood out to me is because the context (MPR, 2008) passes the 'ten year test', e.g. The Case of Al Franken (New Yorker, 2019), The Real Story About The Allegations Against Al Franken (HuffPo, 2019) Beccaynr (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That's more about Franken, to be honest. SportingFlyer T·C 00:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that she happened to run against Al Franken, a decade before the allegations that forced him to resign, doesn't make her enduringly notable. Literally by definition, every candidate who loses every election always lost it to the person who won it — so the fact that she ran against Al Franken doesn't inherently make her more notable than the people who ran against Dianne Feinstein or Claire McCaskill or Roy Blunt or Susan Collins or Cory Booker or Jeff Flake or Thom Tillis. If she had been a key figure in the allegations that led to Franken's resignation, then she might be notable on those grounds — but these sources don't show that, since neither the New Yorker nor HuffPo sources even mention her name at all — but no, she doesn't pass the ten year test just because he resigned ten years after beating her in a primary, if she isn't directly involved in the reasons why he had to resign. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

From my view, the connection is that there was national and statewide commentary during the primary and general election due to her highlighting concerns about Franken that about ten years later, had a major political impact, even without her direct involvement. Her role seems more distinct than the typical losing primary candidate, not just because of her reported impact in the general election and national news coverage, but also due to what eventually happened after she made it a notable theme of her campaign. Beccaynr (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If the post-resignation sources don't explicitly state that Priscilla Lord played a meaningful role in Al Franken's resignation (which they clearly don't, because none of them even contain the words "Priscilla Lord" at all), but instead you have to combine the sourcing for what she said about him in 2008 with the sourcing for what happened in 2018 to infer a connection between the two things that the sources haven't already placed on the record for you, then what you're doing runs afoul of our rule against synthesizing sources to reach original research conclusions. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:10YT is described as a "thought experiment," e.g. "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?", and there does not appear to be any requirement for Lord to be directly involved with Franken's eventual resignation - it's just that her role still appears relevant after a primary and general election campaign that also had national and statewide coverage and commentary. I don't necessarily think it is OR or synthesis to suggest that Lord still appears to be relevant due to what eventually happened to Franken's career, e.g. "Not all the people of Minnesota have been taken by surprise by the events of the past three weeks, however. During the election campaign Republicans attempted to turn his old jokes against him, but in vain. The Democrat squeaked home by 312 votes after an eight-month legal battle." (Guardian, 2017) If the thought experiment is about 'relevance,' then there appears to be a basis to suggest that there is relevant encyclopedic content available that supports keeping the article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak delete per NPOL, WP:NOTINHERITED, and my standards for lawyers (see User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability). I say weak because I'm still of the minority opinion that Senate candidates are notable. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an unsuccessful primary candidate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Noting that CSD G5: Creations by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, applies here also. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Berners-Lee writings

