Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 23	April 25 >

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. Randykitty (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some Records

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

fails WP:NCORP. Not enough third party coverage that is intellectually independent to surpass CORPDEPTH standards. Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on searching {"Some Records Walter Schreifels" -wikipedia} I find a few minor mentions, but not finding anything to meet WP:GNG nor are there any claims in the article of notability. Jeepday (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shine Francis Odigie

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

After noticing it had been flagged for notability concerns, I performed a before search which shows subject of the article is a non notable actor and musician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR as she hasn’t taken up lead roles in the movies she has featured in or won any notable awards as the award they have claim to have won is very much non notable. Furthermore they certainly do not satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. In summary, they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a major GNG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:NACTOR CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:per WP:NACTOR, Shine played lead in popular Nollywood film in Nigeria(Ododo)

^[1], i suggest writing it better like an essay, with this Newspaper link, i found about the actress NOTICE501 (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @NOTICE501, you have been warned severally to cease from UPE or COI editing, but apparently you didn’t listen seeing as you have yet created this UPE article. Furthermore your knowledge on WP:NACTOR is horribly flawed, actors are notable if they have taken lead roles in multiple films, you are free to read that up on your spare time. The subject of your article definitely hasn’t achieved that. Look, it’s either you quit covert UPE or you get blocked. It’s your choice really. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Celestina007, it seems like a blocking menance from your comment. With due respect, i usually appreciate positive or negative reviews from co-editors , but the idea of you accusing me always of UPE or COI article has became a sort of hobby, without any testimony or an evidence.If for Wikipedia rules, the article can't stand, quite undertood if you say so. I wrote the article and never asked money from anyone, my reasons for writing was the trend on news about the actress.(https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=shine+francis+odigie) We have other Nigerian editors on Wikipedia that also saw the trend. Please stop giving me nick names.

The actress Shine has been trending all over social media than usual, i decided to write from sources i saw online, just like blessed memory Ada Jesus which happened same time. She is highly talked about both on YouTube and AIT Telvision. I haven't been her fan, friend or parent. notice501 (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Just one lead role and lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, indicates that a standalone article is not appropriate. --Ashley yoursmile! 16:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to George Floyd Square. Clear consensus. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cup Foods

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

Non-notable as a store, the only coverage is from the chain of events that led to the murder of George Floyd. These events are well covered in Murder of George Floyd, George Floyd Square, George Floyd protests in Minneapolis–Saint Paul and other related articles. This part of this article (the bulk of it) is simply a duplication of content elsewhere John B123 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to George Floyd Square where the content existed previously. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Floyd Square, where all the pertinent information is already. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has achieved notability and it has been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Minnemeeples (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Floyd Square per Onel5969.--🌀Kieran207-talk 🌀 02:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Floyd Square.TH1980 (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Floyd Square. Mccapra (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Floyd Square, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ——Serial 10:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Floyd Square, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RockOften (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability other then the murder outside, and that crime's connection to the store is handled elsewhere. The store's history is not important, and the "illicit" activities in the area are not relevant. Kablammo (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 38th and Chicago, which is the geographic location for this store. Having said that, I'm not so sure that 38th and Chicago is independently notable from George Floyd Square. Edge3 (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Floyd Square per above; it doesn't need to be merged as the content covered here has already been restored. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Floyd Square, the store itself is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge The store relation to George Floyd murder doesn’t make it notable. Most of the sources only mention the store in relation to the tragic event. Also, it is not a landmark or historical place yet. --Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) EpicPupper 21:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regis Pitbull

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

Does not look notable per WP:NBIO. EpicPupper 21:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 21:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. A short search turned up number of articles about the subject, including [1][2][3] Alvaldi (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes NFOOTY from play in Japan and Turkey [4]. Mvqr (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes NFOOTBALL (his soccerway template added to page) JW 1961^Talk 14:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, easily passes NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep: passes NFOOTY as he made 2 appearences in Süper Lig .[5] Poppified ^talk 16:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the coverage of his issues with drugs and subsequent rehab are enough to pass WP:GNG and he has numerous WP:NFOOTBALL appearances on top of that Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article should be moved to Régis Pitbull in my view, as this is how he is known in almost all sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy easily passes GNG and NFooty in my opinion, did the nominator even looking at the Portuguese wiki? [6], Clearly more about him there which could be transcribed over if someone is able to do that. Govvy (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, clearly notable. Giant Snowman 11:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep handily asses NFOOTY and GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn to re-scope article per suggestion. (non-admin closure) Mottezen (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Indian Wars

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

This article is a mish-mash list of conflicts between indigenous peoples and colonial or settler states from Hernan Cortez to the present day Chiapas conflict, though it marks the end date of the "Mexican Indian Wars" in 1933. The links tying all these conflicts together are very weak. These wars all implicate different actors and circumstances. No sources I saw made the connections between these conflicts the way this article does. Overall, there is very few mentions of this concept in the literature: 2 hits on google scholar, and 6 on Google books. "Indian Mexican Wars" has just as little hits.

Only one book in the hits I got was not simply making a mention in passing of this subject. This book only deals with the period of 1812 to 1900, and makes comparisons with Indian wars in Canada and the United States. The author uses the term "Mexican Indian Wars" just once in the whole book. He titled a relevant chapter "Indian Wars in Mexico" instead. The comparative nature of this books likely why the author even used the term "indian wars" at all; the term is absent in every other works of Mexican history.

Of the sources in the article, only one of them uses the term at all, and it doesn't strike me as a RS. And even then, the author, "History guy", only uses the term to describe three wars in the early 20th century.

The article was written by a now-blocked user mostly interested in American history. The Spanish article of this topic was written last year, and describes the term as a "anglophone concept", "'mostly used in Canada and the United States", and "not used in Spanish". I feel this is a case of circular reporting on Wikipedia. Tales of a totally made up conflict that lasted 414 years are being shared on instagram. Time to delete this aberration. Mottezen (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what the nominator says about the topic is true if you search for this title. However I am less sure that the topic itself isn’t notable. The article is essentially a list and what are described here as Mexican Indian Wars are described in Spanish as “Rebeliones indígenas en México” and there is plenty of literature about that. Perhaps moving to a title that reflects this term such as “List of Indigenous Rebellions in Mexico” would work? Mccapra (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea a lot. If we were do to that though we'd need to remove all the wars of Spanish/Mexican agression from the list, and keep strictly the rebellions against colonialism. I'd also like to remove the grossly misleading and convoluted infobox. Mottezen (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the info box is nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Colorado Mesa University. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Mesa University Student Trustee

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

Highly unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. A random student government position does not need a separate article. Relevant information, if any, can be merged to Colorado Mesa University as needed. KidAd • SPEAK 20:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Colorado Mesa University. I’m not sure there’s any content in this article that needs to be merged. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Same as above. Star7924 (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ivri Lider as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Live CD (album)

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM notability which require coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Rusf10 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Ivri Lider. Non-notable album. Lesliechin1 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ivri Lider- fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. The recording lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Given that the album has not on national music charts, or received any certifications or major accolades, a standalone article is not appropriate. --Ashley yoursmile! 05:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is GNG met 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Badin Hall (University of Notre Dame)

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

Was AfD'd back in 2013, and nothing really has changed since then. While it is part of a historic district, it itself is not on the NRHP. Currently the vast majority of the article is primary sourced, and there is not enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG. Part of several articles which have all be recreated after AfD. I'll be sending them all to AfD, but did not feel bundling was appropriate, since all should be evaluated individually. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But all highly related AFDs should be linked. And it is generally a waste of time to run many similar AFDs at the same time...test the waters with one or two and drop your quest if you don't get agreement.

To AFD partipants and potential closers, please see, at least (and please notify all of us of any more):

--Doncram (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls. There is no reason for a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The residential college is in itself notable. The building, built in 1897, is over a hundred years old and hosted the Manual Labor School of Notre Dame founded in 1843. It was the first residential hall to host women on the campus of the University of Notre Dame. Throughout its long history it has hosted several notable people and events. It was also part of the United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School program during Worl War II. The building was listed in the National Register of Historic Places with reference number ID78000053 in 1978. Its long history is well sourced, as well as it role in the university's history. Eccekevin (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls: Article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. None of the above keep votes have been able to show this has SIGCOV or any reason based in guidelines why this should be a stand alone article. The building does not inherit notability from the area it is in or subjects it is associated with. The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument above is invalid. The keep claims have to resort to OTHERSTUFF exists or inherited notability claims which shows clearly there is no SIGCOV or support in guidelines. This is one of 31 halls, by the above reasoning all these buildings would be notable, even though they do not have SIGCOV. If IS RS with SIGCOV can be found, the subject is best covered in the target. // Timothy :: talk 09:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page is full of sources, most of them independent from the Hall, that provide good SIGCOV. And the fact alone that is is on the National Register of Historic Places makes it notable, especially given the age of the building.^[2] Eccekevin (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Leadership (newspaper)
^ ""National Register of Historic Places Inventory" (PDF). Retrieved 16 March 2021.

