Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 25	March 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereal Woods

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND. I have not been able to find any significant coverage or any other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:BAND. Google search didn't turn up any reliable independent sources that show non-trivial coverage of the subject. The albums did not chart on the national music charts, or have received any certifications or any accolades. I don't consider Supernatural to be a major record label. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Couldn't find anything that establishes notability. Supernal (not Supernatural :) Music is a redirect to the founder of the label, so I don't consider it to be notable or major either. COI also applies, as the band themselves contributed to the article (see page history). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:07, 1 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. Daniel (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syazuan Hazani

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

According to Soccerway, GSA and Tribuna has only played 22 mins of professional football, so only just scrapes a WP:NFOOTBALL pass.

Searches, including this Malaysian search, failed to uncover any significant coverage. Clear consensus that a trivial passing of NFOOTBALL is insufficient when WP:GNG is not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is plenty of consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL from 1 or 2 appearances in insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found then please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial passing of WP:NFOOTBALL is not enough, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom., does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non Notable player. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:38, 30 March 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. Daniel (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamka Daud

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

According to the one database that lists him, he has only played in the second tier and, even then, has only played 4 times. Clear WP:NFOOTBALL failure.

Searches are only coming back with passing mentions; no evidence that he meets WP:GNG. The article relies too much on Wikipedia as a reference as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing GNG & NFOOTBALL JW 1961 Talk 20:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non Notable player. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devoke water 11:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iflaq ^(talk) 17:05, 2 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. Daniel (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His name was Robeson

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

Does not meet any of the criteria within WP:NFILM and fails WP:GNG. Searches of "Его звали Робсон" and "His name was Robeson" yield no coverage in independent sources. The Russian Wikipedia article was deleted today because there was no evidence of notability. I would oppose a merge to Paul Robeson or Paul Robeson Jr. or Itzik Feffer as the film isn't notable enough even for that. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge FWIW, it has a short mention in Paul_Robeson#Film_biographies_and_documentaries, which I think this could be partly merged into Shushugah (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, there should be at least one reliable source on the film before performing a merge. The YouTube video itself isn't enough. I can see that the user has tried adding it to Robeson's article twice already and it's been correctly reverted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would agree with the merge if Spiderone's condition could be met, but I can't find any reliable sourcing for this documentary. Ping me if reliable sourcing is found to merge. Definitely not notable enough to pass WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with no coverage in independent sources there's definitely not enough here for a standalone article, and I think the brief mention already extant in Paul Robeson is all it really warrants. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:36, 28 March 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KingYc

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

Musician whose notability isn't established; I heard about the subject because of his conspiracy theories about vaccines on social media, not because of music. The article has been tagged for sources for five years, tagged for lack of notability for half a year. Nothing links to the article. The subject seems to use WP as promotion, already indeffed for self-promotion in 2019 [1] but back with a new account [2]. Neither conspiracy theories nor self-promotions are reasons to delete, but the lack of any established notability after years of being tagged means it probably should go. Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons listed above.Hoponpop69 (talk) 12:41, 27 March 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. Daniel (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldo Fierro

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor. As always, this is not a level of political office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself: to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, he would have to be able to demonstrate a substantive reason why he could be considered a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors, which nothing here does. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local interest only.Ingratis (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NPOL,WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 09:06, 30 March 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Marcatoma Ccahuana

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both NPOL, as one of 43 such "mayors" in Lima alone (his district having a population of 8,000). As for the GNG, coverage seems to be about his COVID death, after a mere year in office. Non-notable. PK650 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 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. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Stephenson

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

Stephenson was mayor of Ann Arbor, Michigan, a city that is not of such importance that the mayor would be default notable. All we have as sourcing is the local newspaper obituary. We need more than this to show that a mayor is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ann Arbor is large enough that a substantive and well-sourced article about a mayor would very likely be kept, but is not so large or important that just two sentences, going no further than stating that he existed and sourced solely to a single obituary in the local newspaper, would be enough in and of itself. I'm obviously willing to reconsider this if somebody with much better access to archived Michigan/US media coverage than I've got can expand the article to feature significantly more sourcing and substance than this, but having an article about every mayor Ann Arbor had is not critically important enough to justify putting this little work into any of them. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 27 March 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramat Ohunene Abdulkareem

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL not having played in a fully professional league or senior national team. WP:GNG not established (BEFORE gives match reports, brief transfer news) JW 1961 Talk 19:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 19:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 19:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 19:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found one decent reference but probably not enough. Definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL; only appears on FlashScore and her profile is practically blank. I can't see any evidence of an international cap. She was called up for the Turkish Women's Cup but was unused in all 3 games Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, not enough cov for WP:GNG either CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not qualified for WP:NFOOTBALL , WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notibility criteria. Fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:55, 30 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet, West Virginia

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

This doesn't look like a "populated, legally recognized place" a la WP:GEOLAND. Satellite view for the given coordinates looks like a forest(?) with a roadhouse(?) off to the west. Taking this to AfD rather than prodding as is common for GEOLAND failures because it's an SNG I'm not very confident with, and I'd like to have people who are moreso take a look. Vaticidalprophet 19:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What several books and magazines reveal is that the reason you won't find it today with Google Maps is that it was the stop at the end of the Trace Fork Extension to the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, which fell into disuse half a century ago in the 1970s. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete - Uncle G - Not sure what you found, but nothing I found indicates that indicates there was a community here. Old topographic maps show a railroad siding with four or five buildings, a mine, and a water tower. Old newspapers hits refer to the site as having a coal processing plant and a mine waste dumping site, all apparently related to Hobet Mining and Construction Co.'s Mine No. 7. I haven't seen anything mentioning people living here, though. From what I found, this was a railroad and mining feature, although I may have missed something. Willing to reconsider my !vote if significant coverage can be found, but this isn't looking like a WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm _Talk 00:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What I found led me to think that it's more probable that the extension to the railway line and the Trace Fork Subdivision is the better subject (c.f. Peninsula Extension), although I didn't look for historical sources on that subject specifically, as this place was documented either in relation to that or in relation to the various "fork" rivers, which one source treated as the Pigeon Creeks, a group including Pigeon Creek itself, Trace Fork, Right Fork, et al.. But this does clarify where to look and what to look for. Look for something that exists now, and one won't find anything. Uncle G (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Searching is plagued by false hits, a situation not improved by specifically looking for the C&O (especially numerous repetitions of the assertion that Thurmond was "a focus of gambling and scarlet night life"), but I did find one reference that confirmed what topos and older aerials show: there was, for a while, a mine tipple here for loading trains, presumably with coal. The oldest topos show nothing much there, and of course there's nothing there now, so I'm going to have to say this is not a notable location, and was never a settlement of any kind. Mangoe (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable unincorporated place without any current or past population or significant coverage. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:11, 28 March 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. Daniel (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Gate Australian Football League

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

Appears to be a non notable league playing Australian Rules Football in the US. Article created in 2016 and no real updates. Fails WP:GNG NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no notability sources (reliable secondary sources independent of the subject) found and a BEFORE search revealed no such sources. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is one source in the article where the league is a passing mention. I can find this one addiotnal passing mention for a grand total of two passing mentions. What coverage can be found is insignificant. -- Whpq (talk) 01:44, 1 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) gidonb (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul A. Broad

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

Per my source analysis on the talk page, I believe only this source passes WP:GNG. In my opinion, not enough quality sources to demonstrate notability. Feel free to spot check my source analysis. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG requires multiple sources, so if only one meets GNG, GNG is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Johnpacklambert, did you just accept the claim made by the nominator or actually bother to check it? Did you do a WP:BEFORE search? I have to say again, this is a really unhelpful contribution from you. Why do you continue to persist with adding your one line contributions in AfDs such as this where you always !vote delete and don't engage with other contributors when they ask you questions? Deus et lex (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Paul Broad was a notable figure when it came to transport & roads and politics during the term of a number of premiers of New South Wales and the sources show there is clear independent coverage. While made in good faith (as the page is a mess, but note WP:NOTCLEANUP), and while the nominator actually bothered to check the sources (which is commendable!), the problem with the nomination that it makes an (erroneous) assumption that if someone is interviewed then the source is automatically not notable. This is not correct, as none of WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:RS or WP:IS say that interviews are unreliable sources that can't be used to assess notability. I accept that (in general) some interviews are clearly promotional but there are enough sources in this article that clearly are independent and reliable. When you look at sources 1 and 9 (for example), they're by a major regional newspaper (the Sydney Morning Herald, one of Australia's most well-known newspapers), and are done by the paper's transport editor, and are clearly independent coverage of him. If they can't be used as reliable sources then most stuff on Wikipedia couldn't be. Quite clearly there are several sources in the list on the talk page that are notable. Broad's article clearly meets WP:BIO and it should be kept. Deus et lex (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the page needs work to conform with some Wikipedia norms, I believe the subject is notableMiaminsurance (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deus et lex. Vaticidalprophet 19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, interviews of a subject/news reports where a subject has been asked for their views, depending on the source, may reflect (in part?) that they "[have] made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.", meeting WP:ANYBIO, eg. ABC News has 40 reports over years in which Broad provides an opinion as the head of major infrastructure enterprises. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 1 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 to delete. There is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and some noted potential for expansion and improvement along the lines of better explaining the contents of each episode. As an additional aside, the list could be improved by cross-referencing Carpool Karaoke and indicating which episodes of the latter were broadcast on which episodes of the talk show. BD2412 T 19:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Late Late Show with James Corden episodes

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

A clear example of WP:NOT. Nominating along with the subpages: this has very little if any encyclopedic value. Seems like a running chronicle of a show which runs almost daily, but the only thing it provides is a listing of guests at the show along with, occasionally, some superficial details. WP:FANCRUFT which is probably WP:TMI and fails WP:V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added all those of the previous host too, since it does not change much... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how these are different from other episode lists, which are important to establish what the show is about. If there is not enough details, that can be fixed by editing, not deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"What the show is about" can and should be discussed in the main article about the show? As to your WP:OSE I rebut that in the current form, these lists are clearly WP:INDISCRIMINATE material. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, what the show is about is described at the main article, but having a list of episodes helps visualize what happens on a given episode. Having a list of episodes is a common feature of Wikipedia (and a good one at that) and I don't see why this particular TV series would be an exception. Listing every episode of a given television show would not be indiscriminate, which, I presume, would be a list of things made without care or distinction? -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link. Basically, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. A listing of every episode of a given television show still needs to abide by WP:V and WP:N - if the episodes are not independently notable from the main show (if there's, say, no specific coverage about them) then they likely don't belong here. A better place for this kind of thing is IMDB. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't address this issue well, or properly, because I am ill, but I will throw up a few points, and hope someone else can translate it into "official Wikipedia" arguments, because I just can't right now.

I haven't edited in a long time, but when I did, I did for many years. My former user name is Peacedance, but the old password and email are gone, so I am posting this without being signed in, but you can look up my editing history if you are interested.

The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, and this is a very unique and remarkable show. It is *not* another regular late night show.

The history of this show includes many notable episodes, such as Ferguson's interview with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for which he won a Peabody; his 2007 monologue refusing to make fun of Britney Spears, which just went viral again last month; a series of uniquely personal shows, which included eulogies for his father and mother; the use of English pantomime traditions throughout the series, and I could go on. He also won the Banff World Media Festival's Peter Ustinov Lifetime Achievement award for the show.

Without an index of episodes, it is hard to even get started on documenting which ones are notable, and I think many are. It also seems clear that many people have put an awful lot of hard work into putting this list of episodes in. I use it to figure out which episodes exist, vs. dates when there were no shows, and thereby document narratives that carry over from show to show. IMDB is a mess compared to this succinct, tabled, linked, clear listing of dates, episodes, guests and bands.

I sincerely hope and urge that this not be deleted.