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

Unnecessary and unhelpful dab page: not a standard form of title, so an editor creating an article for another writer of same surname would not think to add an entry here. There is already a Berners-Lee surname page which navigates to the three name-holders for whom we have articles. (My understanding had been that disambiguation pages were discussed at MfD rather than AfD, but a nomination there was correctly closed as "wrong venue".) PamD 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete their father was also published, so a redirect to Berners-Lee might be OK as redirects are cheap, but there is no need for this page. It is not a likley search term. Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Boleyn:where is the statistical evidence though to prove the search term "is not likely"? I can't agree (or disagree) with someones opinion when the subject is computer science (using scientific evidence for decision-making), decisions based on opinion isn't science i am uniquepw (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @PamD: I feel a dopamine disorder forming seeing your username again...I'm sure your criticisms aren't true:
  - "an editor creating an article for another writer of same surname would not think to add an entry here." is this a reason for deletion?
  - "There is already a Berners-Lee surname page which navigates to the three name-holders for whom we have articles" the links at the disambiguation are to sub-sections of the articles, which isn't the same as Berners-Lee
  - i am uniquepw (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
    - To digress — @Uniquepw: is "I feel a dopamine disorder forming seeing your username again" a joke I don't get, or a personal attack on @PamD:? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
      - @Shhhnotsoloud: no it wasn't an attack on PamD, more of an observation of the actual effect of PamD being a cause of some misery for me, by (i) PamD's being in contrary to the redirect as a cause of (ii), (ii) the dopamine system is the reward circuit of the brain, and PamD's response isn't very rewarding considering I was feeling the need to reward myself (pleased with myself) to have created the redirect (iii) PamD's username is a part anagram of D(o)Pam(ine) (which caused my mind to perceive a connexion (c.f. (i) & (ii)) (iiii) I feel really sure the redirect is correct, and seeing PamD's criticisms, I think I refuted PamD's criticisms adequately (q.v. chutzpah "..confidence or courage that allows someone to do or say things that may seem shocking to others.." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chutzpa) - I don't hate PamD at all, and every contribution editor to editor surely must have value, whether critical or supportive (the former being a help in redirection to a better outcome, or a learning experience to improve one's own abilities) Uniquepw (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC) 1 minor change after signature Uniquepw (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
        I don't regard this as an acceptable explanation but I note that Uniquepw has now been indefinitely blocked as a sock. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as a duplicate of Berners-Lee. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. There is nothing here that isn't at the Berners-Lee. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Coolabahapple and Shhhnotsoloud: you're both wrong to think that, neither of you must have looked at where the links arrive at i.e. Berners-Lee writings isn't a duplicate, Berners-Lee is as the definition shows a list of names which contains links to individuals, i.e. the links arrive at the head of the pages. This would be for people who want to know about the individuals firstly. Berners-Lee writings had links which arrive at the works of the people, which is for people who want only to know about the thoughts, influence, importance of the people i.e. their work . writings. Synopsis: the two are different for different reader needs or wants Uniquepw (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment. User:Uniquepw, creator of the subject page, is now blocked as a sock. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as a duplicate of Berners-Lee. // Timothy :: talk 16:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

JobScheduler

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

Sourced exclusively with WP:PRIMARY. No hint of notability anywhere. Mottezen (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete — Not notable, written like an advertisement. — csc 06:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete – 100% primary sourcing. The main contributor, User:A-Amos, freely admits to having been tasked by the developer with sprucing up the article. My search on Google news was also not promising. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 06:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Fox (businessman)

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

Not notable. Founder of several small businesses that aren't noteworthy, and the article is overly promotional. Stonkaments (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Stonkaments (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Resumé/vanity spam about a business who fails BIO. Java Hurricane 07:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Strong delete - The creator of the page has done nothing outside creating the page, meaning that it's a likely vanity article. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Whether it was created by COI or not, this person is notable and has some major publication coverage such as this NY Post Article. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I'm sure he has a LinkedIn profile to host this content. KidAd • SPEAK 21:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Mohammad Asrar Rehbar

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior fully-professional appearances.PROD was removed by an IP without proper explanation Kichu🐘 04:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 04:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 04:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 04:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete:fails WP:NFOOTBALL.Poppified 08:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG, as well as our current WP:NFOOTY (this league is being discussed at WT:FPL. Nevertheless, GNG is most important. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, looks like WP:TOOSOON. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or 20:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep The I-League 2nd Division in which the player plays is clearly a fully professional league according to WikiProject Football/fully professinal league guidlines, which makes the player notable according to the general notability guidlines. The same is also being discussed at WT:FPL 106.51.104.209 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It is being discussed at WT:FPL, but there is definitely not a consensus that this league is FPL. And it is not "clearly an FPL" if you actually read that discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - the coverage is not significant enough to pass WP:GNG. End of. Spiderone 12:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Delete - G5. Author of the article is global blocked. Michael Greiner 04:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Mohsen Avid

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

Non-notable rapper, all sources given are directory entries or promotional pieces. ... discospinster _talk 03:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 03:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 03:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeff Anderson (politician)

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

City councilor obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 02:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete fails notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Easily fails notability guidelines for WP:BLP. Definitely not noteworthy. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Mottezen (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Duluth is not a global city for the purposes of securing the "inherent" notability of its city councillors, so his only legitimate basis for inclusion in Knowledge would be to show that has a significantly higher national profile, and a significant volume of nationalized sourcing, to demonstrate that he's much more significant than most other city councillors. But having stood as a candidate in a national election that he didn't win doesn't accomplish that, and the depth of sourcing just isn't there to deem him a special case. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Coming to America (film series)