Note to closer about canvasing: Unfortunately Eccekevin is canvasing for participation in this AfD. [7],[8]. // Timothy :: talk 10:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not canvassing, I am reaching out to project members for help collecting sources in line with WP:APPNOTE. Eccekevin (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eccekevin, that's called canvassing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This is incorrect, I never reached out for anyone's vote, in accordance with WP:APPNOTE and WP:CANVASS.Eccekevin (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the same as with the other 3 dorms that were AfD'd, these dorms are part of the NRHP district that is historical in every sense of the word. There are other sources used, in addition to the NRHP, including the State of Indiana, the NPS, several Catholic publications, and various books, etc. This campus is one of the most visited sites in the state of Indiana, because of its various venues (football stadium included). I don't think that this article should be deleted. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funandtrvl, can you point to the sources that provide direct and indepth coverage of the subject required by SIGCOV? It is obvious not everything in a historic district is notable, that this is a popular part of campus does not mean it is notable. // Timothy :: talk 18:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just some of them are the 1917 Irish Standard article written about its construction, history, and dedication^[1],1947 South Bend Tribune article profiling the hall for its 50th anniversary^[2], the 1954 South Bend Tribune article describing it and its history^[3], its architectural and historical decription in Recreation in the United States: National Historic Landmark Theme Study ^[4], and its history and description in Arthur Hope's book about the university ^[5], and not to mention the many many articles profiling it, its architecture, history, and traditions in depth from sources connected to Notre Dame (although many of them independent and with no connection to the Hall), including its extensive treatment in Thomas Blantz's The University of Notre Dame : a history (2020)^[6]. Also, it is listed as Historic Structure in the NRHP listing. Hence, it definitely meets WP:BUILD.Eccekevin (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "New Badin Hall named after first priest in America". The Irish Standard. 22 December 1917. p. 1.
^ "ND residence to mark 50th anniversary". South Bend Tribune. 18 May 1947. p. 13.
^ Carrico, Patrick (12 May 1954). "Famed Bog distinguished Badin Hall at Notre Dame". South Bend Tribune. p. 24.
^ Charleton, James H. (1986). Recreation in the United States: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
^ Hope, Arthur J. (1978). Notre Dame, one hundred years. South Bend, Ind.: Icarus Press. ISBN 9780896515000.
^ Blantz, Thomas E. (2020). The University of Notre Dame : a history. Notre Dame, Indiana. ISBN 978-0-268-10824-3. OCLC 1182853710.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Note to closer: The above editor was canvassed for there vote [9]. // Timothy :: talk 18:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer, I was not canvassed., according to WP:APPNOTE, I'm a concerned editor who is a member of the article's WikiProject, and has expertise in the subject. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC) --Also, I have taken note that in the one AfD where my opinion matched the person saying that I was canvassed (Keenan Hall), that he did not point out after my commentary that I was canvassed. But, in each article that I didn't agree with him, he did point that out. (Badin, Carroll and Alumni). Funandtrvl (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything listed as NRHP is notable per Wikipedia:Inherent_notability#Inherent_Wikipedia-style_notability. Eccekevin (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is in a historic district; not everything in a historic district is notable and that essay is a personal opinion, not a Wikipedia guideline. // Timothy :: talk 18:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but Badin Hall is explicitly listed as a contributing property and has its own description and listing in the NRHP, hence it does aquire inherent notability. Eccekevin (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The essay you are citing is a personal opinion, one that contradicts actual guidelines. Citing an say to set aside something as fundamental as WP:N is not a valid argument. // Timothy :: talk 19:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by another editor, WP:NBUILD is an acutal guideline, and Badin Hall falls under it since it is listed as historic structure by the NRHP. Eccekevin (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very good and interesting article, same as 20 similar ones dealing with University of Notre Dame residence halls. It's not a "personal opinion", as mentioned above. Note: I was NOT canvassed. --Silverije 01:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silverije, Looks like this is your first time at AfD [10], you picked an interesting time and place to start. // Timothy :: talk 01:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

really? and how is this relevant to the afd? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:NBUILD, that is not an essay or personal opinion, states "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable.", so if it is listed, and with the references present in the article (not necessarily having to be WP:SIGCOV), it is wikinotable and this afd is a waste of time. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and no one voting delete has yet given a reason for which NBUILD does not apply. Eccekevin (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG as notable historic building w/ refs Djflem (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced article on an historic building. I can't see any useful reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, historic building. Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And I did not see any canvassing, I just periodically visit Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation). --Doncram (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes GNG Rajuiu (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a "redirect" closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 8.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Notre Dame residence halls. Not an especially notable crusty building KidAd • SPEAK 20:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG as notable historic building and has a unique history in multiple roles. Rjensen (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Strike duplicate !vote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the cogent reasoning of DGG at the DRV this misses GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue with that reasoning is that Badin Hall is explicitly listed as historic structure by the NHRP, it is not just geographically part of a district, as the example DGG made (of a house in a district, but not explicitly mentioned by the NRHP). Hence, there is a substantial difference and in this case and WP:NBUILD applies, since this structure has "protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable." I have not seen any reasoning by which NBUILD does not apply here.

In addition, the reasoning that local news sources like the South Bend Tribune (which has two features profiles of Badin hall ^[1]^[2]) should be discounted is not found in any Wikipedia policy, but is arbitrary. It is independent, reliable, and the fact that is is based in a town close to where Badin Hall is doesn't take away from neither of those things. Eccekevin (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Eccekevin (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eccekevin (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I do not feel that every place within a NRHP historic district, I'm satisfied that in this case there are enough sources for GNG. MB 22:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to University of Notre Dame residence halls Alex-h (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet general notability guidelines and is a historic building in a historic district. Star7924 (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Hill (cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCRIC and an internet search brings up no results. There may be some coverage in Wisden or in local press but I'm not sure given his record. No suitable list to redirect to exists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matches at FC/LA level. His football doesn't appear to amount to anything more than a hobby, he didn't play for Bermuda or anything. StickyWicket (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. Fan cruft to the extreme. Fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creep^Talk 21:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Danish Kaneria

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

Failed to find any sources where his fifers are discussed as a set or group, so fails WP:NLIST, WP:RAWDATA. Also, note that User talk:Vibhijain who created this list has been blocked for socking. Störm (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Danish Kaneria after removing all trivial/incidental details (list of batsmen dismissed, match results, economy, etc.). Per WP:SPLIT there are no issues preventing inclusion in the main article. Per nom, the article also fails WP:NLIST and does not stand on its own. As such this comprehensively fails criterion 3c of Wikipedia:Featured list criteria ("...meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article."). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been a few instances where the subject took 5 wickets in a single match. It needs to be detailed in a separate page. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's a reason it's a featured list, which is because the article presents the information well in the lead. It's not just a list of random stats, it's a list with clear inclusion/exclusion criteria which is summarised in the text. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is set in stone, we can't keep just because it is FL while it is clear this badly fails WP:NLIST. Fate should be same as was in previous discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Terry Alderman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Vernon Philander, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Rangana Herath, etc. Störm (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Featured material which failed inclusion guidelines wouldn't be featured material otherwise. Unless his name is Lewis. StickyWicket (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where are published sources, not generated queries from statsguru, that discusses the subject as a set or group? Please cite a single such source and I'll happily withdraw. Störm (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is a featured list. The problem is that the sourcing is largely confined to individual match scorecards (not even reports), data lists that have had to be extracted from CricInfo's search function and the CricInfo profile of the player. Those aren't really suitable in my view - match reports might actually discuss that this is his Xth five-wicket haul, for example. Beyond this, is there anything that discusses the five-wicket hauls taken by him in one place? A bunch of non-featured lists with similar titles were deleted not so long ago - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Alec Bedser for example. I'm no longer certain of my decision there, but the list would have been deleted anyway. The level of sourcing on many of those articles would have been little different to this one: the leads won't probably be as good, but they could easily have mimicked the sourcing here with about half an hours work - it's only a summary of the stats using scorecards and the profile afterall. I can't see why those articles aren't notable if this one is - if it's just a case of improving the lead to make it longer and use the same scorecards then let me know and I'll make a start recreating some of them I guess and send them to FL.