Former User Peacedance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.12.150 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that the show itself is notable. However a simple listing of all of the episodes in the current state is really just a directory-like listing of not-encyclopedic information which is additionally not sourced to any secondary source. How is "James Corden's Journey to The Late Late Show featuring cameos by Leslie Moonves, Simon Cowell, Joel McHale, George Lopez, Lena Dunham, Billy Crystal, Eddie Redmayne, Katie Couric, Chris Rock, Chelsea Handler, Jay Leno, Allison Janney, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Shia LaBeouf, and Meryl Streep, Every Tom Hanks Movie, James sings "Late Night Ballad"." (the first thing written for the first episode in the 2015 list) any kind of encyclopedic information: he had guests at his talk show? Yeah, sure, nobody would have guessed... I've looked through the supposedly "notable" episodes but much of it had nothing but WP:PRIMARY sources and what little seems like WP:NOTNEWS and it would likely be difficult to write full fledged articles about them. The few episodes that attracted awards or something more significant can be mentioned in the main articles. As for IMDB being a mess that is their problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I am neutral regarding James Cordon; I don't have an opinion there. I am arguing for Ferguson.

You suggested that IMDb would be the proper place "database" information. If so, then it is hardly fair to then argue that IMDB being a mess is irrelevant, where by mess I meant, incomplete, unlinked and difficult to navigate. Also, I don't see it as a database, I see it as an index.

Regarding primary sources, there are *tons* of cases all over Wikipedia, of television programs, where primary data is used and it is appropriate in this case. There is a guideline somewhere which says that if there is no reason to suspect the information is anything but straightforward, and it is the only source, you can use it.

Regarding Ferguson, just because there aren't articles for many? any? of his episodes doesn't mean they aren't notable, and that articles won't be built from them. And these lists are the base index structure from which it should be done. Articles could easily be written on the Britney Spears Monologue episode, and the Desmond Tutu interview, his innovative use of puppets in 2009, and I would argue many others.

Johnny Carson's list of episodes has descriptions of topics, the bands/songs/albums played, and cumulatively, they tell a story. Whether that "story" is in the optimal format isn't an argument for deletion. The same can be said/done for Ferguson, where episode descriptions could be added that document creative themes, entwining political events via key intellectual monologues and music.

Ferguson's show was very highly regarded for being extremely unique. Just to give you an (admittedly subjective) idea from IMDB:

The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson 8.4

The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson 8.3

The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien 8.0

The Late Show with David Letterman 6.9

The Late Late Show with James Cordon 6.1

The Tonight Show with Jay Leno 5.2

If you are going to argue for deleting Ferguson, then why not Carson? Why not skip this argument, and argue that *all* lists of talk show episodes be deleted?

Given so many important topics on WP need work, I don't believe that focusing on deleting something as innocuous as this, and something so many people have worked so hard on is worth the meg of data it might save.

One of the strengths of Wikipedia is arguments for exceptions to rules, and based on past decisions regarding episode lists, there is more than enough justification and desire by many Wikipedians for keeping these indexes to Ferguson's show, as evidenced by all the other talk and television shows with episode lists.

Former User Peacedance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.12.150 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Show popularity (like pageviews) and WP:OSE are not a valid reason. As for your IAR argument, I don't see how these lists "improve the encyclopedia" - they just list every single episode with very little detail overall. Given the sheer amount of them, it's unlikely that much have gained the "lasting and significant coverage" required by WP:GNG - any coverage is likely something along WP:NOTNEWS and routine levels, such as for ex. this (although it doesn't cover this show in particular). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is valid information that would not all fit in the main article, so these are valid spinoff articles, done by season since that's the only reasonable way to do it. Dream Focus 13:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia IS NOT a fansite, TV guide or indiscriminate collection of information. The guideline says articles should not exist purely for "summary-only descriptions of worksSummary-only descriptions of works", which is pretty much what these articles are. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Affects a large number of articles, needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 09:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an appropriate and useful list, notable as a whole, with clear scope and inclusion criteria. Contrary to repeated assertions above, the entries of a list do not need to be individually notable (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists). Indeed, lists commonly exist "explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". When episode lists are too long to fit in the main article, breaking it off to a separate page is standard. The further splitting by year may or may not be ideal (vs. dividing by season, or merging it all into one episode list for James Corden); I would not oppose reorganization. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that this doesn't have a clear scope or inclusion criteria. The problem is this doesn't present any encyclopedic information- i.e. WP:NOT. An encyclopedia is "a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge" - a summary listing of all episodes in a TV series without any commentary whatsoever looks better fit for a database... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be curious for someone to articulate criteria for which type of show merits stand-alone lists of all of its episodes.
A big difference between this and most other sorts of similar lists is that these episodes are not part of a larger whole. There is no narrative, no [reality] competition, no driving force which moves from the first episode of a season to the last. It's a variety format. As such there's limited information we can provide to a reader by presenting them together.
There are some shows which, when they air, get enough coverage for each episode that even though a list of episodes doesn't add all that much understanding of the show in general, there is nonetheless a good case for notability for a stand-alone list. Last Week Tonight and Saturday Night Live seem like a couple good examples here.
I don't see the daily variety/news/talk programs as fitting into either the "enough coverage of each episode to be independently notable from the show" column or the "helps readers understand the show, but would be too cumbersome to include in the main article" column. As such, I'm leaning weak delete at this point. "Weak" because while it's hard to back these up with strong policy arguments, readers are visiting these pages. I may be able to be convinced along those lines, but I'm having a hard time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really in a position to articulate general criteria for keeping talk show episodes. That's a bigger discussion than the one we're having here, a la Carson. I can suggest criteria that, in aggregate, make Ferguson's worth keeping:

1. The show made a unique creative contribution, representing a significant departure from and an innovation in the usual format, and pushed the boundaries of network television censorship; and

2. The show has many episodes that were individually significant, and had significant cultural impact, and arguably there are others which have not been identified; and, perhaps most importantly,

3. Because Ferguson used the show as an "open book on my life", the show as a whole, year to year, tells an evolving creative, personal, and cultural story, and many individual episodes are essential elements of that story, which can be fleshed out in the episode descriptions. Former User Peacedance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.12.150 (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of these points would require independent secondary sources to confirm them; and then enough coverage about the episodes themselves to justify having a list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPINOFF and WP:SIGCOV. It's a notable show with many verifiable sources readily available in print for appropriate expansion. The content itself isn't full of fancruft. The list could be expanded to make it less of a directory design (i.e. providing a basic summary of each episode). Deleting the article isn't the answer for developing lists on notable topics with clear delimitation. I'm not seeing a good policy based argument for deletion here.4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and SIGCOV. A handful of individual talk show episodes may be notable, but that is by far the exception, rather than the rule. Daily episodes are far too numerous for such treatment. Show me where episodes are described in some detail anywhere outside of Wikipedia. There aren't any AFAIK, so there is no SIGCOV. There are a lot more such lists; even those during Johnny Carson's "reign" should go. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/keep. LLSwCF is a culturally significant show that broke many conventions of the genre and is generally unlike most other network shows purported to be in the same class.
Also, this proposed deletion is ambiguous and the deletion information link in the article for "Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" links to a page titled "Late Late Show with James Corden." These are two different programs and should be treated separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.131.13.69 (talk) — 143.131.13.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This is not about deleting the shows. This is about deleting the lists of episodes. Two different things. The lists of programs are not different enough in significance to justify only deleting some of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Episode lists are common on Wikipedia for popular shows. There are also book volume descriptions for comics and manga, and some of these are featured. Saying that episode lists are WP:FANCRUFT is simply not true. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 01:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction is a whole different animal from talk shows. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This also doesn't explain why we should keep this one. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an ad populum - the other ones might need trimming too (or they might not, who knows). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. I edit a lot in the TV area and I'm also a fan of episode lists, but these lists offer almost no value. The reason why episodic TV series have episode lists, as was mentioned above by another editor, is that there is a story or narrative that is important to the reader. Here we have summaries like "Crosswalk! The Musical, Musical Chers", which is almost meaningless. --Gonnym (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Horrible listcruft. This is not comparable to lists of episodes of shows like Star Trek, because those have a common narrative. Here, all we have is a few names per episode, which has no or extremely little encyclopedic value. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 4 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway stations in Colombia

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

This list article is an absolute mess. Let me start by saying that I am a Brit who has lived for over a decade in Bogota, so I know many of these station buildings first-hand. The list of stations fails WP:LISTN because it hasn't been discussed in any reliable sources as a group, and it fails WP:LISTCRIT because the title of this article is ambiguous... this is not a list of current railway stations in Colombia because there haven't been any passenger services at all in the country for several decades, so none of these stations currently serve any passengers. Technically speaking, this is a List of railway stations of the Bogota Savannah Railway as of 1953, but apart from being an unwieldy title, an identical list already exists at Bogota Savannah Railway, so this unsourced list is a duplicate, and in fact makes much more sense within the Bogota Savannah Railway article, as all these stations were part of that specific rail network. I should add that of this list, some stations still exist for freight transport, some exist for the tourist train, some exist as buildings which have been repurposed, some are abandoned and derelict, and some have disappeared completely, so trying to establish a definitive list of current stations depends on the criteria for defining a "station" in 2021, hence failing WP:LISTCRIT. There were also dozens of other stations belonging to other railway franchises elsewhere in the country (and many of these buildings still exist as well, none of them serving any trains now), but as they aren't mentioned at all here, this list makes it look like the only railway stations in Colombia were in and around Bogota, which is completely untrue. The rest of the article talks about existing and planned future lines (not stations, hence confusing the scope of the article), which are better addressed in Rail transport in Colombia, and in fact already are, with better sources. So everything in this article already exists elsewhere, in less confusing articles, so there's nothing to merge. Richard3120 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:LISTCRIT is definitely satisfied, and WP:LISTN says "one accepted reason...," not the "only reason." This type of list exists for other countries as well, though a couple I double-checked appear in similarly undeveloped states. Stations need not serve passengers to be included on the list, and I really don't think there's any controversy about what "station" means in 2021, as the stations could be all defunct or disappeared but still be valid members of the list (under a "former" heading). I'm commenting instead of !voting because I think this is a valid list article and deletion is not cleanup, but there may be a conversation to be had about List of railway stations in country articles, and the cleanup here may require WP:TNT, so I'm square in the "netural" ground. This is neither a clear keep nor a clear delete, but we need to decide how best to clean it up. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: thanks for your comment. To be honest, I can't see how any of "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" is met at WP:LISTCRIT. I did consider a rename to List of former railway stations in Colombia... the problem is that I can't find any sources, reliable or otherwise, that would provide me with the names for that list. The Spanish Wikipedia includes around 150 stations broken down over several pages for the individual lines, but no sources for any of those stations. I'm just worried that we'll end up with a long list of names with no sources and no context. Richard3120 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal is just to represent that places had stations at one point, that's probably fine. There are places for lists of things which aren't notable enough for their own article - you're right that we just need sources. The Spanish language articles on Colombian railroads all contain station lists, so the information has to be somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we had enough articles on notable stations, this would undoubtedly pass WP:LISTPURP; LISTN really has no utility in analyzing lists of things by what they are and where they are located. If that's not the case, however, this title should at least exist as a redirect, I would assume to the more general Rail transport in Colombia article, where there is a section that just points to this list, though the nom thinks it's covered at Bogotá Savannah Railway. I guess that would work if all notable stations, past or present, would be covered by that topic; Category:Railway stations in Colombia just has two articles at present other than this list. I am not concerned with the former vs. current distinction that the nom is, as that status is something that could be identified and explained in article text, wherever it is found. There is also a Category:Defunct railway stations category structure. postdlf (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Postdlf: well, the list DOES exist at Bogotá Savannah Railway, I'm not sure what you're getting at. As the Rail transport in Colombia article doesn't include any stations, I'm not sure why redirecting there would be helpful. The problem with the section in Rail transport in Colombia is that it is titled "Stations served", and as there are no stations served anywhere in the country, that's not a useful section at all. The only notable railway station in the whole country is the De la Sabana railway station which is the main station in Bogota: the General Santander station also currently included in Category:Railway stations in Colombia is part of the TransMilenio rapid bus transit system, so it's a bus station, not a train station, and shouldn't be in that category. Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just discovered Category:Medellín Metro stations, I would expect those to also be included in a list of railway stations in the county. postdlf (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, although absolutely none of them are notable apart from being metro stations and are probably pretty much unsourced as well. Richard3120 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced isn't a concern here so long as it can be sourced. Regardless, that means that not every railway station we'd be listing is part of the Bogotá Savannah Railway. I'm leaning towards keep and expand this list instead. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my concern – I'm very dubious that they can be sourced from anything other than the Medellin metro system's website, so WP:PRIMARY, as there is nothing remarkable or historical about any of the metro stations. If the consensus is to expand the list, then fine, but I still suspect it will be unsourced from anything other than primary sources... like the majority of lists on Wikipedia, sadly. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid topic to be split out of world-wide "List of railway stations" or "List of railway stations in South America" which should be considered to exist, or which could naturally be created if they do not. And covering, like almost almost all lists of places such as historic sites, both current and former examples. --Doncram (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the list should list railway stations or systems of them, not cities. Up to just now i think it only seemed to name one railway station having an article, Bogotá La Sabana railway station, but some others are mentioned by name too, and I have just edited the list to make them the items not their cities. And photos should be added, see the category of railway stations in Columbia at Commons. I am adding a couple photos, but the list could/should be converted into a table format with one column for images. If there are very few stations known and listed by name (whether as a redlink or not), then it would also be okay to merge this up into a List of railway stations in South America, to be split back out in the future when size justifies. --Doncram (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous stations which are listed national monuments of Columbia, all of which are individually notable and should be added as redlinks. French-language wikipedia article Liste des monuments nationaux du Norte de Santander itemizes 19 of them, e.g. "Gare ferroviaire de Patillales", listed as a national monument in 1996. The corresponding English-language list, List of National Monuments of Colombia#Norte de Santander, is not as well laid out and developed, but does show numerous "Estación del ferrocarril" places (which should be redlinks rather than not-links). These are mostly former railway stations but they are all current historic sites (not destroyed and delisted places). --Doncram (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: I can see which way this AfD is going... as it is clearly going to be a keep, I think the list will be far too long to be merged into a list of railway stations in South America, so i think it should stay as just Colombia for now... also bearing in mind that hopefully within five years Bogota will at last have the first line of its proposed metro system, so there will be more stations to be added. Just for your interest, I believe the photo at the top of this webpage is the Patillales station you mention above. Richard3120 (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I didn't know about the passenger service in Barrancabermeja, as it's only a month old... I'm not sure if it counts as a train, it's literally a bus with the wheels removed and mounted on a railway carriage chassis – you can see it in this video. As far as I can tell, it doesn't run around Barranca (as the locals call it) but between Barranca and Puerto Berrio, a town several kilometers upstream along the Magdalena River. Richard3120 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting info and links. All I was basing my mention of that passenger service is from the Rail transport in Colombia article, which states "...Coopsercol that provides general daily passenger service around Barrancabermeja, and its surroundings (Sogmoso, Garcia Cadena, Puerto Berrio, and Puerto Parra)." Please do feel free to amend what is presented.