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

It is completely unnecessary for there to be a film series article just because one film got a sequel. To quote from the AfD for A Quiet Place (film series), "such articles are simply consolidations of details from individual film articles. With two films, when comparing details, a reader can go from one article to another easily. With three films, a reader can go from an individual film's article to the film series article to readily see how all three films compare. For a similar comparison, per MOS:FILM#Navigation, we don't have director navboxes if there are only two films because there's no need for that bird's-eye view if there is only one other topic." The relevance of the TV pilot is also exaggerated since it was an unsold pilot. We do not need to set a precedent for having a "film series" article for every film and its sequel. Erik (talk | contrib) 02:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Two films do not make a series. Everything at that article is redundant to the individual film articles. MarnetteD|Talk 04:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete I agree with the above, no real point to this article, just because a film has a sequel doesn't mean it's a film franchise. MJ9674 (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete I agree with removal, unless, it can be shown that the series includes more than the two films and one pilot. In particular, Murphy's comment regarding a future to the series indicates this is where it will end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASuperEditor (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete, per all of the above. No need for a separate series article. Robofish (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete — clear overkill here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Per all of the above. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Per all of the above as its purely overkill. Kaizenify (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Just because a film has a duology, doesn't mean it warrants a film series article when all the film series information is already clearly presented and written in both of the separate articles. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Mis Favoritas

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability tag on article for 2 years. -- Beland (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose simply because a tag being on an article means not much. Does it or does it not have sources in books? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Mis Favoritas is a Latin music compilation album series by Sony Music initiated in 2010 and issued in the US and in Colombia. Some of the albums in the series charted on the main Latin album charts, for example the Mis Favoritas compilation for Gilberto Santa Rosa became the artist's 25th charting album. ---- if some of the albums in the series charted, and the series has book sources because of this, I would have thought that means the notable albums in the series carry the whole series. We don't want to fork them out do we? To what end? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Discogs isn't a reliable source. A few individual albums charting are indications those specific releases might be notable. Other record label comp series releases such as The Essential, Playlist, and 20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection have been deleted or redirected in AfD. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 23:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete--Discogs is not reliable. No point in an unnotable compilation. If expanded it can be easily considered WP:CFORK. HĐ (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - This article is about the entire series, and that series has not received reliable and significant coverage as an entity in its own right. There is some minor media notice for some of the particular albums in the series, and if those charted and received pro reviews, they can be developed into precise album articles if anyone volunteers to do so. In turn, those specific albums can be described as coming from this series, but the series is not notable in itself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Treehouse Hostage

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES; its only source is IMDb, which is unreliable. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I withdraw this nomination thanks to User:ReaderofthePack's WP:HEY improvements on the article. Good work, ReaderofthePack. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. No opinion on whether we should try again with new text and sources but there is clear consensus that this isn’t it and heck we don’t even know if this is a fraud or not. Spartaz 13:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Dick Sheppard (stuntman)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dick Sheppard (stuntman)

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

I cannot locate this man on IMDB as a stuntman at all, so to me he fails GNG. Rusted AutoParts 01:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. SoyokoAnis - talk 02:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. He's ~~not in IMDb as himself, and~~ isn't credited in either version of The Italian Job (which each list a large number of stuntpeople) or Diamonds Are Forever, as claimed in the two obituaries (the only sources; I couldn't find anything else). This is very, very hard to do/suspicious. Heck, this Richard Shepperd got into IMDb just for being thanked in a video short. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Undecided, leaning toward keep, with major cleanup. He may have been a fraud, but a notable one with many obituaries. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep At Knowledge IMDB is seen as not a reliable source, so on basis of that website an article can’t be deleted. It’s about meeting WP:GNG; coverage in independent reliable sources. The death of the stuntman is in main news sources all over the world. Yes, that’s only shortly about his death, but it says a lot that it is worldwide in the news. Besides of that, there can be found coverage about him; also before his death, for example the BBC made a long interview with him, see here. So meeting GNG. Also an autobiography has been written see here. SportsOlympic (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

My point with DB is that in all the 500 films he’s purported to have done, he’s not credited in any of them and not even marked as uncredited on their pages. Rusted AutoParts 10:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

At least he can be found here. But still, he is in many secondary sources for being a stuntman, so meeting GNG. If there is any ambiguity, the text can always be adjusted.