If this were to be merged, can we please remove the lists of batters dismissed and the economy rate - there was a discussion about this at the cricket wiki project some time ago and the general consensus was that they were unnecessary (see here and here (with a bonus previous discussion here)) Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BST, a bundle of thanks for linking previous discussions here. Störm (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Joseph2302, being a featured list seems to suggest that the sourcing is good enough to pass guidelines. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also get uneasy when G3 is possibly hinted at in the nom. Don't know if you're letting us know the article creator is blocked or if because they're blocked it should be a reason to delete, only this was hinted at by another user the other week (though that was a clear case of keep and their suggestion of G3 was done out of desperation to bulldoze consensus). If G3 is the hint, the problem is if, say I were to be blocked, would that mean John Manners (cricketer) would be deleted? Also having looked at this list, it isn't the best FA I've seen (and that's no disrespect to the user who nominated it who does great work on subcontinent cricket), but the lead is a little lacking so I'm changing my vote to merge to Danish Kaneria. And as BST alluded to, better FA lists have been deleted of late. StickyWicket (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) Nowhere is "being a featured list" in our deletion policy. Sources 4-5 and 7-28 are primary sources reporting statistics. Of the other 4, 2 don't even mention him, 1 doesn't mention his 5 wicket hauls (in the section that is a secondary source), and the last one, the only secondary source to mention his 5 wicket hauls, devotes two sentences to it. The sole claim to notability for this list rests upon those two sentences. Needless to say, 2 sentences in an article is not enough to pass WP:NLIST regardless of its featured status. Zoozaz1 talk 22:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm thinking along the same lines of Blue Square Thing - are there any additional sources out there which support this being a stand-alone article? SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Other than references to matches covered by ESPNCricinfo, this article is just statscruft. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All such individual lists should be merged into one page, "List of international cricket five-wicket hauls". The significance of individual lists is not great enough for them to have separate pages. Santosh L (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joseph2302. extra999 (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per Joseph2302. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets minimum 15 international cut-off agreed by WP:CRIC for lists of individual international five wicket hauls. The player has total 15 five for. — A.A Prinon ^Conversation 14:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Störm said to show any source that displays his five-wicket hauls in a group. I have found a source. This is as follows:

1. http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/players/PlayerNotables.asp?PlayerID=2252&s=1. Retrived from HowStat and its reliable. Besides, there are in ESPN Statsguru. I will also try to find more and inform later.A.A Prinon (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such thresholds for lists were never formally agreed upon; even if they had been, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not overrule wider community consensus as laid down in policies and guidelines. Secondly, we require sources that cover the subject in depth, i.e. they must provide more than bare statistical listings. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's just another list of stats. It's almost one that we could provide a link to in the player's article rather than, err, have an article that essentially copies and pastes the list (and, of course, adds some more OR at the same time). Given the way this is headed, I'll start work on re-creating some of the deleted ones shall I? Cause if this is a FL quality article, any of those could be with half an hours work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Morris

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCRIC and a search doesn't bring up any significant coverage. There may possibly be coverage offline or in Wisden though. No suitable list to redirect to as none exist. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One-day matches he played in did not hold List A status, fails CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Juarez

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCRIC and a search brings up no real sources. There may be coverage offline or in Wisden but I think that's unlikely given his performance. No suitable list to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails CRIN as has not played at FC/LA level. StickyWicket (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sythetic profile ref. scope_creep^Talk 21:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Zubair (Hong Kong cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCRIC and an internet search brings up no real sources. There may be coverage in Wisden or locally as he was the leading wicket taker in the 1997 tournament. No suitable list exists for redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matches at FC/LA level, fails CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creep^Talk 21:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Rawalpindi cricket team. Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Zubair (Pakistani cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rawalpindi cricket team 6 FC and 5 LA games but as usual for Pakistani domestic cricketers we're struggling for sources. Sources may well exist offline or in local language sources. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD for now unless someone can find anything else. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly passed WP:NCRIC but doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. There is no references? scope_creep^Talk 18:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fenchuganj Mohammadia Kamil Madrasha

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

Non-notable education institution. Earlier PROD by Robert McClenon was removed by the creating editor without explanation, and previous attempt was rejected and now exists in drafts; hence this AfD. Unsourced, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media and directory listings. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without references, this is unverifiable and does not meet general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the author - You may remove a template that says that it may be removed, such as a Proposed Deletion tag. If a template says not to remove it, such as the Articles for Deletion tag, that means not to remove it. Also, removing an Articles for Deletion tag is not useful, because a bot will put it back. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Removing an AFD tag from an unsourced article is sometimes a sign of sloppy efforts to use Wikipedia to promote. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fables characters (Thirteenth Floor Fables)

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

Waste of time AfD due to someone who clearly cannot read. Duplicative content of List of Fables characters that is not a justified split. TTN (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplicative of List of Fables characters#Thirteenth Floor Fables, and no sources whatsoever on this subset of the characters that would justify a needed split into a separate article. As the content is not only unsourced, but exactly the same, merging is not needed, and as this is not a particularly plausible search term, a Redirect would not be helpful. Rorshacma (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it were down to me, I would just delete List of Fables characters as a pile of cruft. but that is just my opinion. I am not sure why the there is a slightly uncivil tone to the deletion rationale. The article was still prodded when I looked just now. It is deprodded because I don't think it should have been prodded. We are just having a difference of opinion. When I split the article 7 years ago and created this article then I did it properly and it was not a duplicate. That was done by someone botching a reverse of the split. Being a duplicate is not by itself a reason for deleting the article, it can be solved by editing. If we cannot do my preferred idea of getting rid of List of Fables characters entirely then I think the article should have the deleted sections removed and replaced with redirects to this article like I did in the first place. Op47 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't remove the PROD. It was another user doing a pointless driveby of the majority of my active PRODs without actually addressing anything. That's entirely their right to do with how PRODs work, but it doesn't make it any less lazy and disruptive (especially considering how cut and dry this case is). As to the actual content, the splits are arbitrary (we do not continuously expand on plot content, we trim it), and nobody ever actually edited them in any capacity in comparison to the main article. There is really nothing to be solved other than their removal duplicative material. I plan on very minimum cutting down the main character list, if not simply nominating it for deletion, after these duplicate lists are removed. TTN (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like what you removed is the talk page PROD notice, which is simply a record of the PROD to allow for no future duplicate PRODs to be placed via Twinkle. TTN (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- duplicates already existing content (badly), and the title is no use as a redirect. TTN is right that the deprod rationale missed the point entirely. Reyk _YO! 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment- further to that, this was one in a series of nine rapid-fire deprods within the space of about 12 minutes- all of TTN's PRODs. I argue that deprodding based on targeting a single editor and without taking the tiniest glance at the articles themselves is disruptive. Reyk _YO! 12:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obvious redundant CFORK is obvious and redundant. SITH (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete. Not a notable grouping, fails NLIST/LISTN, whichever is relevan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANADIGICS

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

Dead company. No independent sources but dead links to its websites an a couple of pres releases Lembit Staan (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yup, acquired by II-VI Incorporated in 2016 [11]. No notability prior to that, and no hope of any notability thereafter. JBchrch (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Strachan

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

Unsourced, and presumably autobiographical (based on the article's content, and the author's username). It would need rewriting from scratch, but I'm not seeing the sources to do it - I can find an actor of that name mentioned on IMDB as having played a small role in the 2020 film 'The Grudge' (not the film linked to from the article); I can't quite make the connection with 'Fear the Walking Dead', the character mentioned in the article seems to be played by somebody else, but maybe he plays an older version of that character or something? Anyway, based on the sources I can find, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. (Note - there is another actor of this name, from Winnipeg - most of the sources I came across were about that person, not the subject of this article) GirthSummit _(blether) 17:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

del nn minor actor, no coverage. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree on everything that is saying Ray Starchan Wikipedia page is very accurate everything on there is 100% true I don’t know why this page is going up for deletion when I provided every single link every single proof that this account this Wikipedia page is correct now if you would like for me to submit more information regarding this person in this Wikipedia page I can and I will so I don’t believe that this patient needs to be deleted at all if he can provide more information regarding this page and why it should be delete it please Inform me and I will gladly take it down but I am this person I have provided you guys would fall in accurate information like I said earlier I would like to provide you guys with the information regarding myself if it’s links on a contract I can also provide my management I can also provide my agency and my legal Representative thank you for your time and hopefully this page when I get taken down at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyveon L. Ray (talk • contribs) 23:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m Going To Have To Disagree With The Take Down Of This Page I Searched This Person Up And Everything On This Account Is Right I Keep Up With This Actor I Watch Him On Tv And I Follow Him On Instagram Everything On This Page Is Right I Have Seen Him On Fear The Walking Dead Ever Since Season 5 Of The Show And He Has Played Duane Jones wry Good And If You Keel Up With The Show You Would Know That The Original Person That Play Duane Jones no Longer Play Him Anymore So I Would Keep This Page Up And Running. Sock GirthSummit _(blether) 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: No indication of notability and almost unreadable to boot. - Sumanuil (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly a WP:COI issue, among other serious problems–nothing is sourced, no indication of notability; information regarding Fear the Walking Dead is fake, I actually watch the series and that actor and character have never appeared; and the content in the "Early life" section is copied and pasted from Jude Demorest with just being slightly altered. The quote used in that section is directly lifted from this source with an interview with a different actor. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent to indicate that the subject is notable. Page seems to be written by an account with potential COI. --Ashley yoursmile! 14:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Potential COI and then some. The author of the article claims to be the subject of the article; the account and the IP commenting above are obviously the same person and have been blocked for sockpuppetry {relevant SPI), so I have struck through their comment. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. The article has been moved to Draft:Closed for Storm by its creator. . ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed for Storm