As you see, I did add a number more stations, and it is no longer just a list of cities having active stations in 1953. I could start a table to include all the National Monument-listed ones, but few have photos (per the French language list-article anyhow) and I don't know how to get access to listing/nomination documents that might provide a lot of info about each one (which I hope exist, as is the case for U.S. historic places listed on the National Register of Historic Places), so it would be pretty sparse. But maybe it would be good to get started that way? --Doncram (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't look like a mess to me – I'm quite liking the photos. Whatever its problems, they seem insufficient to justify deletion per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this is a notable topic being tracked by independent sources.Eldumpo (talk) 15:03, 3 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

School business manager

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

What makes this obscure occupation/job/position is notable? The article doesn't say and my BEFORE doesn't find anything that's in-depth, reliable and independent. PROD has been declined, so let's discuss this here. The article, written like a shill advertising for some schools offering a relevant degree, is likely WP:TNT-quality level anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure it's obscure. Every school in the UK has one. Schools in the States do have them [3][4] as do schools in New Zealand [5], Australia [6] and South Africa [7]. Agree article is not written great, and looking at the evidence out there, it is mostly local or specialist press, though there is this Guardian article [8]. I work in education so staying out of any voting.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "What makes this topic notable?" Really? Let's start with 10 books on the subject:

Now tell us again how "my BEFORE doesn't find anything"... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, If only you looked into the sources... setting aside totally not relevant titles like "Managing the Business of Schools" or "School Finance and Business Management", works like "School business manager: developing the role" are not reliable - it is just a course syllabus... once you try to weed bad sources from your WP:GOOGLEHITS we can start paying more attention to your posts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes no sense to discuss this with some editors, Google Hits are of course not bad things but it seems that the difference in between quantity and quality of the sources does generally not get through, main argument in the end for them will be Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valid criticism of the sources presented, but 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 & 10 seem to hold up and show WP:SIGCOV of the profession. SailingInABathTub (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SailingInABathTub, 10 is about management (activity), not manager (the role). As for the others, I am open to reviewing the contents, as the titles are often misleading. Which page ranges in which source discuss the concept in-depth? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't link it but searching 10 for "school business manager", actually does turn up a details of this role. SailingInABathTub (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus talks about WP:GOOGLEHITS like they are a bad thing but, per WP:BEFORE, such work is expected of a nominator, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." As this is an academic subject, we also find plenty on Google Scholar:

So, we must wonder again that the nomination states "my BEFORE doesn't find anything". What did this BEFORE consist of, if it didn't use Google? Reviewing the nominator's contributions it appears that the nomination process took less than 3 minutes following unrelated work on a DYK and Jew with a coin. Piotrus's process seems to be perfunctory and preposterously pointy. Having been put to more trouble to demonstrate this, other editors should be spared this vexation and so my !vote is now Speedy Keep. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. WP:BEFORE gave me some results bot those are ALL not independent, in-depth coverage. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another source is the lecture by EM Wood at UCL, which charters the rise of the role, and has tons of reliable sources to back it up.In the actual The Times it discussed back in 2008 why the role meant more teachers were applying for head jobs [9], while there is stuff in the supplement Times Educational Supplement, [10], [11], [12].

We also have from the specialist press:[13], [14], [15], [16]. And intergrale to UK Ofsted inspections [17]. It is a recognised profession. Note I am not an SBM. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davidstewartharvey, The fact that a term is mentioned in an article dooesn't mean the article is about the topic (SIGCOV). What I see are some opinion pieces and best practices from one SBM to another. The position exists, but what makes it notable? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read The Guardian piece or the E W Willis lecture? They are Sigcov as they show the rise of the role from the original position of Bursary to SBM. The current article is rubbish, and looks like it has been copied from an interview with the LASBM done in the Ed Exec. TNT may be the best think for the article, but the role is notable enough.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't talk of TNT as this is a toxic military explosive used in devices such as this to attack London, where I live. It is therefore an offensive and inappropriate metaphor. The page WP:TNT, to which the nomination refers, is not policy, being merely a gratuitous essay with "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". The relevant policies here are WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT which state that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG. The article does require improvement, but there is significant coverage of the profession in reliable sources, such as many of those proposed by Andrew Davidson and Davidstewartharvey. SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per User:Andrew Davidson, there are clearly enough sources of adequate quality to support notability of the subject, as a more thorough WP:BEFORE would have shown, regardless of the poor standard of the present article. Ingratis (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -"School business management competency framework". GOV.UK. 1 May 2014. Retrieved 31 March 2021. If it is notable enough to have a 46 page government document on the duties and the career path, it is WP:N. The article itself was not written by a Wikipedian- so I have improved the markup. Glancing at the rendering it looked to be referenced- but in many ways it was a useful linkfarm- I tried to convert them to references but gave up. This is a new career path necessitated by the Academy program and the need for each school to replicate the functions of the LEA- In private and GM schools, these functions were provided by the bursar and his staff. The bursar article needs similar updates. ClemRutter (talk) 16:24, 31 March 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. Daniel (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dheepesh Bhatt

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

Non notable actor that doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:NACTOR & generally lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search reveals he is mentioned in passing, mere announcements, and regurgitated sponsored posts in unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article, as written, does not satisfy acting notability or general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NACTOR. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notibility criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify misplaced draft. Noah ^💬 20:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not too much news. doesnt meet notability Peter303x (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet NACTOR or other notability requirements. Not much else to say! --Kbabej (talk) 18:01, 2 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) DrIdiot (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Cheng

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

Only two sources, one is not RS and the other is questionable. The individual also does not seem to meet notability requirements, having only been mentioned in one obscure article. DrIdiot (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some more RS in Donald Keyser, but I still think it fails notability. Much of the information on the current page is not supported by any RS; I'll remove those now eper WP:BLP. DrIdiot (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see lots of Chinese-language coverage.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mx. Granger correctly points out that finding in-depth coverage in what looks like reliable sources is as easy as searching the Chinese name given in the article. I assume the nominator knew this, since it's step 7 of WP:BEFORE part B. The nominator edits in Taiwan-related articles and I can't even read the language, so is there a reason that coverage was not considered to be a pass of WP:GNG? Just by google translating some of the sources it looks to me like there are dozens of magazine and news articles alone, which is more than enough. - Astrophobe (talk) 18:21, 26 March 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 salt. Daniel (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transition (2020 film)

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

Same as last time. non-notable film, the only marginally decent source, The Hindu is actually just PR gibberish, presumably submitted to the paper given the lack of byline. previous afd VAXIDICAE💉 17:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt for the same reason as the prior conversations. Is this the same editor who used G7 to avoid a G4, or am I thinking of someone else. If/when this closes as delete, request salt. The reason it's at this page is I SALTed Transition (2020) after repeat re-creations. StarM 17:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup comment, oh now I remember this article. Just noting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangalath jr should they be linked, reather than just a UPE farm. StarM 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Socking has been confirmed. Like ReaderofthePack I think a solid consensus will help when this editor comes back again. StarM 00:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm tempted to close this early, but I want this to get more editors arguing for a delete so that when/if the editor tries to create a new account and recreate this, there's a more firm AfD closing to point towards. The prior one closed as a soft delete/G7, so a firmer delete is needed. I would also recommend salting. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, part of the reason I didn't nom it under any speedy criteria is because I'd rather get it sealed and done now rather than after 20 more tendentious recreations. VAXIDICAE💉 19:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable film without sigcov to pass GNG. Salt as was done with Transition (2020) is warranted. WikiVirusC^(talk) 21:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - not even one decent quality source out there for this one. Time to put an end to this saga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable film. Fails NFILM and GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:27, 30 March 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. (non-admin closure) -Cupper52^Discuss! 17:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cyberpunk Brothers

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

vanity spam and borderline hoax by a sock who has continually spammed Wikipedia about their nonsense on YouTube. VAXIDICAE💉 16:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Praxidicae. -Cupper52^Discuss! 16:52, 26 March 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azizkend

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

There are strong doubts that such a place exists. The coordinates do not show anything reasonable (note that I have also checked Yandex Maps, which are generally reliable in the region); no sources with the name have ever found; maps do not know the name in Armenian. Unless we have sources, it probably should go. Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources that are in any language. The source that is cited's link doesn't work, and when other users read it, they figured out the source had a political point of view. I agree that we should speedy delete this. If this is a hoax, (which I think it is) it would have been one of the longest hoaxes on Wikipedia! Thanks, Cupcake547 ^(talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
OpenStreetMap data gives a "building" within a "farmyard". This has been a one-sentence article for almost 13 years, and that sentence is a falsehood. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having spent a bit of time researching this the best I can as someone who speaks neither Armenian or Azeri I have been completely unable to find anything that supports the existence of this "town". The coordinates in the article take you to a random farmhouse and halfway up a mountain. The article was created based on only an entry in a geographical place names database, and given the huge number of erroneously created articles that have been deleted over the last year or so (I think we're up at over 1000 so far) I'm hesitant to believe this place exists purely on a database entry. User:AntonSamuel has checked the Armenian census records and confirmed that no place by this name was listed in the 2011 census, and at least one other editor who seems to speak fluent Armenian has been unable to locate any sources (see the page history). The source Carlossuarez46 added to the article is by an author who has worked extensively on the Western Azerbaijan political concept, i.e. the belief that all of Armenia is lost Turkic lands that rightfully belong to Azerbaijan, Here's his AZ wikipedia page. That book is naturally going to be biased and I wouldn't consider it to be a reliable source for the names of places. Everything I see here points to this being a random farmhouse that has been mistakenly entered into a name database and has resultingly had an Azeri equivalent name published in a book. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Keep per the source found by Peter James and the rewrite by sportingflyer (which has been reverted for some reason), which shows there was a village here at one point but it's been abandoned for 70 years. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The mass-creator wrote a trite "Too bad you don't read Azeri; several sources." on the talk page, but he needs to show up or shut up. He made many thousands of articles using the GEOnet names database, which is not substantive enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and it's quite obvious these supposed "sources" were not involved in the pages' creation. Elvazlu has a key line to it that should be scrutinized as well. Reywas92^Talk 00:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No signs that this town exists. Seems to be made-up. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the National Encyclopedia of Azerbaijan (http://ensiklopediya.gov.az/az/terms/19815/cild/20). It probably existed but there is no village there now. Peter James (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the utter failure of sources to exist. Nothing against the nation of Armenia, but this was mass-created as part of a very large set of articles with similarly nonexistent sources. jp×g 03:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Irani. SportingFlyer T·C 15:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit! jp×g 17:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google translating the Azerbaijani encyclopaedia shows the WP:V necessary to get this past WP:GEOLAND. I've updated the article briefly. Almost certainly nothing in English about this topic. SportingFlyer T·C 09:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two foreign sources included about the existence of this place, one without references (removed) the other named after a political concept/view. Town not mentioned in the Armenian 2011 census, nor in any other Armenian sources.