Okay but that’s one credit. The sources are claiming he participated in two Bond films and the original Italian Job yet he only has one official credit. The stuntman aspect of his career doesn’t seem to be notable at all. Rusted AutoParts 12:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

One credit at IMDB; an unreliable source. And note the sources state he “worked on” the stunts in those films. Not “performing” the stunts. (Might be the reason he is not at IMDB). SportsOlympic (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

My point about IMDB is not squashed though. If there’s gonna be a claim he did all these movies and he wasn’t notable enough for credit, then how exactly do we claim he was a stuntman for the movies? Being in articles from regional press prior to death and then some outlets after his death does not immediately equate notability. His stuntman career isn’t that notable, not every stuntman is notable anyway. Not every Guinness record holder has a page. So I do not see the notability. Rusted AutoParts 20:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

IMDb gives him four whole "uncredits", three as a stunt driver. That's a far cry from the claimed 500 films (what as, a caterer or delivery boy?). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

He had several times an multiple hours BBC interview example 1, example 2. Was in an ITV television show see here. Was also in foreign television shows example here. Was named as an important person in many sources, example 3, example 4, example 5. If that is not enough for meeting WP:GNG... SportsOlympic (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't WP:Bludgeon. Rusted AutoParts 14:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment I've never heard of him, but I've found some some sources that imply notabilty and suggest he was a notable/well known person in the UK. For example, The Sun calls him "stunt legend" 1, The Gloucester Citizen called him a "well-known daredevil" 2 and The Daily Western Press did this article on him in 2015. 3 I think it is fair to argue he meets the GNG. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment. He may be a fake, which ironically would make him notable. He's supposedly been in The Guinness Book of World Records for a long time, but he's definitely not in the latest one, and Vic Armstrong claims, also in Guinness, to be the world's most prolific stunt double. Armstrong's credits in IMDb, as both stunt double and coordinator, number only 121, far less than Sheppard's claimed 500. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
keep The recent obituaries suggest notability. According to reports in the British Newspaper Archive in the 1960s he was a member of a Gloucester stunt motorcyclist group the Motocyclons. There are appearances in multiple editions of the Guinness Book of Records, eg 1998 "In a career lasting 40 years until his retirement in 1993, stuntman Dick Sheppard of Gloucester, England wrecked 2,003 cars." Piecesofuk (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Draftify - He may well be notable, but the article as it stands is dreadful and not fit for article space. Deb (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

*Keep per BBC coverage and reasons given by Piecesofuk and SportsOlympic. -- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)strike !vote of sock, see Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/FlyboyExeter. Onel5969 12:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Jon Hess (director)

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

Fails WP:BASIC; I found little to no coverage about Hess. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete we need to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom and as above per JPL. Kolma8 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
~~Delete~~: per above.-- Alcremie (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Withdraw ticket.--Alcremie (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete does not meet notability guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Watchers was based on the 1987 novel Watchers by Dean R. Koontz. It's apparently a pretty awful adaptation but is a known cult 80's movie with legit reviews. He's also directed a bunch of B movies and was also a co-producer on American History X.

Some sources from a very quick search:

https://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3644244/examining-weird-world-dean-koontz-adaptations/

https://www.slashfilm.com/alligator-ii-review/

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2020-01-03/modern-props-closes-its-doors

https://videoandfilmmaker.com/wp/index.php/news/american-history-x-producer-jon-hess-shooting-new-film-blackmagic-cinema-camera/

~~-- HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)~~strike !vote of sock, see Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/FlyboyExeter. Onel5969 12:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ as I've found sources that have him meeting creative professional criteria (specifically WP:CREATIVE #3). DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Striking vote. Surprised at how little there is about him--mostly entries in crew list--across the board. I still think he meets notability, but what's the point if there isn't even criticism of his contributions? --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: wp:Creative is an additional criteria. See WP:NBIO#Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria. For merging, there does not seem to have wp:verifiable and useful information to be merged. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity} 12:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 01:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Peter Abraam

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Aleks Taleski

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. This is good, but on its own is not enough. Giant Snowman 12:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hennie Kenkhuis