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

Non notable future documentary, appears to fail WP:NFF as production wasn't notable. Should be deleted or moved to draftspace until it is released and notability can be established. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until release. Insufficient independent coverae. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dlala Lukid

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

Non notable “Dj” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them, thus do not satisfy WP:GNG and also doesn’t seem to satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ENT. Celestina007 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

del no independent coverage; very small number of google hits. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete, easily WP:A7 -Xclusivzik (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable musician, the only Google hits point towards self-published and user-generated sites and does not turn up any reliable independent sources that substantially talk about the subject. --Ashley yoursmile! 16:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:55, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Trinnaman

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Fails WP:NCOLLATH with a non-notable college football career ([12]). Fails WP:GNG, as this is the only significant coverage I can find on the subject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Nothing in my searches, routine college football career. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 18:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Tears

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

Unsourced, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage of this band, or other clear indications of notability; they've released two albums on a relatively obscure label and opened for notable bands, but that's about it. The Italian wiki doesn't have an article on them. Lennart97 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the first five pages of a Google search except sales sources and web zines. AllMusic does not know anything about the band either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Notability is not established. COI also applies, as Dudewikihb only edited this page. It is also not clear whether they formed in 2005 or 2008. The infobox states the former, while the article itself states the latter. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Nepomuceno Flores

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

The user who created this article turns out to be a pathological liar. Assuming Juan exists, is any of the history (conveniently sourced to paper books without URL) true? Is this person notable? Are we better off using WP:TNT rather than risk WP:CITOGENESIS?

Whpq tried to speedy this but was contested. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He seems to be real- I found this [13] in google books. There appears to be another Juan N. Flores around the same time; not sure if this one is notable or not yet. Curdle (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't doubt that this is a real person. What I doubt is notability. At the time I nominated this for speedy deletion, the article just asserted that the subject participated in a couple of notable battles. Since then, there is an assertion that he "was instrumental in organizing and commanding Texian volunteers in support of the Texas Revolution" but that is not backed with any sources. Note that this phrasing looks to be copied word for word from Salvador Flores. There are no inline sources. The three given sources provide no page numbers. The first source is a muster roll. That may serve to verify that this person was in any given unit or battle but as a primary source, it does nothing to establish notability. The second is a book which is searchable at Google books. I cannot find this person mentioned in the book at all. The third reference is an eight volume collection of the writings of Sam Houston. Although it might usable to verify facts, it would not establish notability. A substantial potion can be viewed here. I searched the available text and could not find this person mentioned. I also found the entry in the same book mentioned by Curdle. However, the Daughters of the Republic of Texas are going to document everybody so that just establishes the person exists. I'll also note that the subject "was noted for heroic actions during the Siege of Béxar and during the Battle of San Jacinto" but does not provide any detail as to what these heroics are notr can I find any record of them. All of the claims for notability are unverified and all we have left in terms of verifiable information is that the subject was a soldier. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the assessment put forth by Whpq. Even if verifiable, the assertions of notability are vague and do not appear to merit an article. All the article says is that he was born, served in the Texian army, and died (in a city that was named for more notable members of his family). That's not enough. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Public School

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

A private school which fails NORG. No significant coverage and thus fails GNG also Poppified ^talk 15:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 15:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 15:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 15:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Poppified ^talk 15:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing useful were found on my WP:Before. Fails to establish GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Lacks indepth coverage. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to be found. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Da Great (singer)

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG; only copy and pasted press release coverage available. Very lazy copying and pasting as well. If you don't believe me, see how they all contain the line "He started music professionally at the age of 17 having drawn great support from his mother who he describes as his number one fan." somewhere in the article.

Once you remove this single press release, that has been copied and pasted across numerous Nigerian websites, there appears to be no coverage of him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as another case of press release repetition. Vaticidalprophet 15:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG lacks indepth coverage. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article which fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, should be speedy per CSD G11, clearly promotional CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — blatant promotional UPE article on a non notable singer. Celestina007 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy (composer)

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person which has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years. He existed and had some success, but I couldn't find anything to establish he is notable. Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Danish equivalent article seems to indicate notability - many film and tv music credits, a literature section which Google translates as

Nicolas Barbano: Fuzzy and the Film Music, in Live Pictures No. 1, 1980
Thomas Vilhelm: The visual ear - the history of film music (Systime, 2005)
Brian Christensen, My Roskilde - 10 personalities tell, Roskilde 2011
Fuzzy and Tore Leifer, Echoes, Fuzzy's memories of his life as a musician and composer. (Forlaget Klemmerdu, 2019)

It looks as if a fluent Danish speaker could substantially expand this article, and I've tagged it accordingly. The two External Links, his own website and Naxos record company's bio, offer scope for expansion. PamD 15:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per PamD has many film and TV music credits. Passes WP:GNG. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources book coverage that show WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbelina (soundtrack)

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

With all fairness, I could understand how one could argue the song's Razzie nomination would make this topic significant, as not only is that a major (albeit comedic) award it is also the only time in history before The Emoji Movie anything animated was even Razzie-nominated. However, that only gives the song itself significance, and even then there isn't anything to find for that. Other coverage is one Allmusic rev, a self-published fansite, and retail pages. That does not establish WP:SIGCOV 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Difficult one to search due to the name, but on newspapers.com I found sigcov in the Town Talk (31 March 1994, page 26), Pasadena Star-News (18 March 1994, page 70), and, just barely, the Los Angeles Times (17 April 1994, newspapers.com insists it's page 347 but I'm not sure that passes sanity-checking, and it appears to be split across several pages). This is in addition to the Razzie stuff (which comes up in places like here and here) and coverage of multiple songs at once (e.g. here), which as you note is easier to source on non-archival online sources. Vaticidalprophet 15:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find the newspapers.com articles, but are you sure they're specifically about the soundtrack? EW.com only discusses one song for a paragraph, with only that Razzie-nominated song as a honorable mention. Also, is Rotoscopers.com a HQ reliable source? 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find the newspapers.com articles, but are you sure they're specifically about the soundtrack? The Town Talk piece is literally a two-page spread about its recording. newspapers.com is theoretically paywalled, although accessible through The Wikipedia Library. This is what I meant at the time about the issue with having nominations so close together even if they're unbundled -- I've done BEFORE on three of the nominations and found two of them had sigcov that wasn't found already. There are 31 nominations. You're a reasonable and likable person, I know you have no intent to foster that workload on AfD !voters, and I know you in all likelihood genuinely didn't realize that !voters need to do their own BEFOREs rather than taking the nominator's for granted and that anything before really about 2005 has way, way more accessible on archival sources than the open internet. I don't know who's going to comb newspapers.com for the remaining 28, and I don't know if it's me. (As for HS RS, the HS is a FAC standard, not an AfD standard. I'm not sure I'd use it in an FA, but they have editorial control and appear to fact-check.) Vaticidalprophet 13:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Honestly, what's the difference between high-quality and reliable? Wouldn't it automatically be unreliable if it was low-quality? I really don't know why there's two separate distinctions. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not a distinction I'm sold on either, but I suppose there's a point to "let's use what the books say before what the news says, and what NYT say before Vice says" at FA level, even if it's a bit of a blunt instrument. Vaticidalprophet 14:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Vaticidalprophet above, and kudos to that voter for the search of obscure 1990s newspapers. I was able to track down a couple of those myself, and extracting some album-specific content from them would help improve this album article. There is also some minor coverage of the Razzies "awarded" to contributors, see e.g. [14]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not withdrawing the nomination, but I am changing my vote to a Weak Keep or Merge to film artciles if those newspaper sources are about the music of the film. Given how little production info there is to find of this film (all I could remember finding was an interview from the Nostalgia Critic with Don Bluth, which I don't know if others would find a RS), It could just as easily be discussed in the film article 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so that the article can be merged or kept as appropriate. I really think the content should have been merged to Thumbelina (1994 film) and this AfD nomination should not have been made at all. A merge can be appropriate (as it is in this case) even if there is not notability for this as a separate article. Likewise, even if notability can be established, it can be editorially sensible to have a single merged article (as it is in this case). I expect I would have the same view on many (all) of this batch of nominations but it takes me at least 15 minutes to investigate each one and I don't want to spend all that time. We should not be deleting referenced material merely because we disagree with the pigeonholing. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NCORP failed Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flutura Decision Sciences and Analytics