The source I added which you removed because it had "no references"(?!?) specifically said the village was abandoned in 1949, so of course it's not going to be in the 2011 census. SportingFlyer T·C 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The census was done on all regions of Armenia, if the town is/was existed it would've been included. There is no mention of the town in other Armenian sources as well, and it doesn't show up in any maps too. This place most likely doesn't exist and there is only one supposed source for it which you added yourself, the other one being a political concept/view.--ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe Armenia is different, but censuses don't typically include former places. WP:GEOLAND requires only WP:V and this is a historic place which has been verified by the Azeri government. SportingFlyer T·C 16:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that place exists it isn't former. There is no other verification of that place existing including maps, other Armenian sources, etc.. other than the one you included.--ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - We have two Azeri sources discussing this as a former place, inhabited by Azeris, and if you search the Azeri term in Google it comes up with a Google link which calls it a "removed Azeri village in Armenia." Considering you've re-added the hoax and verification tags which I removed from the article, along with the Azeri translation of the place name which would be useful for finding additional sources, and your entire contribution history has been edit warring on Armenian/Azerbaijani topics, I'm finding very hard to assume good faith here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The Azeri term comes from Azeri wiki version of the page which has the other source named after bogus political view/concept. I re-added hoax as there are no other sources beside the one you added and the political concept theory “source” is bogus and unreliable. Avoid casting accusations of “edit-warring” when my edits were done in good faith and resolved with the help of admin. Unless there are any other sources besides the political concept one and the one you added, the page should be removed imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaniGiovanni (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Welcome to the wonderful world of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, where a source is reliable if it supports one's side and unreliable if it supports the side of the opponent.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If you look at my previous edit, I removed hoax myself as I saw new source provided. But after looking into it more, turns out the source is a bogus political view/concept and hence the reason I added hoax back earlier.--ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        ...it's from an official governmental website. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        "official government website" isn't an argument for refuting my claim.--ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending a discussion of the includability of improvements by SportingFlyer. If contested material is removed from the article, the WP:ONUS is on the party proposing inclusion of the material to obtain consensus for its inclusion. However, it would be an irresponsible gaming of the system to allow the article to be deleted while the inclusion of the material itself remains an open question. BD2412 T 05:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with the possibility of also following through other articles created on specious grounds. It's worth noting that the source Qərbi Azərbaycanın türk mənşəli toponimləri was the Azerbaijani government's answer to a similar multivolume effort by Tadevos Hakobian and other Soviet Armenian historians, Hayastani ev harakits shrjanneri teghanunneri bararan (Dictionary of toponymy of Armenia and adjacent territories -- the value of which, however, has been recognized by other scholars). Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 15:22, 6 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. (Note, due to the content, this is not a soft-deletion.) Daniel (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Collister

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

I am unable to find discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 15:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough significant coverage of his death or arrest for an article. Doesn't pass WP:NCRIME either. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:27, 2 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Sinha

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

Fails WP:NACTOR , only participation in realities show and an appearance in a song. Princepratap1234 (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-09 ✗ G1, 2011-09 ✗ G10

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. Not seeing a consensus to delete here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Ancient Roman governors

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

This list of lists is an exact replica of Category:Lists of Roman governors. Avilich (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before someone spams WP:NOTDUP and WP:CLN, the supposed benefits of lists enumerated there don't seem to exist or be relevant for this one in particular (unlike, say, List of consuls as compared with Category:Roman consuls). The very purpose of this page is to be identical with the category, only it has the added difficulty of requiring editors to add content repeatedly every time a new list is created. One could link to the category instead of the page and it wouldn't make any difference for someone navigating. Avilich (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the problem here. It seems like a reasonable navigational aid. See WP:NOTDUP. TompaDompa (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination fails to grasp our policy which is documented at WP:CLN. Lists, categories and other navigational tools are not alternatives; they are complementary. If they agree with each other then this is a good thing as it tends to indicate that there are no omissions. Lists have more potential when they are stable, as they are likely to be in this case. They can be enhanced with citations, pictures and prose and then considered for featuring at WP:FL. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of NOTDUP and CLN, and the supposed benefits of lists enumerated there don't seem to exist or be relevant for this one in particular (unlike, say, List of consuls as compared with Category:Roman consuls). The very purpose of this page is to be identical with the category, only it has the added difficulty of requiring editors to add content repeatedly every time a new list is created. One could link to the category instead of the page and it wouldn't make any difference for someone navigating. It's difficult to see how this list (of lists...) in particular could be "enhanced with citations, pictures and prose", let alone be "considered for featuring at WP:FL". Avilich (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Methinks the map is a significant benefit, and I can think of a few ways to improve the list such as adding the time period for each of the entries and writing an introductory paragraph or two summarizing what "governor" and "province" mean in this context. Moreover, we can add WP:REDLINKS for missing entries to the list (such as the ones found at Template:Roman governors). TompaDompa (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are so easy to find they're a non-entity here, whereas "governor" and "province" can just be linked in the category page itself (I actually doubt anyone browsing won't already have a sufficient inkling of what these things mean – the qualifier "Roman" doesn't change the common-sense meaning of those words). Navigation is much simpler when the means for it are direct and straightforward, which categories are, and articles with screen pollutants (like superfluous maps and stray text) are not. Categories also have no need for maintenance, whereas articles (by your own admission) do. It's just an unnecessary bother. Avilich (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roman governor, no reason for this to be a separate page and it can provide context as mentioned above. Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for me. I suppose it would've been possible to just merge the content without going through WP:AfD; I reckon that would not have been particularly controversial. TompaDompa (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it's reasonable to merge and have the pages listed there. Not as pointless as this article in its current standalone form. Avilich (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous.67.173.23.66 (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly valid navigational list. Roman governor links to Lists of Ancient Roman governors. That's easier than listing the 26 list of Roman governor articles there. Dream Focus 16:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The category is also a perfectly valid navigation list. Which means they can't both be valid at the same time. Avilich (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are quite clear. You don't destroy one because you favor another, both can exist together. WP:CLN Dream Focus 02:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others and WP:Readers first. Perfectly valid and helpful navigational list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 2 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 Obvious consensus to delete without a WP:REDIRECT to another page or so on. (I think this is my first AFD closure using Wikipedia:XFDcloser - my apologies if get this wrong) Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Dennis

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

This was previously BLP PRODed by User:Sir Sputnik and User:Johnpacklambert but contested both times. Still zero indication that this footballer is actually notable. Digging through databases, I have found that Soccerway has him down appearing as a substitute on one occasion but with no other appearances. Soccerpunter has nothing. Tribuna has one appearance.

The only news source that I can find is this one trivial mention in The Borneo Post. There is no evidence that this footballer meets WP:GNG and there is consensus in well over 100 recent AfDs that a trivial passing of NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is not met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is plenty of consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL from 1 or 2 appearances in insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found then please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is as far as I can tell an unsourced biography of a living person. Such things can not be kept without reliable sources, which this article currently lacks. Beyond that there is no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks reliable sources, as a matter of fact looks to me as promotional. Alex-h (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have relisted this after an improper closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not contain enough information to support association football notability, let alone general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: completely unsourced, fails WP:GNG User3749 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as well, no significant sources found. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:39, 26 March 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. I appreciate the relist was because of improper closure, I think there is clear consensus now, as there was previously and therefore no need to actually continue to keep it open. Fenix down (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Shahrul Chankui

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

Simply does not meet any inclusion guideline. Sabah FA were not playing in a league listed at WP:FPL when he allegedly made 6 appearances for them. DYS F.C. were at least two tiers below professional level during his spell there. No indication of playing for any other clubs, therefore no indication of passing WP:NFOOTBALL.

The article has no decent sources and a Malaysian search yielded nothing so I can't see how WP:GNG is satisfied. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have relisted this following an improper closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the relegation of the team. The team was playing at the second-tier level at the time of his appearances. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Again, cannot find reliable sources and fails WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:GNG User3749 (talk) 12:07, 27 March 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. There has been minimal participation in this AfD, but this is a clear NFOOTY failure and nothing has been presented to indicate GNG, so I am comfortable that this is a non-notable individual. Fenix down (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vitezslav Jaros

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

Draftified earlier this week but recreated in main space. Subject definitely fails WP:NFOOTBALL but I suppose the debate is whether or not he passes WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV cited in the article and searches mostly come back with passing mentions and 'hype' articles on Liverpool-affiliated websites like This is Anfield and Rousing the Kop. Some coverage in The Irish Sun and Irish Mirror but I would argue that it's below the GNG level.

No opposition to a 2nd draftification if that is the consensus from this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I'm returning to Wiki after a long hiatus but I always believed the criteria was to play a professional match of football. St. Patrick's Ath and Shamrock Rovers are both professional teams in the League of Ireland. The head coach states this in post match interview which I have cited. He has also played two EFL trophy games for Liverpool and been on the bench for Champions League group stage games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilcock123 (talk • 15:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline that you are referring to is WP:FOOTYN, which is no longer the guideline. It is WP:NFOOTBALL now (I can't remember when it changed), which requires a footballer to have played in a game between two clubs playing in a league listed at WP:FPL. Jaros has never played in such a game. The EFL trophy games don't count as they were U21 games, see Soccerway. Sitting on the bench doesn't satisfy NFOOTBALL either. Do you have evidence that he passes WP:GNG instead? In my view, this should have stayed in draft space. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found two different newspaper sources claiming him to be the one to watch for St Patrick's this season. I'm not sure if they meet the guidelines? comment added by Kilcock123

This? I don't think it's enough on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that one, but also these two articles which name check him as one to watch this season - [26] and this one https://extra.ie/2021/03/19/sport/soccernews/league-of-ireland-new-arrivals . comment added by Kilcock123 (talk • 18:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since GNG, requires that Jaros be addressed directly and in detail, I would argue that those two references don't show significant coverage and, therefore, don't contribute towards GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I complain over the current guidelines? It is not fair on League of Ireland footballers who the vast majority are professional. The Irish government stated it is 'professional league' hence it was allowed under current government Covid 19 restrictions - https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/soccer/arid-40224776.html comment added by Kilcock123 (talk • 20:13,26 March 2021 (UTC)

WT:FPL and WT:NFOOTY are the best places Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who created the original article last month, after he'd made his senior debut for St. Pat's - I (mistakenly, it transpires) thought that as he'd played in a professional game between two professional sides that was enough. It turns out the League itself isn't fully professional, so I guess by that logic it should be merged with the existing draft of the article I created. However, I think it's worth saying that this seems to be a fairly daft metric for notability, and suggest it should be on the professional status of the club, not of the league. OGBC1992 (talk) 17:50, 1 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Man (arcade game)