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

Delete recently deceased alderman in a city of about 130,000 but very little notable about him. Fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep. There is sufficient coverage for the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Alderman fails WP:NPOL. WP:POLOUTCOMES states that "Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." When doing a Nexis Uni search (which includes all major Dutch news publications), most results are from the local paper, De Stentor, which is to be expected for a local politician. Looking at national newspapers, he was never mentioned by De Volkskrant, got three passing mentions in Trouw, and received one passing mention in both the Reformatorisch Dagblad and NRC Handelsblad. Passing mentions do not count towards WP:GNG. The obituary by De Stentor was also published on the website of its owner Algemeen Dagblad (but not in the newspaper), meaning I have found one source that counts towards GNG. More are needed. I would like to hear the significant coverage that gidonb has found. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The other articles with SIGCOV were also in De Stentor. gidonb (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete coverage is not broad enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Zwolle is not a global city for the purposes of securing the "inherent" notability of its city councillors under WP:NPOL, so the notability test he would have to pass to earn inclusion in Knowledge is not just to write that "person is a city councillor who existed and then died, the end" — it would require writing a long, very well-sourced and very substantial article about his political importance, centring on specific things he did in the job, concrete and quantifiable effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. Just having an obituary in the local newspaper upon his death is not, in and of itself, enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment. I'm not going to reference this one (too time-consuming) but do want to note that the discussion here concentrates on Kenkhuis's earlier position as a council member (2000–2006). His fame is clearly NOT associated with being councilor but with his 2007–2010 position of "wethouder", the equivalent of deputy mayor. With the mayor, a wethouder is a member of the city executive, not of the council. Later he was the chairman of the Zwolle Municipal Museum, among others. gidonb (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- An alderman is not exactly a deputy mayor (or locoburgemeester in Dutch), as there are multiple at the same time. It is more like a cabinet member of the municipality (that cabinet is led by the mayor). Zwolle might possibly be large enough for mayors to get an article, but not for aldermen with only local coverage. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  - A locoburgemeester is a vice-mayor, usually the wethouder who is the regular replacement for the mayor when they are away. The translation alderman for wethouder is confusing because an alderman is most commonly an elected member of the municipal council. A wethouder is NOT a member of the municipal council and is NOT popularly elected. Wethouders are part of the same body as the mayors in NL, the College van B&W. gidonb (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  - For example, Uithoorn. The mayor and his three deputies, ranked in the order that the deputies replace the mayor in their capacity of vice mayors. The council members belong in another body and are elected in general elections on party lists. gidonb (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- Deputy mayor still isn't an "inherently" notable role that would guarantee him a spot in Knowledge. It's still a local office, which may be more important within Zwolle but doesn't make him any more important or famous to the rest of the world — so even at that level, the notability test still isn't "he existed as an officeholder", and still faces the same burden of sourcing and substance as a regular city councillor. Even actual mayor mayors aren't guaranteed inclusion in Knowledge in the absence of a genuinely substantial and well-sourced article that properly contextualizes their significance, let alone their deputies. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
  - This train of thought is certainly defendable and relates to the reason I concentrated on the WP:GNG in my own opinion upfront. gidonb (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Nowlin

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

Notability tag has been on the article for several years. -- Beland (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment The article has 53 sources. @Beland:, are you saying no combination of these sources is adequate for GNG? There are a few GBooks sources as well, for example this. He also seems to be widely recognized among his peers as a curator.--- Possibly (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I have no particular opinion. This article was flagged with a low readability score, but the Guild of Copy Editors won't touch it if it might be deleted. I needed folks more familiar with the guidelines to render a final decision so either it can be deleted or cleanup can start. -- Beland (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep - He is really well known, for decades, particularly in the art-and-technoscience realm...all the way back to E.A.T. as a creative maker and later as a curator. The notability tag on the article (from 2013) is in relation to music only (see tag for details) but he is not known for his music, he's known in the visual arts. Clearly meets WP:GNG Netherzone (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep I'll take Netherzone's word for it. --- Possibly (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Per above. Also the article has fixed it's errors. SoyokoAnis - talk 02:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the Recognition section alone, not to mention the dozens of references. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Stephen Nowlin is widely recognised. The guy has a vast amount of credible references that make him notable. These are just a few from a brief search. Stuhunter83 (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. This meets A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion as a recently created article that duplicates an existing topic – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The 28–3 Comeback

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

Duplicate of Super Bowl LI SeaCardinal (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete agreed, duplicate topic. May want to look at merging information. This should be a procedural move.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Don't see this as a suitable redirect, and agree that it is functionally a duplicate. Merge what is worth merging. Etzedek24 16:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete (Speedy?) Is this WP:G6 eligible as a copy-paste page move? SportingFlyer T·C 17:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete (Speedy!) The user who created this appears to be a serial vandal and is changing all sorts of scores and team records to demonstrably false information, so this appears to be a prank at best. 1995hoo (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)