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

Does not meet NCORP. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources beyond routine stuff like fundraising, partnerships and self-published articles. M4DU7 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage to establish GNG. Fails NORG also. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources don't satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRIT. VV 15:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NCORP.Poppified ^talk 14:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability. Webmaster862 (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Heart ^(talk) 06:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Proud Family. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Proud Family (soundtrack)

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

All I could find was one Allmusic review and a mention of one song being in the show for Jet magazine. That is not WP:SIGCOV and does not establish notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Proud Family. The soundtrack is mentioned briefly once in a while in articles that are actually about the show, but that does not add up to enough coverage for a stand-alone album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Pebble and the Penguin#Music. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 05:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack)

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, which didn't make them notable as Notability is not inherited. Another agued "some of these articles are getting 100+ views/day", which is an invalid WP:POPULARPAGE argument. Another agued "Deleting the articles in question would delete the not insignificant article histories and revisions that could serve as rough drafts for future versions of these pages if they hold up to notability standards at a later date", which is invalid as most of these soundtracks never do and even so, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

Having one allmusic review does not establish notability. Being a soundtrack of a Don Bluth film does not establish independent notability. Having the kick-ass Tim Curry on your soundtrack album doesn– yeah, you get the idea. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are about 21 AfDs by this nominator on cartoon movie soundtrack albums, mostly featuring repeated rationales. Those various AfDs can each be handled on their own merits, but the nominator is using WP:CRYSTALBALL incorrectly. That guideline is used to delete articles on things that have not yet happened. All of these cartoon soundtracks were released in the past, some decades ago, so they are not future items that violate WP:CRYSTALBALL. The nominator has accused someone of arguing that sources might exist, which is actually a violation of the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES fallacy. That fallacy also happened for a previous bundled nomination and cannot be applied to ALL of the separate nominations that are now waiting for votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't read my comments carefully. I didn't use WP:CRYSTALBALL as a reason to nominate the article. I used WP:Crystalball in response to another commenter's argument suggesting to keep them for their revision histories in case they became notable in the future, which is WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume they will. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd also want to watch your other allegations. Only the introductory paragraphs have I copied for all of the cartoon soundtrack Afds, and they all end in a second paragraph commenting about the specific nominated topic. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of the AfDs start with the same lengthy paragraph, with perhaps a few minor modifications, applying your dissatisfaction with your procedurally disastrous bundled AfD to every single one of those albums regardless of their individual merits. Your second paragraphs are valid but with far less detail. And you totally used the CRYSTALBALL standard incorrectly, and since it appears again and again and again (x21) in all of your AfDs, you can't say you didn't use it as a rationale for all of them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - (1) Please stop WP:GASLIGHTING and saying I used it as a rationale for all comments. You're well aware I responded to a comment of that bundle discussion and didn't use WP:CRYSTALBALL as a rationale. (2) Listen, all the articles were nominated in that bundle, so of course I'm gonna use the same introduction to that bundle nomination in those other articles I later individually nominated for commenters to get context that will help them make their comments. It's a more efficient process than repeatedly typing differently-word paragraphs stating the same message. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without comment, that I have made elsewhere, on the merit of the nominations. Archival searches find passing mentions as an aside to the Thumbelina soundtrack, which Manilow made contemporaneously and appears to have gotten far more attention from mid-90s media sources. Nonetheless, the article isn't in bad shape, and if current policy insists it is unacceptable as a stand-alone article its verifiable content should be preserved nonetheless. Vaticidalprophet 15:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Pebble and the Penguin#Music. The soundtrack received some notice due to Barry Manilow's involvement and it has a basic AllMusic review. Vaticidalprophet (above) may be able to find some obscure newspaper reviews, but it appears to me that soundtrack-specific coverage is limited. Therefore the soundtrack can be covered with some viable sources at the film's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Amateurs of Lebanon

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

Fail of WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 09:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 09:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also fails WP:NORG and WP:NRADIO Dudhhr (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Six International beauty pageants

^ Carrico, Patrick (12 May 1954). "Famed Bog distinguished Badin Hall at Notre Dame". South Bend Tribune. p. 24.
^ "ND residence to mark 50th anniversary". South Bend Tribune. 18 May 1947. p. 13.

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

I removed an A11 on this, as it wasn't quite one, but I don't think this is something discussed much in RSes. The Big Four international beauty pageants seems to be a notable topic, but the expansion with the other two seems very peripheral. There's a little bit of discussion, but I can only find one that appears even possibly RS, and I'm unsure it constitutes SIGCOV. There may be room for this article in a couple years, because the additional pageants look very new, but perhaps just WP:TOOSOON. Vaticidalprophet 12:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 12:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 12:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 12:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 12:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 12:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Which independent, reliable sources say that there are six major international beauty pageants? In other words, what independent sources place Miss Supranational and Miss Grand on the same level as Miss International and Miss Earth, much less Miss Universe and Miss World? I'm barely convinced that there are two major international beauty pageants, much less six. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. The term "Big Six International Pageants" does not exist, there is only Big Four international beauty pageants. The Big Six was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. There is no independent reliable source to support "Big Six". The article is a "copy and paste" obviously from the Big Four Pageants. This article has no verifiability and does not meet WP:GNG.On the other hand, the Big Four are considered the most prestigious,^[1] widely covered and broadcast by media.^[2] The Wall Street Journal,^[3] BBC News,^[4] CNN,^[5]^[6] Xinhua News Agency,^[7] and global news agencies such as Reuters,^[8]^[9] Associated Press^[10] and Agence France-Presse^[11]^[12] collectively refer to the four major pageants as "Big Four."---Richie Campbell (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above Delete arguments, no need to say what they said. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ornos, Riza (30 September 2013). "Philippines, Brazil And Venezuela: Three Countries To Win The Big Four International Beauty Pageants". International Business Times. Retrieved 4 February 2019.
^ Kanja, Kirstin (20 December 2019). "Beauty with a purpose: What it means to be Miss World, Miss Universe". Standard Media. Retrieved 26 April 2020.
^ Jun, Kwanwoo (2013-12-02). "Lost in Storm's Debris: A Beauty Pageant". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2015-11-09.
^ Amee, Enriquez (2 February 2014). "Philippines: How to make a beauty queen". BBC News. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
^ Cabato, Regine (27 January 2017). "How a country hosts a Miss Universe pageant". CNN. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
^ Andrew, Scottie (14 December 2019). "Miss World 2019: How to watch and what to expect". CNN. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
^ News, China (3 November 2018). "Myanmar's beauty queen to take part in Miss World pageant 2018 in China". Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved 30 December 2018. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
^ Banerji, Annie (30 May 2019). "Indian beauty pageant draws flak for unfair portrayal of women". Reuters. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
^ News, Reuters (13 December 2013). "The Philippines earns another crown". Reuters. Retrieved 14 December 2015. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
^ Willett, Megan (3 December 2019). "How the Miss Universe pageant has evolved over the last 67 years". Insider. Associated Press. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
^ Joel, Guinto (13 March 2015). "PH Cinderellas 'duck walk' to world stage". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Agence France-Presse. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
^ Joel, Guinto (12 March 2015). "In beauty pageants, Philippines' modern day Cinderellas seize world stage". GMA News Online. Agence France-Presse. Retrieved 10 November 2015.