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The notability of the topic hasn't been demonstrated by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. It does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. This article does not meet the notability criteria of its particular topic. There is also nothing notable in search. If notability and significance of the subject cannot be shown, the article should be deleted. User:A.A Prinon 13:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't qualify for being a Wiki article as it doesn't meet notability criteria. There is nothing notable about it in search. User:Cambria Math 14:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, but ping me if someone digs up something. There may be something here but nothing jumped out at me. But if someone is interested in saving it and has time to burn, check the link. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find this, but significant coverage in reliable sources is lacking. IceWelder [✉] 16:47, 28 March 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 List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 01:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Coombe

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant about him in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A game but an internet search didn't bring any results. Player has had a significant minor counties career so sources on that may well exists offline or in the local area. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player has 1 or a few matches, but no coverage can be found, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here, but no qualms if kept as significant minor counties career could have brought about significant coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played List A cricket and had a significant minor counties career. StickyWicket (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He made a single appearance. After a search, there's no coverage of him apart from his listing in a database (my search, interestingly, only brought up another article which needs to be deleted.) Easily fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players. All the information in this article has plainly been extracted from the score card of the single List A match this person played in, and pure database scrapes are emphatically not sufficient to establish notability for the purposes of a stand-alone article. Such data should be laid out in tabular format and I have to say that the suggested target is an excellent example of how (IMO) these kinds of statistics should be presented. Reyk _YO! 08:15, 28 March 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 List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Powell (cricketer)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - information more likely to be available as a cricketer appearing more recently than most. Bobo . 13:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my source search brings up nothing apart from the statistics sites already in the article. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cambridgeshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A game, but I couldn't find any coverage. Coverage could exist offline though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:46, 26 March 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. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SAMCO Securities

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

The topic is a company therefore WP:NCORP is the applicable guideline. Most of the references are based on company announcements or basic financial reporting. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. The topic was "soft deleted" as an editor said it was a "company brand wiki page. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it" but all the only edit was to update the company logo. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Presumably, the secondary sources cited in the article aren't giving it significant enough coverage, right? If so, then I'd agree with deletion. It also reads like it was written by the company right now (although of course that specific problem could be fixed). DesertPipeline (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi DesertPipeline, NCORP requires that references are *both* significant *and* contain "Independent Content". We don't regard references that rely on information provided by the company (or a source connected with the company) as good enough - "echo chamber" references do not establish notability. Whether the "echo chamber" reference is in a "secondary" source and "significant" doesn't matter if it doesn't contain "Independent Content". The references in the article all fail our criteria for establishing notability as follows:
  - This from The Hindu is based on "a statement" from the company, fails WP:ORGIND
  - This from Business Standard] is based on a statement/PR from the company, fails WP:ORGIND.
  - This from Business Standard is based on PR and interview with the CEO, fails ORGIND.
  - This from Time of India is entirely based on an announcement/PR from the company, fails ORGIND
  - This Bloomberg link (broken) is entirely based on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
  - This from The Hindu Business Line is based on an announcement/PR from the company with an interview with the CEO, fails ORGIND
  - Thie next from the Hindu Business Line is entirely based on PR/announcement from the company, fails ORGIND
  - This from Financial Express is based on company PR and quotations from Omkeshwar Singh who will be leading the new platform for Samco and quotations from the CEO, fails ORGIND.

As you can see, the criteria failed by the above references was ORGIND first and foremost - that is, the content of those articles was not "independent" but relied entirely on information provided by the company or their officers. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed answer! DesertPipeline (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Due to HighKing's response I definitely agree that this is the correct action here. DesertPipeline (talk) 02:11, 29 March 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 List of Middlesex County Cricket Club players. Obvious consensus to not have an article; redirect as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Perkins (cricketer)

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

According to the article, he failed to score a run in either innings in which he batted. Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in my searches to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deleting a cricketer because he failed to score a run. That's a new one. Can we take a step back for a second? It's clear from our other instance right now that when we search deeper, information becomes available. Can we please, please co-operate as a project? In this instance we have clear birth and death information to run to so information is clearly available. Bobo . 13:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is not that he failed to score a run, it is that nobody took notice of it outside of statistics databases. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 15:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/weak redirect to List of Middlesex County Cricket Club players Has only played 1 FC game, but it was for Middlesex in the County Championship. While an internet search didn't bring up much, his career timing will likely mean that if coverage exists it will likely be offline coverage. We have a full name (two in fact as he was known by another name apparently) and dates of birth and death. On other players we have found information with even less than that, so hopefully over the course of this discussion we can find some information on him. If we find nothing List of Middlesex County Cricket Club players is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, he was a baker and had a long association with Ealing Dean Cricket Club according to this. Still, it's a passing mention only and there's no evidence he passes GNG.----Pontificalibus 13:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.----Pontificalibus 13:01, 29 March 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 Lincolnshire County Cricket Club. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Carsberg

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything on him. Definitively fails WP:GNG, which overrides any sports SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lincolnshire County Cricket Club Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any coverage apart from some information at Companies House. Sources may exist offline or locally as he had a bit of a Minor Counties career also though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:12, 27 March 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 Dongfeng Yulon. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yulu (marque)

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

Non notable company, creator is blocked for not following wiki guidelines Sliekid (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dongfeng Yulon. --MarioGom (talk) 08:41, 27 March 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. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Jig Games

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

Borderline A7 and rather spammy article on a non-notable video game company. I ran a search to find sources, but found 3 namedrops, and no more. Fails WP:NCORP and the GNG. Java Hurricane 12:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable video game company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sliekid (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only passing mentions found, fails WP:NCORP; in particular, WP:CORPDEPTH Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Clear GNG/NCORP failure. IceWelder [✉] 16:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:33, 2 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zedriv

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

Non notable company, creator is blocked for not following wiki guidelines Sliekid (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create

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 Gloc-9. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limang Kanta Lang

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't pass WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable rapper with no notable achievements and coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sliekid (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Save I guess we all agree that it is subjective to say the notability of a person. But definitely, Gloc-9 is not that "a non notable rapper". He has won multiple awards from the prestigious awards giving bodies in the Philippines including four Song of Year Awards in Awit Awards. He also has albums that were certified gold and platinum. No other rapper in the Philippines has achieved more than what Gloc-9 has achived. What I am saying here is, Gloc-9 is not "non notable" and deleting Limang Kanta Lang because of his notability is very wrong. --Jonathanmaria (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gloc-9. This may look like a "no consensus" mess so far, but the two previous votes are misguided. The first voter did not discuss the album but dismissed the rapper, and the second voter responded on whether the rapper is notable. This discussion is about the album Limang Kanta Lang, which picked up a little minor and insignificant media coverage in about the past year, as it became available online for the first time. But that is more like a sales announcement, and the album itself received very little reliable and significant coverage at the time of its original release or the more recent re-release. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Doomsdayer520. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gloc-9. Article itself fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 3 reliable sources in the article talk about the album and are non-trivial. They definitely make the article satisfy WP:THREE. There may be sources about it upon its release, but they're hard to find. However, aside from the 3 sources, there's an article in a magazine and another source which talk about the EP, both of them were published a couple of years ago. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gloc-9 as per Doomsdayer520, MarioSoulTruthFan and CruzRamiss2002.TheSkinsAdded (talk) 06:07, 2 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. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Pittie

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

Non notable business person Sliekid (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails GNG and just a piece of promotional or PR work. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 12:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, could be also Speedy Delete CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:GNG, he is clearly not notable enough to deserve any space on Wikipedia. -- Eatcha 08:44, 27 March 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. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Engage

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

Fails WP:GNG, possibly paid PR sources Sliekid (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity piece on a non-notable ROTM business. The sources, such as they are, are press release regurgitations. Once you strip out the COI promo fluff, nothing of encyclopaedic value remains. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches on both this and the previous OrchidSoft name find passing mentions, routine listings, and investment announcement coverage, which falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. A company going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 2 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 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in California. Pretty much overwhelming consensus for this to be done. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 California's 11th congressional district election

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. Anything notable about this race can be merged into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in California. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in California. Single district elections are not generally notable. Number 5 7 13:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 12:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in California CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in California as per above. Sliekid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in California as per above. Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 13:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC) I need to read up on policy. Seem pl ez 18:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Seemplez has reLISTEDed this dicussion (early) before then becoming non-neutrally involved in the discussion and !voting. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in California. There can’t be separate pages for all 435 congressional elections every two years. This page is more appropriately moved to the state page for that year’s election. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:09, 27 March 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. Daniel (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Sen

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

Contested PROD. Lacks SIGCOV, fails WP:MUSICBIO KH-1 (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable singer, Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sliekid (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - my search did not bring up enough notable coverage of this singer. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 10:46, 2 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. per WP:HEY Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Newton

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

U.S. Navy Commodore (United States) who commanded USS Missouri (1841) on the first powered crossing of the Atlantic by an American steam warship and presumably was in command when it caught fire and was destroyed. Also commanded the Home Squadron from 1852 to 1855. Page has been unreferenced since 2009 and while there are a few sources I don't believe they amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I think.
- "commanded Beagle on her maiden voyage to the Caribbean."
- "was in command of Missouri during her historic crossing of the Atlantic, the first by a steam-power vessel."
- "commanded the Home Squadron from March 1852 until March 1855."
- It looks like there were only 88 Union and Confederate navy admirals and probably commodores during the U.S. Civil War. Durindaljb (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All unreferenced since 2009. Commanding a ship on its maiden voyage is unremarkable. Missouri was supposedly the first crossing by an American steam-powered vessel, but even that is arguable if you read Steamship. He died before the Civil War, so not sure of its relevance. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well, if he wasn't alive during the period of the actual American Civil War, that would make his rank or promotion even more notable. Technically, the United States didn't have an admiral, 4-star rank, until after the Civil War anyway when Farragut and his brother Porter were promoted to that rank in 1866 and 1870. He also appears that he may come from a somewhat prominent family also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durindaljb (talk • contribs) 06:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His rank is irrelevant, coverage is what matters, in any event Commodore was only a 1 star rank. Similarly his family is irrelevant because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED so I don't understand why you have gone and added details of his relatives. Mztourist (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the rank was more significant in that day. - wolf 16:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As commodore in command of the Home Squadron he would seem to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not without SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - early USN flag officer with some notable achievements and postings, as indicated by previous "keep" !votes. Certainly the page needs work, but it could be a worthwhile article. - wolf 17:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. I can't verify the information. Alternately, draftify. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:15, 18 March 2021

(UTC)