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Montenegro Trophy

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

I am concerned that this does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. This may not even satisfy basic WP:V as there are no sources in the article at all and there never were any. Searches relating to this, its teams, Spuž and Ulcinj are coming back with no useful results at all. This would require multiple independent and reliable sources reporting on it in depth to qualify for an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:SPORTSEVENT CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G3. Article was deleted as WP:CSD#G3 by Stwalkerster (non-admin closure) McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Alchenko

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

Would be presumed notable if his role can be verified. I have attempted a WP:BEFORE search but can't find anything to verify the article's statement. Fails WP:V as well as WP:N as far as I can tell. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. President of an uninhabited Antarctic island, which by definition doesn't even have residents let alone a government? That's not a thing, and this should probably be speedied as a WP:HOAX. I'm also blocking the creator on WP:NOTHERE grounds, as other than this their only Wikipedia contributions have been vandalizing the island article and posting patent nonsense of the "also emmanuelle also can be want you also can be want you also can be want you also can be want you also can be want you ??????" variety on their userpage. Bearcat (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Present coverage fails in passing GNG. Purosinaloense T/K 14:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G3 This is a pure and simple hoax as Antarctica is under international treaty and has no form of government. As stated earlier the author of this article has been blocked as a vandal and is now wasting people's time by trying to force this discussion. Just get rid of it. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closing since nominator is a sock.. The nominator was blocked for sockpuppetry. Feel free to renominate, etc, if necessary. Missvain (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girija Shankar Sharma

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

No reliable sources found on a WP:Before and no sources to establish GNG. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 14:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 14:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 14:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 14:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠Devan Lallu ^Talk 14:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BEFORE. –Cupper52^Discuss! 15:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- It should not be difficult to verify that the books listed exist. His status as a state archivist might be notable (though I suspect not). It is thus a question whether his output as an author is enough to make him notable or whether two things bringing him near the threshold are enough to push him across it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The nom has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 07:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wait, is that my sig? –♠Vami _IV†♠ 04:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV Checkuser-blocked two weeks ago, no wonder. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator, only !vote was to keep, and sources were added. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Walter Scott Story

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

Biography of a pulp fiction and children’s writer unsourced since 2003. A search is hard because it throws up only false positives for me and I’m not even finding unreliable sources. The article looks like it was based on an obituary but maybe others will be able to find sources demonstrating notability. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, I looked at the dates in that article, went "If there's anything here, it's not on Google", opened up newspapers.com, and found there was indeed a there there. I'm happy to say I've sourced something unsourced since 2003. His work is fairly extensively reviewed, enough for WP:NAUTHOR, and his death was front-page news. Vaticidalprophet 13:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hah! A likely Story! Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination with thanks to Vaticidalprophet. Mccapra (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Messe München

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

Fails WP:NCORP, the history section and only reference are nothing to do with this exhibition centre operator. WP:BEFORE reveals only trivial coverage. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth looking at Special:Diff/731924161 where an obviously paid PR editor, from the account name and edit summary, removed all source citations from the article. Have you looked at those sources too? Uncle G (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, three dead links (two to the company's own website), and two presumed reliable sources containing trivial coverage. This one reporting record profits, and this one reporting on a new chairman. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, major trade fair operator, organizing Bauma (trade fair), Expo Real, Transport Logistic, Internationale Fachmesse für Sportartikel und Sportmode and others. (At the very least, consider merging with Neue Messe München, their main ground). Nontrivial WP:RS coverage (from easy Google searches: [15], [16], [17], and of course lots of coverage of individual trade fairs. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 20:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources related to this company but none of them offer significant coverage per WP:NCORP. They are all standard notices (trivial), covering losing money, cancelling events, new appointments etc. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not hard to find more and better examples. corruption, overview of company history. Scheduled to host the International Motor Show Germany (world largest motor show), RS discussion. Basically, for a company of this size (especially one intimately connected with large grounds in a major city), there are always sufficient sources. The Süddeutsche Zeitung even has a subtopic for the company on their we page: [18]. I don't think "notability" is a concern worth discussing for this company. —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 21:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except none of those meet the criteria either. We need in-depth information about the company, not mentions in passing. We need "Independent Content", not rehashed company information. This Spiegel article does not provide any in-depth information on the company not provide any "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. This Sueddeutsche Zeitung article discusses the buildings and the site with only a mere passing mention of the company and fails to provide in-depth information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This Frankfurter Allgemeine article also fails to provide any in-depth information on the company and discusses the suitability of Munich to host conferences. As can be seen, the criteria for establishing notability has not been met. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - HighKing, in depth discussion of importance of company for the German economy. This is a company with 300 million euro turnover in a normal year, but much reduced recently. The main difficulty in finding sources is that the company has a stupid name and there are thousands and thousands of "in passing" references. The Sueddeutsche subtopic I linked to above is the "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization" that WP:NCORP asked for, and there are also at least two dissertations about Munich trade fairs, but I don't know how much they focus on the company versus on its interaction with others. (And now I'll go back to working on some far more obscure topics that for some reason don't get hit with deletion requests). —Kusma (𐍄·𐌺) 21:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Kusma For me, the report looked impressive until I saw the report was commissioned by the topic company - "Im Auftrag der Messe München GmbH führte das ifo Institut nach 2001, 2007 und 2013 zum vierten Mal eine Studie zu den wirtschaftlichen Wirkungen durch". In my opinion, this fails ORGIND as it cannot truly be regarded as "Independent". As I've already stated, references need to meet both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND and the other sections of NCORP too - there's no point in saying that a reference meets one part (e.g. "ongoing media coverage") of the guidelines if it fails another part. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Kusma. Expertwikiguy (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Neue Messe München as WP:ATD. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for 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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. The exhibition centre has its own article and most of the references are in relation to either the facilities or to conferences hosted there. Topic company fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Instead of trying to delete this article, how about we see what the German-language counterpart of it is like, then try to expand the English article with text translated from its German counterpart? It's always tough to find a user who will handle such translation jobs, considering the number of active translators can be limited at times. If the German Wikipedia article has separate articles for the company and the facility, why can't the English version? Jim856796 (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last two "keep" !votes are very weak. The German Wiki is independent from the English one and has its own inclusion criteria. It should not be too difficult to look at the sources present in the German article and see whether they satisfy GNG and can be incorporated here (rather than rely on "sources may exist").
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, my analysis of the sources presented so far, in the article and in this discussion:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
#1 Süddeutsche Zeitung	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about the company losing money and cutting jobs due to COVID-19 - routine coverage.
#2 Augsburger Allgemeine	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about the company losing money due to COVID-19 - routine coverage.
#3 BR24	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about the company cancelling 'Expo Real' due to COVID-19 - routine coverage.
#4 Die Spiele	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Report on the 1972 Olympic games. No mention of the company.
#5 Spiegel Politik	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article on suspected corruption at the Munich trade fair by employees of the company. Routine coverage per WP:EVENTCRIT.
#6 Süddeutsche Zeitung	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about the company expanding its exhibition space - routine coverage.
#7 Frankfurter Allgemeine	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about Munich hosting the International Motor Show. No mention of the company.
#8 IFO Institute	Y	N	N	Y	N	A report on the company's economic importance, commissioned by the company.
#9 statista	N	Y	Y	Y	N	The company's annual sales history - routine coverage
#10 Merkur.de	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article about the company cutting jobs due to COVID-19 - routine coverage.
#11 University thesis	?	?	N	?	N	A university thesis. Not considered to reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP
#12 University thesis	?	?	N	?	N	A university thesis. Not considered to reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP
Total qualifying sources					0	There is no significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've looked at the sources on the German article and the vast majority are the company's own websites. Of the few independent, secondary sources the coverage is limited to trivial announcements (opening international offices in Die Welt [19] for example). Due to the company's size and history, and the amount of trivial coverage, I feel that it should be notable - it just seems to be too ordinary. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came to close, but found myself digging around for sources and was a bit shocked at how few there were. Still, Kusma makes good points and while we definitely want strong sources, our policies are not designed to be blinders, they are designed to guide us. This is a large company with a lot of reach, they just don't get a lot of coverage. Their clients are who get the coverage. I would seem a travesty to delete the article of such an old, established and respected company, even if we have to use WP:IAR as a justification. Policy works most of the time, but there are times when WP:COMMONSENSE trumps our traditional "2RS + sigcov" rules. This is something I've only suggested a couple of times in the 15 years of my wikicareer, but it was under the same circumstances, where it would be an obvious mistake to be slavish to the letter of policy while blind to the intent. In this case, the intent of policy was to reserve inclusion for significant organizations and the formula for determining this is inadequate, so we have to use common sense, and intent, to keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gojko Lopičić Memorial Tournament

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT; searches of the Montenegrin name are not returning any useful results, mainly Wikipedia mirrors. Friendly tournaments are not inherently notable and are required to have multiple sources covering them in depth to justify an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating this for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the tournament shows no evidence of meeting WP:GNG, and the individual season is even less notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Non-administrator Closure - Per WP:SNOW, I cannot see a way of this being deleted (8 keep (3 speedy keep and 5 keep) with 2 delete votes, including the nomination). Reasoning for deletion were WP:NOTNEWS and some reasons for keep were WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RAPID, and the fact of this being a terrorist attack. (non-admin closure) Elijahandskip (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rambouillet knife attack

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

Non notable and reads like a news report (WP:NOTNEWS), with only 1 reference. f   Kadzi   (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this fatal attack at a police station has been well-reported by the national & international media. French authorities have said it was planned & are treating it as a terrorist attack. It wasn't a routine crime. Anyone is welcome to improve it. Jim Michael (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the article now has 5 references and did receive international attention. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as of today it is well sourced and notable. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per significant coverage in reliable sources. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and WP:NOTNEWS CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, could you specify which part of NOTNEWS you are referring to as to why it is not a notable event? That might help clear up confusion that others (Keep votes) and me have. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article could use more expansion as of now, but other than that, I can't see how it is not notable. A terrorist attack in France is a pretty big deal, regardless of what actually happened. Love of Corey (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a big deal.VikingDrummer (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - widely reported and thus passes the WP:GNG threshold as there is WP:SIGCOV significant coverage in international media. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to France Inter, prime minister Jean Castex and interior minister Gerard Darmanin visited the scene of the attack, that means the attack has reached the highest levels of the French government. Changing my position to Speedy Keep. A Thousand Words (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super8 Mundialito Beach Soccer Tournament

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

Some sources available but not enough from established WP:RS to show a clear passing of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT, which requires more than just routine announcements of the event. I found a brochure published by the tournament itself, clearly not an independent source. I found an announcement about the 2013 tournament here and some about subsequent tournaments here and here. Notice that all articles are written by 'editorial staff' rather than actual named authors and all are written promotionally.

I could not find any coverage of individual matches, not even the finals. All coverage, and there's very little of it, seems to be pre-tournament announcements. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sultat Shaab Cup

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

This article has been unsourced for 11 years and there is no indication of notability. I have given the individual tournament articles a PROD already. My WP:BEFORE search is only coming back with Wikipedia mirrors and no coverage in established WP:RS, therefore, I see no potential for this article to be more than what it currently is. WP:GNG not established. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, good catch, fails clearly WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taabbu

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

Non notable actor with no evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR. The only film he probably worked and played a main role in is Pappur Biye which is not a notable film either. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, no significat work and also fails GNG. Sonofstar (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per rules doesn't meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG also WP:NACTOR TryingToDo — Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable actor. Imfarhad7 (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Poppified ^talk 17:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep votes centre entirely around NFOOTY which is a presumption of GNG. Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS my assessment of the arguments is that those claiming the subject fails gng carry more weight as not a single source which might indicate the significant coverage NFOOTBALL assumes has been presented. Fenix down (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Gunnarsson

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as that's guideline is working now. Only played 6 minutes of pro-league football, back in 2017, and now plays on the third tier. I know this is a "career still ongoing" case, but as said the 6 minutes is pretty long ago. Geschichte (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 07:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - young player, notable per NFOOTBALL (he played in the Allsvenskan), with ongoing career. We traditionally give players like this more leeway with GNG and I see no reason to depart from that. Giant Snowman 07:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's so many years since he played those 6 minutes. Besides, how is this different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Boujar where you opined delete? Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per NFOOTBALL, played in the Allsvenskan. Sources looks decent enough as well.BabbaQ (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keep The English article has very little on it, the Swedish article has more sources which seem mostly transfer related. That article is in a lot better shape and a good start which could be transcribed over. I've had a look at google hits, I don't see much promise really, but there maybe enough to push towards GNG, however this is a very weak keep for now. Govvy (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He played 6 minutes in one game at a fully professional level. This does not pass any reasonable inclusion standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL #2 states ”Players who have played in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable”. Gunnarsson has done just that. And is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing WP:NFOOTBALL only means that the subject is likely to pass WP:BASIC, not that he does. Alvaldi (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now, passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NFOOTBALL#2 CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to create gaps in the player coverage here. /Julle (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Passing WP:NFOOTBALL means the subject is likely to pass GNG but there still has to be WP:SIGCOV on him to pass it. A Google search turned up nothing and his Swedish article only has links to trivial sources or database sites. Alvaldi (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Alvaldi said, meeting NFOOTY is not sufficient for keeping an article if GNG is not met. This is most clearly stated in the governing NSPORT guideline FAQs:
Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline.
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.
Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.

The majority of the "keep" !votes have no basis in policy or guidelines (with the exception of Govvy's contribution). Google translation of the Swedish sources and those discovered through my own search reveal exclusively routine non-SIGCOV match reports and transfers, which emphatically do not demonstrate GNG. He doesn't even seem to be the most newsworthy Erik Gunnarsson... JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously notable according to WP:NFOOTBALL. And as GiantSnowman put it, it's very reasonable to give some leeway with GNG in this case (and in similar cases). He is still young (22 years old) and is a prominent player in the Swedish third tier. It's not unlikely to assume that he will return to a more professional level in the future. Should the article be deleted now and then, it that case, be created again in a few years? That seems rather unnecessary to me. It would be completely different if he was 34 years old and had ended his career, but that's not the case here. (And of course, the article needs more content and sources. That's fairly easy to fix with inspiration from the Swedish article.) // Mattias321 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mattias321, NFOOTY does not confer notability -- it presumes it. NSPORT explicitly states a topic can only be considered notable if it meets GNG; see its FAQs:

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

The coverage found in the Swedish article, by various !voters above, and by my own searches in Swedish newspapers are exclusively passing mentions and database entries, which do not contribute to GNG. Furthermore, the argument that he might be notable in the future is straight-up the definition of an argument to avoid (crystal). JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ludvig Johansson, Mergim Laci, Andreas Öhman, Edvin Dahlqvist - Swedish players with one or a few games in Allsvenskan are all up for deletion. Very similiar to this player. --Fredde (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is difficult, I acknowledge the keep votes in number but the strength of arguments for delete are so much stronger. There is no getting away from the fact that GNG needs to be met, all SNGs with the exception of WP:NACADEMIC require this. In fact, I would refer editors to question 13 in my own RfA where this was specifically asked of me to assess my understanding of notability guidelines. I'm extending this to allow time for keep voters to back up assertions of notability with sources, but at the moment, I would close as delete due to a complete absence of sources indicating significant coverage if I had to close now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:WP:NFOOTBALL #2 states ”Players who have played in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable”. Gunnarsson has done just that. And is notable. That is not an opinion, it is a fact and in line with the guidelines of notability for footballers. And is part of the sources provided. Notability is notability.BabbaQ (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Generally as in they are likely to have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. It does not mean that a player is automatically notable for haven gotten paid for appearing for a few minutes in a single game and has nothing to his/her name other than a few database site entry. If the significant coverage isn't there, then the person is not notable. Alvaldi (talk)

@BabbaQ: NFOOTY is not a guideline. It is a set of rules of thumb within NSPORT, which is a guideline that a) explicitly excludes databases and routine match reports from consideration of notability and b) is specifically a predictor of GNG and thus requires GNG sourcing be demonstrated when notability is challenged. JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's some brief coverage like this but not enough for GNG in my view Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while NFOOTBALL is met, GNG is not. I am concerned by certain comments above, particularly with the phrasing from BabbaQ, that suggests they haven't read NFOOTBALL/NSPORTS fully. Some have, such as Mattias321, but in response to "it that case, be created again in a few years? That seems rather unnecessary to me." I'd give a clear "yes". I'm not immune to an argument that something is likely to become notable in a couple of weeks - if he'd been listed as a player for a professional game in a week I'd accept the reasoning. But years is a long time, and we might have to wait 8 years and only then find he'd never done more than the six minutes. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nosebagbear, please see this (closed) DRV discussion that essentially says an AfD argument is not invalidated by its arguer's or closing admin's misinterpretation of NSPORT... JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the sources in the Swedish article are very short and he's been mentioned during his time with Utsikens in the media several times. I don't think he's that far away from qualifying for an article on sourcing grounds, but I can't find the magic source to put him over the line, and I can't support draftifying because that might not be in the next six months. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Karam

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

Prod removed by article creator. This strikes me as more or less an advertisement. A search finds some trivial coverage of the doctor, on items such as which mask he recommends for COVID protection. GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see (nor could I find by searching, though admitedly dermatology isn't my speciality) no actual secondary refs with in-depth coverage. Therefore doesn't meet WP:BIO for BASIC or the special aspects of ANYBIO or adacdemics. Awards while in school are nowhere near sufficient. Holding patents or publishing are themselves not sufficient. DMacks (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Clear WP:PROMO page. KidAd • SPEAK 21:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative theories of quantum evolution