Delete per WP:V....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: added some refs. Page still needs work though. - wolf 01:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: References added that may have resolved WP:V. The article should be re-evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment refs added still don't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only two "delete" !votes above specifically mentioned WP:V as their reason, which has since been addressed. Not every WP page will have a multitude of readily accessible web-articles that can be easily attached as refs, as demanded by some with a strict exclusionist interpretation of sigcov & gng. (imo) - wolf 16:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV in multiple RS is the basic requirement for any subject and this page doesn't have that.Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've made your opinion on this abundantly and repeatedly known. - wolf 16:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commodore was, as noted above, a more prestigious rank then than it is now, and the Navy was much smaller. I'm adding more material as I find it. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; with the good work of Clarityfiend and Durindaljb adding significant content and sourcing, this article is now 6 times larger than when this nom was posted. (fyi) - wolf 16:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the grounds that "significant coverage" is not achieved. While individual bits of information in the article are sourced, none of the references are actually (for want of a better word) about Newton. Looking at the refs given, we have his named listed in a gazette here, his signature at the bottom of reports like any other officer at the same time. The mention of memorial and funeral is the nearest having some actual paragraphs written about the man, everything else is more like footprints in the historical record GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: yet more content and sourcing added after this latest !vote. Article is being actively expanded and improved at a fairly steady pace. (fyi) - wolf 22:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More like an attempt at Keep by a thousand cuts; lots of little bits from primary sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that additions had been made for the reviewing/closing admin, not to dispute your !vote. Cheers - wolf 23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

off topic

::::User:Thewolfchild, I refer you to your comments on my Talk Page: [27] practice what you preach. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. This is why I posted on your tp, to keep this off of this page. Can't you see the difference? I posted a standard AfD "comment", not a reply. GL replied to me and then clarified, not argued. I posted a friendly 'heads up' on your tp (about this!), and here you are, posting off-topic hostility here. Can you just stop? Please, will you stop? (Or else use your talk page, that's what it's for). Thank you - wolf 05:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be a keep by a thousand cuts, but the many cuts to be found indicate the significance of the subject. BD2412 T 04:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have added reference to substantial coverage of the subject's death in the Washington Evening Star. BD2412 T 05:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there have been more additions added to the page (thanks BD2412). When the nom was filed, this was a 1kb stub with no refs. But the page is now over 10kb with almost 2 dozen refs. Still perhaps more to come. (fyi) - wolf 05:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to give a running commentary on each new addition? Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of my comment was to note the substantial development of the article since nomination. Not sure what the purpose of yours was, nor am I interested to know. - wolf 18:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of my comment is that you are WP:BLUDGEONing with your repeated comments. To quote you: "Regardless of who-posts-what, after reading your first comment, the closing admin will still evaluate each and every other !vote based on their own merits - or at least they should." Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding notice of additional content/sourcing is called an update. What you're doing in badgering (part of the bludgeoning guideline). I will ask again that you please stop. Thank you - wolf 03:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you regard yourself as free to comment while others are not and I would ask you to stop. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you stop. Admins aren't blind. We can see whether an article has been substantially improved over the duration of a discussion. It does not need to be pointed out more than once, at the end. BD2412 T 04:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that is a bit excessive, but it is generally reasonable to note the substantial development in the article since the nomination. @Bearian and WilliamJE: I think the WP:GNG is reasonably well-met at this point. The subject's death was reported (that I have found without excessive effort) in some detail in three newspapers, in two cities; the Washington Evening Star report was substantial, and noted funeral details signifying an important career (particularly that various branches were ordered to attend). BD2412 T 15:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and thanks again BD2412 and others who contributed. - wolf 18:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY Nangears (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is vastly improved and better sourced since nomination. For my part I'm looking at newspapers.com for 1857. I see the subject's obituary is widely reprinted. Scores of newspapers reported or commented on the death within a week or two. From a preliminary search I estimate hundreds of newspaper mentions (most mere mentions) of the subject in the years before his death (including a false report of his death in 1853, also reprinted). Subject was clearly newsworthy in his day. Navy list of 1854 confirms subject's command of home fleet ([28]). Nominator is correct that we can no longer presume significant coverage because of subject's rank and station; the article needed RS and now has that in abundance. Lots of expansion possible. BusterD (talk) 17:07, 4 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. Daniel (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Jyothi College of Engineering

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

The prev AFD for this page was by a sock. However, post-cleanup this does not pass WP:HEY. Org does not pass WP:NSCHOOL or the more important WP:GNG. WP:RS are missing with a WP:BEFORE. Page relies on primary sources and has no inherent notability. Vikram Vincent 10:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 10:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 10:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 10:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. Three of the five "keeps" on the AfD which closed less than three weeks ago did not even mention the sock nominator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- the last 14 tertiary institutions from India you voted keep were deleted. I'd say that you are quoting a consensus for which you have no proof. Dont make your vote irrelevant. Bring WP:THREE sources to satisfy notability through evidence and I will withdraw my nomination. Vikram Vincent 10:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The sock made a claim, Completely unsourced and promotional article, which was blatantly false and pointed out by two editors while another two editors pointed out the problem of letting socks start AFDs. One editor even said, if another editor feels this should be deleted, they can renominate and this close should not be considered as a normal Keep in that discussion. You had voted Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution, which is factually not true because as I had pointed out in another AFD there is a difference between an institution awarding degrees as a private deemed university and an institution affiliated to a university. I'd argue that universities are inherently notable while colleges are not. This particular institution is not a deemed university and hence has no inherent notability. Vikram Vincent 12:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no independebt reliable sources as of now giving the subject in depth coverage to pass GNG. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a new day has dawned at Wikipedia, we are now requiring reliable sources to keep articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert - if only it had been like that from the very start... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know. It is amazing how little regulation there was in Wikipedia before about 2008, and how many articles that were created before 2008 have never been reviewed. With educational institutions the end to wild west inclusion standards did not come until 2018 maybe. Even to this day if one tries to prod delete an article on a place that can in any we be interpreted as a secondary institution when the article is sourced to only that institutions website it will be reverted. There is still huge resistance to anything approaching actual application of reasonable inclusion criteria. Do not get me started on how many articles on Catholic bishops are sourced only to one blog entry. The number of them is in the thousands, which is rivaled by articles sourced only to IMDb, although the later is not as bad as a percentage of all the actor/actress/director/film articles. It is daunting how much unsourced rubbish we have on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no independent WP:RS foundable CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails GNG and no sources to establish notability. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Kashmorwiki you already voted once above so striking this one out. Vikram Vincent 04:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thankyou Vincentvikram, I didnt noticed it. So many educational institutions nominsted for deletion and my mind got messed up :) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 05:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify, Improperly sourced. -Hatchens (talk) 04:13, 30 March 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 per WP:SK#1. The nominator has requested to withdraw the nomination, and none of the comments here have advocated for deletion or redirection of the page.

Further discussion can continue on the article talk page instead. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Foundation Day

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

As far as I know, there is no such term as "Hong Kong Foundation Day", and Google isn't turning anything up. The article appears to be WP:OR. It cites this page which contains an extremely minimal use of the term by a publication that I would characterise as blog-like and not so authoritative. The bulk of the article constitutes tangential material about the history of Hong Kong and etymology of Chinese words. I propose deletion unless genuine use of this term in reliable secondary sources can be established. Citobun (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You will need to extent your WP:BEFORE search for Hong Kong Day or Festival of Hong Kong, not only to the article title. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not turning up anything relevant for those. The results for "Hong Kong Day" are mainly about the Maxim's-owned eatery of that name. "Festival of Hong Kong" was the name of a recurring event back in the 1970s, but that too is unrelated. Citobun (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nomination states that the title "Hong Kong Foundation Day" is not appropriate since the only source mentioning the name is [29] which is considered to be unreliable. but I don't think it's a problem since there are rather some sources for 香港開埠日 or 香港開埠 in Chinese and this might just be a translation. The "Etymology" section could be shortened a bit but the term "開埠日" is considered to be quite special so some words should be needed to explain that. "Activities" section is definitely appropriate and supported by various reliable sources. Sun8908 _Talk 11:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The top Google result for "香港開埠日", which is the subject of this article, is the Cantonese Wikipedia article created on the same day as this article, by the same user. The other results are user-generated content. Citobun (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the previous version of the article might be more well formed for the article structure which has provided [30][31][32] as sources and explained activities during the day. Sun8908 _Talk 12:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: talk Hello, Citobun. It makes me sad to hear that you feel compelled to nominate this article for its deletion. To be clear to all others to this discussion, I created the page and its Cantonese page. I do admit that I'm not a very good Wikipedian, and constructive criticism is always welcome. As the creator of the article, naturally, I don't want to see it go. And so, I will try to address the concerns you raised.

I guess it can be safely said that 26 January 1841 was a day of great significance in Hong Kong's history. Otherwise, the members of the UK House of Commons would not have tabled a motion in Parliament to mark the day just earlier this year in January (source: "Early Day Motions: 180th anniversary of the founding of modern Hong Kong".). Nor would the Hong Kong Colonial Government issued its very first commemorative stamp for the 50th anniversary of it (source: "About Us: Hongkong Post".). It would be even more less likely that members from both Houses of UK Parliament would have spent the time to take videos for the day like they did this year, in addition to the motion (source: "Hong Kong 180th Anniversary - Part 1: Messages from British parliamentarians".).

However, and admittedly, this day of 26 January 1841 and its three English names (Foundation Day, Hong Kong Day, and Festival of Hong Kong) are perhaps not very well known for English speakers or in the English language. Even more so it's that this day has never been an official holiday. That is why a Google search does not turn up a lot, and the English search results that turn up are "not so authoritative" as you pointed out.

Yet, I would argue that this day, 開埠日 (hōi fauh yaht), is fairly well established in the Cantonese language with many reliable search results online. Or a local Hong Kong Cantonese news outlet, Apple Daily, would not have had an educational video out just yesterday with a significant portion related to this day (source: particularly around 7:43 "這才是真實的香港史︱水坑口開啟中國近代「國恥」？".).

And about your concern with the extent of Chinese etymology in this article, this Apple Daily's educational video also touches on its Chinese etymology as well, explaining the character 埠 (fauh) means "pier" (around 7:36 of the video). And if a local Cantonese news outlet for its Cantonese audiences would take the effort to explain what the character means. Is it not even more so warranted for English speakers?

Moreover, out of the three English names for this day (Foundation Day, Hong Kong Day, or Festival of Hong Kong), Foundation Day was chosen as the title for the article is because the Hong Kong judiciary and Legislative Council described the event of the British's taking possession of Hong Kong as "the founding of Hong Kong" (source: Paragraph 1034 of "judgment". and P. 16348 of "LegCo Record of Proceedings" (PDF).). UK parliamentarians likewise use a similar term (source: see the Commons motion above). Thus, the name of Foundation Day matches the best with official records than the other two, and this was why it was chosen.

I hope the above addresses your concerns. Best regards, --Magnet larry (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: talk Hello, Citobun. I would like to supplement some resources that I just found online. Here is an article from Hong Kong Free Press celebrating 26 January back in 2016. (source: "Happy Birthday Hong Kong – 175 years old today".). Hong Kong Free Press is a pretty well recognised English news outlet in Hong Kong. I hope this English news article from Hong Kong Free Press can help demonstrate the significance of 26 January and its worthiness of a place in the Wikipedia world.

Also, here is another article from the Chinese news media Hong Kong Economic Times back in 2017 about 26 January, and the article even calls the day 紀念日 (literally "memorial day"). And as the tile of this article suggests, this article is about the meaning of 開埠 (hōi fauh) (source: "今天香港開埠176年紀念日究竟「開埠」點解？".). Again, if a Chinese news outlet would spend its valuable resources to explain the meaning of the Chinese characters of the Chinese name of this day to its Chinese-speaking audiences, it is perhaps also advisable to do so for English speakers.

I hope the above further addresses your concerns. Best regards, --Magnet larry (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: talk Hello, Citobun. I am very sorry for bothering you again. I just want to share with you below some more news articles I found online are related to 26 January. Yet, these articles may be political sensitive. So, I think I had better not comment much about these articles. I will just basically list them and quote a few sentences straight out from them that are directly relevant to 26 January, but, again, I want them to show you that 26 January is of significance and worthy a Wiki page about it. Thank you.--Magnet larry (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- "UK rights group calls for sanctions on modern Hong Kong's 180th 'birthday'". Quote:“[January 26] marks 180 years of an important global relationship between Great Britain and Hong Kong,” said James Song, a member of Fight for Freedom.

- "Ai Weiwei warns China is 'greatest challenge the West has ever faced'". Quote: The Chinese artist, who is now based in the UK, spoke during a parliamentary event to mark the 180th anniversary of the founding of modern Hong Kong.

- "Irish have place in our history". Quote: Last week marked the 180th anniversary of the founding of modern Hong Kong.

Response to the above comments addressed to me: Looking at the above material, I think an article about the anniversary could be warranted. But I think the problem is that the current article is trying to portray the anniversary as something it isn't, namely an established commemorative occasion with a proper name. The title "Hong Kong Foundation Day" was selected arbitrarily by the article's author. None of the above sources uses it. The Chinese etymological sections are absolutely not necessary. Why is it not enough to explain that hoi means "open"? Why is it necessary to describe the historical development of the Chinese character? I don't get it. Same with the bit about the definition of the word "foundation". Finally, if the article stays it needs to be stripped of the huge amount of WP:OR, including WP:SYNTHESIS. Please review Wikipedia:Citing sources. The claims in the article should be directly verifiable using the reliable sources cited. Editors should not add their own interpretation, speculation, and commentary to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Citobun (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of WP:SYNTHESIS in the article: "Unlike for Cantonese speakers, there is no uniform way of referring to 26 January in English." Two citations are given, one of which mentions "Foundation Day" while the other refers to it as "Hong Kong Day". The claim that "there is no uniform way of referring to 26 January in English" is not a conclusion stated by either of the cited sources. That said, neither of the cited references are reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for the article needing some cleanups. The "Etymology" section should be trimmed or entirely deleted. but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, as long as a subject has sources to suggest notability, it should be kept and improved when the article is fairly sourced and one has already done everything they were able to. Sun8908 _Talk 11:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sun8908 Hello, Sun8908. For the issue about the etymology section, perhaps I overkilled it. Like I briefly mentioned above, I was just thinking that if most native Cantonese speakers needed explanation, then, it must be even more so required for English speakers. That’s why I dived deep into it. And then, I thought maybe I would need to do the same for English when I had done the Chinese etymology. Anyway, if you think that the etymology section is reductant, I won’t have a problem to see it go. Please feel free to cut whatever needs to be cut from the section or even the entire section. Thank you. --Magnet larry (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sun8908 Hello, Sun8908. To save everyone's time, I took your advice and deleted the etymology section. And you can have a look. Thank you. --Magnet larry (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : talk Hello, Citobun. Thank you for your reply. I am glad to hear that you agree that 26 January could be warranted. And to further show you that it is indeed warranted, I am listing below some more references.

One issue that you encountered was that you could not find creditable Chinese sources. And when I do a Google search by date range, not just a regular search, for this year’s 26 January or the 180th anniversary, it provides quite a few results from well-known Hong Kong Chinese news outlets of different political leanings. Also, if we take a closer look at these articles, it is not too difficult to notice that they were written by news outlets with different political leanings. As such, perhaps, they reflect how much the media perceive the relevance and value of this day for the Hong Kong public. Or, otherwise, perhaps, these articles would not have had been published in the first place by these many news agencies across the political spectrum. In addition, three out of the four news outlets cited below have actual, physical print circulation, which, I think, makes them tend to be more risk-averse to publishing anything that is insignificant to the public. And so, I hope the following can help further demonstrate that 26 January is important enough to have its own wiki page and does not deserve deletion:

-"香港開埠180年｜香港原名Heong Kong是條圍村？". from Apple Daily

- "香港開埠 180 周年紀念". from Stand News

- "香港開埠180年被遺忘的一些歷史". from Ming Pao

- "香港開埠180年-一-歷戰火洗禮-艱難謀生的四十年代". from HK01

As to your concern about “an established commemorative occasion with a proper name”, if this had been the case, perhaps I probably would not have emphasised that "Unlike for Cantonese speakers, there is no uniform way of referring to 26 January in English", which you pointed out this emphasis as a problem.

I think all of the problems that you have raised seem somehow directly or indirectly more or so related to translation, like User:Sun8908 suggested. On the one hand, there is this 開埠日 having been around like always. On the other hand, there is no direct English translation for 開埠. So, a few English names have emerged for it. The most popular one is “Hong Kong Day”, as seen online these days:

- "香港故事（二）：阿群帶路". Quote: 【26/1｜香港開埠180週年紀念日 Happy Hong Kong Day! 】

- "twitter of David Li Hoiyuk". Quote: #香港開埠 #HongKongDay #HongKong180

- "香港開埠180週年 The 180th Hong Kong Day".

Certainly, these are not very authoritative. But at least they show how people actually translate or call this day in English when they need to and that I have not been making it up.

Then, there is the word “founding” getting translated into each other as 開埠 (hōi fauh), which I believe I have already provided some reliable references, and so, I guess I won’t do it here again.

And then there is also the English word “foundation”, which I have not provided too many references here so far. Actually, “foundation” is also an acceptable and official way to translate it or call it in English probably because "foundation" is a synonym of "founding". It’s just that “foundation” seems to be used by historians more than other people, though not always. Here below are some examples that use the English word “foundation”, which the wiki page uses for its title. The first one is particularly relevant, though it is a bit dated, because it was a resolution passed in 1941 by the Legislative Council for “the hundredth anniversary of the Colony's foundation”. The second one is from the website of the Hong Kong Herbarium of the current government saying, “During the first 30 years after the foundation of Hong Kong.” And if one takes a look at this website’s Chinese version, it should prove that the government translates “foundation” and “開埠” (hōi fauh) into each other. Other examples are from books written by historians. The first two books were published by Hong Kong University Press and the third one by Joint Publishing. These two publishers are very well known in Hong Kong. So, I hope the following references can prove to you that the English word “foundation” is actually one possible accepted translation of 開埠 (hōi fauh).

- "Minutes (Resolution: 100th Anniversary) (P.2), Legislative Council" (PDF). Quote: The form of the resolution I suggest is: That the Legislative Council of this Colony, on the occasion of the hundredth anniversary of the Colony's foundation…

- "About Us: History". Quote: During the first 30 years after the foundation of Hong Kong…

- "Forgotten Souls: A Social History of the Hong Kong Cemetery". (ISBN: 9789622099906) Quote: The first opium war eventually led to the foundation of Hong Kong and influenced the mindset of the residents.

- "A Macao Narrative". (ISBN: 9789622090774) Quote: …until the foundation of Hong Kong and the opening of Shanghai gave wider scope for their energies…

- "How South Asians Helped to Make Hong Kong - History, Culture, Profiles, Food, Shopping" (PDF). (ISBN: 9789620443756) Quote: Indians - Here Since the Foundation of Hong Kong

All in all, I think User:Sun8908 is right. At least for me, translation did give me some headaches when I tried to create the page. And if you need to change anything about the page, please feel free to. Thank you. --Magnet larry (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello all. I think I just found something that I believe is quite relevant to our discussion here. That is the advice given by Wiki about translation. Hong Kong is of course a multilingual city (mostly Cantonese though). So, translation plays a big part of life here. The same is perhaps also true for wiki pages related to Hong Kong, and the advice given about translation includes the following:

WP:HOWTRANS : The English text should be understandable to a wide audience, so – other things being equal – use everyday English expressions rather than jargon or foreign expressions. It may be necessary to add material explaining terms or cultural concepts unfamiliar to English-speaking readers.

I am not citing this to try to resurrect the etymology section. I just think this sums up my original intention of adding the etymology section to the English page pretty well. Of course, I did a poor job. And I took the advice and deleted it. Thank you.--Magnet larry (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to withdraw nomination – nominator here. On reconsideration I think the article is salvageable if it is renamed (to something more general), simplified, and stripped of extraneous content and non-reliable sources. That discussion should happen on the article's talk page rather than at AfD. Citobun (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: talk Hello, Citobun. I am very glad to see that you no longer think that 26 January does not deserve a wiki page on its own. And I understand that there must be a lot of ways to make the page a better one.

Yet, there is a thing that I would like to clarify with you. It seems that you are not saying that it is wrong or misleading to call or translate 開埠日 (hōi fauh yaht) into English as “foundation day”. However, you would like to see it be renamed because you want it to be “something more general”, and this is one of the conditions of you withdrawing your deletion nomination.

I would like to see whether I am misunderstanding you. Thank you.--Magnet larry (talk) 08:18, 2 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. Whether to merge and/or redirect can be discussed on the article talk page and does not require an AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Maharashtra

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

Article for this Northern region in the state of Maharashtra already exists at Khandesh. This article was created by a persistent sockmaster. An administrative division covering the same general area is also named North Maharashtra, but this would mean a simple redirect from North Maharashtra to "Khandesh". I would say that some content be merged and finally redirect to Khandesh. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 20:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 20:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dunny29 (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @GreaterPonce665: I think you are not getting any responses here because the sources seem to support the article content. Is there anyway that you could demonstrate your line of thinking with some evidence or a refutation of this article's evidence? Not being a geography buff of this part of the world, it might helpful if you were to analyze what's wrong with the sources in this article and why the other naming system if preferable. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Thanks for the comment. The issue is not that the sources are poor or that the topic is not notable. There's already an article about the topic, albeit with traditional name. The north-west region in Maharashtra state in India is traditionally known as Khandesh and there is already a pretty good article on the topic. In recent years, the state government has named regions by their location, i.e. they started designating Khandesh as North Maharashtra administrative region. This, however, means that "North Maharashtra" should be a simple redirect to "Khandesh" (or merge if people prefer that). Additionally, this article was created by an incompetent but persistent sock and thus should be removed per WP:BMB anyway. I hope this explains my reasoning behind listing this page. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 22:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Do you have a source with both names in it together, proving they are the same? Or two sources with a map showing us? I do totally believe you, but it would be easier to comment having the evidence in front of me rather than having to try and confirm what you are saying by hunting around for sources. That way it's an easy clear cut call to redirect. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @4meter4:, Here the first line of research article states that "The North Maharashtra region comprises three districts, namely Jalgaon, Dhule, and Nandurbar". In pre-independence British-era, these three districts were part of the Khandesh district; this page states that "[Khandesh district] included the present-day Jalgaon, Dhule and Nandurbar districts...". Additional info here. Hope this answers the question about those regions being one and the same. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 14:29, 28 March 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. Notability of the subject according to WP:NPROF is too borderline for a strong consensus to form at this time. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Flagel

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has only primary sources, searches found nothing better. Doesn’t seem to meet WP:PROF Neiltonks (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For C1 considerations only: I calculated the Scopus citation metrics for Dr. Flagel and her 78 coauthors, as well as the most recent 45 of her top collaborator's coauthors, who had more than 10 papers. Total citations: average: 5810, median: 1537, Flagel: 3398. Total papers: avg: 98, med: 42, F: 52. h-index: avg: 28, med: 19, F: 25. Highest citation: avg: 527, med: 272, F: 557. Average citations per top 5 papers: avg: 295, med: 149, F: 300. She seems around average in her field, although if the "average professor test" is what she needs to beat then the 10 paper threshold is much too low and her stats would very likely be around the median or lower. JoelleJay (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the "average professor test", but this also does not take into account time spent in science. Should we rather compare her to peers who are at a similar career stage, since many of her co-authors will simlpy have a longer track record. --hroest 17:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hroest, that's why I looked at the 45 most recent coauthors of her top collaborator, rather than all of them or the 45 on his highest-cited papers. There are 70 professors among the collaborators, but 32 of them are associate or assistant, so longevity is less of a concern. My original stats also include plenty of PhD students, postdocs, senior research assistants, techs, and people who stopped publishing and went into industry. The stats if I look at just the 70 collaborators who are any kind of professor are:

Extended content

Total citations: avg: 8852, F: 3398. Total papers: avg: 148, F: 52. h-index: avg: 38, F: 25. Average citations per top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 732, F: 557. 2nd: avg: 440, F: 292. 3rd: 341, F: 228. 4th: avg: 288, F: 223. 5th: avg: 250, F: 202.
Looking at just the 38 who are full professors: TC: avg: 14081, F: 3398. TP: avg: 229, F: 52. HI: avg: 53, F: 25. 1st: avg: 983, F: 557. 2nd: avg: 600, F: 292. 3rd: avg: 479, F: 228. 4th: avg: 417, F: 223. 5th: avg: 359, F: 202.