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

It was noted during the current RM that this pseudoscientific hypothesis fails WP:GNG, with the only source not by proponents Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili being a rebuttal that is an arXiv preprint. The article subject is unrelated to the theory more commonly known as quantum evolution, which does not involve quantum mechanics. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary coverage, title is terrible regardless as it is not an "alternative theory" but an entirely different concept. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked for additional coverage during the move-request discussion and found nothing that was reliable and independent. I think the rebuttal mentioned in the nomination is scientifically correct, perhaps even a little overly generous, but one book review that wasn't even formally published is not sufficient basis to say that an article should exist. XOR'easter (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous AfD linked over to the right was in 2006, so more than long enough ago to warrant reconsideration, and the consensus was rather weak. By the numbers, there were 4 deletes, 2 merges, and 5 keeps (2 qualified as weak, 1 as strong). One of the merge !votes added If not merge, then delete, the keep !votes have a bit of a "well, it has references" theme, and the closer's statement had the qualification The article embodies all that is worst about this kind of topic, however. Given the breakdown of the numbers and the caveats in the !votes, it should perhaps have been relisted rather than closed back then, but that aside, we're here again now, and the intervening years have not proved the topic notable. XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As per nom and above, completely fails WP:GNG. —Quondum 14:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was originally titled "Quantum Theory (alternative)" and survived an AfD under that name Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum evolution (alternative). The name change was ill-advised but was accepted after a brief discussion on the talk page Weburbia (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Laughably wrong, and wasn't even noted other than to be debunked. Tercer (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When a WP:FRINGE topic uses the same label as a WP:MAINSTREAM topic, it is important that Wikipedia identify some WP:FRIND notice of the topic. As far as I can tell, with the exception of one preprint, the only people talking about this are those who either have an extreme vested interest in the idea (its progenitors), or those who like to connect quantum mechanics to literally anything (quantum mysticism). Either way, this does not provide for a WP:NFRINGE justification for this article. jps (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense, yes, but not notable nonsense, as noted above. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article could be renamed since it's really only about a particular hypothesis. It appears to not have had traction, the work is from two authors in one common journal. The only present independent review is itself in a suboptimal venue. This indicates a lack of notability. —Paleo Neonate – 08:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Still no consensus made after the 2nd relist. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23rd Monster

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

No notability for this single to warrant a standalone article. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question - are at least 3 of the references separate from the subject and more than just passing mentions? versacespace leave a message! 01:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I used Google Translate so it's not entirely accurate but all of the links smell like promotional pieces. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is probably not enough to keep the article from being deleted but I would like to give some more insight. Yes, three of the sources are basically announcenemts from music news outlets (BARKS Japan Music Network, Oricon Music, news.dwango.jp) and one is an announcement made by her label (Avex.jp, which I only used for its release date). The song is not just mentioned in these articles, though, but it's also a part of each headline. Additionally, they talk about the song's music video and the lyrical content. I would say that's more than a mere mention of the song's title. I have just added another chart source by Oricon (https://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/dis/d/2021-04-08/), where the song debuted at number 2 on the daily chart. Question: If the song were to place in the weekly Oricon/Billboard chart, would that make it notable enough or does it still need other sources?
I apologize for causing a possible mess. In fact, I tried my best using multiple sources, even though articles such as Darenimo Iwanai are clearly use less sources, where one is not even seen as reliable according to Wikipedia rules. That is why I thought this single warrants having its own article in the first place. TioTayumi (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it ranks in the weekly Oricon, it can be a sign of notability, see WP:NALBUM. As this song released 2 days ago, this might be a "wait and see" situation. Jumpytoo Talk 22:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The song has debuted at 29 on the weekly Oricon chart, as well as having reached 30th place on the weekly Billboard chart (both for digital releases, which this song is). TioTayumi (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iul'tin Airport

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

Fails WP:V. I have found no evidence that the airport exists. Even if it does exist, may have a very hard time meeting WP:GNG. Rusf10 (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find sources to show notability. I checked List of airports in Russia to see if I could see an IATA or ICAO code as they're missing from the article but the airport is not mentioned there at all. It's also not mentioned in the Iultin article either. I also searched under Iultin airport as that's the spelling that the town article is under but couldn't find much there either. Suonii180 (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from Wikimapia, there appears to be no other source that can prove the existence of this airport. This is clearly a hoax. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No IATA code, no ICAO code, it may be just some airstrip. Did not pass WP:GNG.SunDawn (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One or two mentions in unreliable sources but nothing that comes near to meeting GNG nor, given it is apparently a small airstrip constructed to service a remote mine, is there likely to be. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IntelliMax

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

No disambiguation needed - the only mention of IntelliMax is in the track listing of Contemporary Sapporo. Leschnei (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Contemporary Sapporo, strange article style disambiguation page. Chirota (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reclassify as a Wikipedia:Set index article as a list article about a brands or products that also share the same name. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this seems like a perfectly acceptable set index article. jp×g 05:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 06:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reformulated as a SIA, per Shhh and JPxG. Vaticidalprophet 13:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ✗plicit 00:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnavel Pandian Subbiah

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

~~BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is not inherited from the role of being one of 74 judges in the second-tier court for a country. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Black-letter WP:NPOL, which specifically covers "judges who have held... (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office". Subject is a judge of the highest court of a state-level division of India, appointed to that position by the president of the country. I don't know what the terms of appointment are for courts of India, or if they are lifetime appointments, but this subject has held the office since 2008, and has therefore served during the tenures of three presidents of India. BD2412 T 04:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NJUDGE. India is a federal nation, and judges/politicians who hold state-level offices are presumed notable. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Nardi (referee)

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

Not enough depth for WP:GNG, in my view. No significant coverage cited in the article and little found in searches. The best that I could find were 2 passing mentions in The World Game, SMH match report, a list in My Football and a picture of him in QT. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Leadership (newspaper)

[2] ""National Register of Historic Places Inventory" (PDF). Retrieved 16 March 2021.

[:13-3] "New Badin Hall named after first priest in America". The Irish Standard. 22 December 1917. p. 1.

[:12-4] "ND residence to mark 50th anniversary". South Bend Tribune. 18 May 1947. p. 13.

[:11-5] Carrico, Patrick (12 May 1954). "Famed Bog distinguished Badin Hall at Notre Dame". South Bend Tribune. p. 24.

[:10-6] Charleton, James H. (1986). Recreation in the United States: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. National Park Service, Department of the Interior.

[7] Hope, Arthur J. (1978). Notre Dame, one hundred years. South Bend, Ind.: Icarus Press. ISBN 9780896515000.

[:8-8] Blantz, Thomas E. (2020). The University of Notre Dame : a history. Notre Dame, Indiana. ISBN 978-0-268-10824-3. OCLC 1182853710.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[9] Carrico, Patrick (12 May 1954). "Famed Bog distinguished Badin Hall at Notre Dame". South Bend Tribune. p. 24.

[10] "ND residence to mark 50th anniversary". South Bend Tribune. 18 May 1947. p. 13.

[11] Ornos, Riza (30 September 2013). "Philippines, Brazil And Venezuela: Three Countries To Win The Big Four International Beauty Pageants". International Business Times. Retrieved 4 February 2019.

[12] Kanja, Kirstin (20 December 2019). "Beauty with a purpose: What it means to be Miss World, Miss Universe". Standard Media. Retrieved 26 April 2020.

[wallstreet-debris-13] Jun, Kwanwoo (2013-12-02). "Lost in Storm's Debris: A Beauty Pageant". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2015-11-09.

[bbc-news-14] Amee, Enriquez (2 February 2014). "Philippines: How to make a beauty queen". BBC News. Retrieved 10 November 2015.

[15] Cabato, Regine (27 January 2017). "How a country hosts a Miss Universe pageant". CNN. Retrieved 31 December 2018.

[16] Andrew, Scottie (14 December 2019). "Miss World 2019: How to watch and what to expect". CNN. Retrieved 3 May 2020.

[17] News, China (3 November 2018). "Myanmar's beauty queen to take part in Miss World pageant 2018 in China". Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved 30 December 2018. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)

[18] Banerji, Annie (30 May 2019). "Indian beauty pageant draws flak for unfair portrayal of women". Reuters. Retrieved 3 May 2020.

[19] News, Reuters (13 December 2013). "The Philippines earns another crown". Reuters. Retrieved 14 December 2015. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

[20] Willett, Megan (3 December 2019). "How the Miss Universe pageant has evolved over the last 67 years". Insider. Associated Press. Retrieved 3 May 2020.

[Cinderellas-afp-21] Joel, Guinto (13 March 2015). "PH Cinderellas 'duck walk' to world stage". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Agence France-Presse. Retrieved 10 November 2015.

[gma-afp-22] Joel, Guinto (12 March 2015). "In beauty pageants, Philippines' modern day Cinderellas seize world stage". GMA News Online. Agence France-Presse. Retrieved 10 November 2015.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]