Basically, I don't think the metrics are skewed too much by long track records. JoelleJay (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in general I would agree with a WP:TOOSOON and she does not pass WP:NPROF#1 but after this recent discussion it is hard to argue why we should delete this article. She is an associate professor at a top tier institution with a good publication record and over 10 papers with 100+ citations in a high citation field. --hroest 17:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The more coathuors, the easier it is to prepare and publish a paper, and have co-authors cite each other's papers, as a group. Notability has an important criteria of contributions, scientific merits in this case, and so far I only see the arguments of citations and her use of grad students. Professors often have this amount of publication activities, that's what they are paid for, so allowing this not very informative profile (copied and pasted from the University's website) will invite millions of other profiles. If we want to avoid it, the page should be deleted; if we don't mind it, the page can stay Norm21 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norm21 I totally agree and that is the reason we have WP:NPROF and the analysis from JoelleJay basically confirms that she is an "average" professor so far without any really outstanding achievements that would be unexpected at her career stage. I agree with your two scenarios and according to current NPROF#1 she is not notable, however I am pointing to a recent discussion where a consensus was formed around much younger and less accomplished professor. I have not decided on how to vote yet, so far I am just collecting arguments pro and con. Unfortunately I dont know enough about her field to form an informed decision about her contribution and the only thing I have to go for is her citation count. --hroest 21:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Trying to decide WP:NPROF on just citation numbers is always highly unsatisfactory, because we have no firm thresholds there. In this case the cites seem "okay" to me but there's nothing else whatsoever to contribute to notability (elected positions, awards, secondary coverage etc.) so I'm leaning towards Nay here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae I did some more digging, see below. For me this just makes her pass the bar. --hroest 20:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I found some more coverage of her, such as Scientific American, she is in some sort of leadership role in the ACNP which is a relevant professional association and she won A.E. BENNETT RESEARCH AWARD – Basic from SOBP which may or may not be notable since its an "early career" award, which often do not convey notability. Overall: reasonable citations for her career stage, some general coverage of her work in SA and at least one award and leadership roles; seems to be close to the border but for me she passes. --hroest 20:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep citations added showing her research influence beyond the academic community, in science communication to 'lay' readers, agree close to border but for me it is a pass.Kaybeesquared (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:06, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:44, 26 March 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salute (2021 film)

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

Per WP:NFF, films that have not been publicly released yet should not have an article on it unless the production itself is notable. From searches online, and that the film started production only six days ago, it looks like the production itself is not notable. Could be wp:too soon. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 10:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 10:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 10:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep: Sources confirm that he movie's principal photography has begun and is expected to release by the end of this year. 'Embarrassed' Dulquer Salmaan shares poster of his new movie 'Salute'. Films, that have commenced principal photography is notbale as per WP:NFF. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 11:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF -- "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable". 'Generally' does leave room for exceptions but the burden is on explaining why this film demands one, which I just don't see. Paisarepa 00:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and WP:NFF as above. Kolma8 (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dulquer Salmaan film with Diana Penty titled ‘Salute’ Dulquer presents first look poster from upcoming film ‘Salute’ Dulquer Salmaan is surely a crowd-puller and here’s the proof | Malayalam Movie News - Times of India these sources confirms this movie's production itself is notable. The movies production began on 3 February as per the sources. I still dont get the point why this movie's production is not notable. We have an article for the movie Spider-Man: No Way Home which is also under production and will release on December, around the same time this movie is also expected to release. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 15:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think applying wp:general notability guideline here might help.
  - ^[1] The article writes about the upcoming film and the casts, but the part slightly related to the production is only mentioned in the last sentence. This might be of typical coverage expected from announcements of films instead of the production itself.
  - ^[2] Similar to above.
  - ^[3] The video seems to be about one of members of the cast.
- wp:Significant coverage is the major issue here.
- For Spider-Man: No Way Home, it looks like a bad application of wp:other stuff exists since the prerequisite of using this argument is that their qualities are similar, which does not seem to be the case here. Even successfully applying this argument may not always make a sound argument. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 16:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:Aseleste, WP:NFF clearly says that sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. All the sources I provided clearly confirms that the production of movie has begun. If you want more sources to prove its production has begun, have a look at this one 'സെറ്റിന് ജീവൻ നൽകുന്നത് മനോജേട്ടനാണ്'; 'സല്യൂട്ട്' സെറ്റിൽ നിന്നും ഡിക്യുവിന്‍റെ പിറന്നാളാശംസ Though it is mainly covering about something else, it confirms the movie's production has begun. Because see this traslation from the source;The two are currently in shooting at the location of the Roshan Andrews movie Salute. The movie is also getting this much coverage because it is one of the most celebrated upcoming movie in Malayalam and plenty of sources confirms that. Still I dont know the reason of you saying wp:Significant coverage is the issue here. I only showed some sourcea. Here are some more സ്റ്റൈലൻ പോലീസിന്റെ റോയൽ എൻഫീൽഡുമായി ദുൽഖർ സൽമാൻ Dulquer Salmaan-Rosshan Andrrews film ‘Salute’ to go on floors Dulquer Salmaan transforms into a cop in Salute first look; Malayalam action flick to also star Diana Penty - Entertainment News , Firstpost. More sources still exist there there. I recommend you to just search as Salute Malayalam movie or സല്യൂട്ട് (in malayalam). You will get more. Regards. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 17:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not disputed that the principal photography has started. The thing I have been focusing on is the notability of the production itself as mentioned in WP:NFF. I will now go look for more sources as you have suggested. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumping news search results here. The results are produced by searching the suggested two phrases by Kashmorwiki, filtered within the last two weeks. About 25 irrelevant results are also filtered (quite convenient that the URL for most non-English sources contains the title in English). Some results may be irrelevant, especially in non-English sources.
    English sources
    
    ^[4] Summary: About the poster and the crew.
    
    ^[5] Summary: About the poster.
    
    ^[6] Summary: About the announcement of the film, the creww, and the director's other projects.
    
    ^[7] Summary: Annoucement of the film, and an unrelated film and its plot.
    
    ^[8] Summary: Announcement of the film, the poster, and the crew.
    
    ^[9] Summary: Annoucement of the film and some crews.
    
    ^[10] Summary: The crew.
    
    ^[11] Summary: Leaked plot.
    
    ^[12] Summary: Birthday of a crew.
    
    ^[13] Summary: I think this is basically irrelevant to the movie.
    
    ^[14] Summary: Very short paragraph.
    
    ^[15] Summary: Passing mention.
    
    ^[16] Summary: I think this is irrelevant, missed filter.
    
    Non-English sources
    
    ^[17]
    
    ^[18]
    
    ^[19]
    
    ^[20]
    
    ^[21]
    
    ^[22]
    
    ^[23]
    
    ^[24]
    
    ^[25]
    
    ^[26]
    
    ^[27]
    
    ^[28]
    
    ^[29]
    
    ^[30]
    
    ^[31]
    
    ^[32]
    
    ^[33]
    
    ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ~~Doing...~~ analysis of the sources above, might take some time. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Done. Non-English sources are not analyzed to not mis-summarize them due to machine translation. However, the English title in the URLs, if available, may help here. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 12:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    
    For me, the English results look too similar to each other, so the coverage has large overlaps. Overall, the production itself (not the announcement of production) is not covered that much beyond the crew involved in it. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I agree that the production is not covered that much beyond. But it proves the production has begun right? Thats the point im stressing. The following is fully copied from WP:NFF Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun.Most of the sources confirms this. Aseleste, please reply to this. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 15:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I think you're misunderstanding WP:NFF; you need to read all three paragraphs and not just the first. To be considered notable, production must have begun AND production itself must be notable. What Aseleste has shown and you have agreed with is that production itself is not notable; therefore the film does not meet NFF. Paisarepa

References

^ Desk, The Hindu Net (March 8, 2021). "Dulquer Salmaan film with Diana Penty titled 'Salute'". Archived from the original on March 13, 2021. Retrieved March 14, 2021 – via www.thehindu.com.
^ "Dulquer presents first look poster from upcoming film 'Salute'". The News Minute. March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 8, 2021. Retrieved March 14, 2021.
^ "Dulquer Salmaan is surely a crowd-puller and here's the proof | Malayalam Movie News - Times of India". timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-12. Retrieved 2021-03-15.
^ "Dulquer presents first look poster from upcoming film 'Salute'". The News Minute. March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 8, 2021. Retrieved March 14, 2021.
^ "Dulquer Salmaan shares the first look poster of his upcoming movie 'Salute'". Deccan Herald. March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
^ World, Republic. "'Embarrassed' Dulquer Salmaan shares poster of his new movie 'Salute'". Republic World. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-10.
^ "Dulquer Salmaan shares new poster from Salute & reveals his character name in the Rosshan Andrrews directorial". March 17, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
^ "Dulquer Salmaan transforms into a cop in Salute first look; Malayalam action flick to also star Diana Penty - Entertainment News , Firstpost". Firstpost. March 9, 2021. Archived from the original on March 10, 2021. Retrieved March 16, 2021.
^ World, Republic. "Dulquer Salmaan introduces fans to 'Aravind Karunakaran' with latest 'Salute' poster". Republic World. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ "Dulquer sports new get-up for Rosshan Andrrews movie 'Salute'". The News Minute. February 26, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
^ Narayanan, Nirmal (March 15, 2021). "Dulquer Salmaan unintentionally spills beans on Salute storyline". www.ibtimes.co.in. Archived from the original on March 16, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
^ "Dulquer Samaan's birthday wish for Manoj K Jayan goes viral - Malayalam News". IndiaGlitz.com. March 16, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
^ "Mohanlal, Dulquer Salmaan, Tovino Thomas: M-Town celebs who made headlines this week". The Times of India. March 14, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
^ World, Republic. "Dulquer Salmaan unveils poster of Saiju Kurup's 100th film on his b'day, pens a sweet note". Republic World. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ "Fans celebrate Dulquer Salmaan's new look - Malayalam News". IndiaGlitz.com. February 25, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
^ World, Republic. "Captain Gopinath lauds the character of Bommi from 'Soorarai Pottru' on Women's Day". Republic World. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ "പോലീസായി മാസ് ലുക്കിൽ ദുൽഖ‍ർ സൽമാൻ; ചിത്രത്തിന് പേര് 'സല്യൂട്ട്'". malayalam.samayam.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ "'സെറ്റിന് ജീവൻ നൽകുന്നത് മനോജേട്ടനാണ്'; 'സല്യൂട്ട്' സെറ്റിൽ നിന്നും ഡിക്യുവിന്‍റെ പിറന്നാളാശംസ". malayalam.samayam.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-16.
^ "Dulquer Salmaan | 'സല്യൂട്ട്'; കാക്കി അണിഞ്ഞ്, ലാത്തി പിടിച്ച്, ബുള്ളെറ്റിലേറി ദുൽഖർ". News18 Malayalam. March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
^ "'നല്ല ആളുകളിൽ ഒരാൾ', മനോജ് കെ ജയന് ആശംസയുമായി ദുല്‍ഖര്‍". Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ "എനിക്കറിയാവുന്നതിൽ ഏറ്റവും ക്ഷമയുള്ള, പോസിറ്റീവ് ആയ ആൾ! മനോജ് കെ.ജയന് ജന്മദിനാശംസകൾ നേർന്ന് ദുൽഖർ സൽമാൻ | dq wishes manoj k jayan bd news". vanitha.in. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ "പോലീസ് വേഷത്തിൽ ദുൽഖർ, റോഷൻ ആൻഡ്രൂസ് ഒരുക്കുന്നു 'സല്യൂട്ട്'". Mathrubhumi. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ "കാക്കിയണിഞ്ഞ് ദുൽഖർ; റോഷൻ ആൻഡ്രൂസ് ചിത്രം 'സല്യൂട്ട്'-ന്റെ പോസ്റ്റർ പുറത്തുവിട്ടു". March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
^ അനൂപ്, കെ ആര്‍. "ഐപിഎസ് ഓഫീസര്‍ അരവിന്ദ് കരുണാകരനായി ദുല്‍ഖര്‍ സല്‍മാന്‍, സല്യൂട്ട് ചിത്രീകരണം പുരോഗമിക്കുന്നു". malayalam.webdunia.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ "പൊലീസ് വേഷത്തില്‍ കിടിലൻ ലുക്കില്‍ ദുല്‍ഖര്‍, ഫസ്റ്റ് ലുക്ക്". Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ CUE, THE. "പ്രീസ്റ്റ് മമ്മൂട്ടിയുടെ കൈകളിൽ ഭദ്രം; ഗംഭീര സ്ക്രീൻ പ്രസൻസ്; സിനിമയെക്കുറിച്ച് പ്രേക്ഷകർ". The Cue. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ "അതിജീവിക്കും, ഏത് അഗ്നി പരീക്ഷയും; കോഴിക്കോട് ജില്ലയിലെ ആദ്യ വനിത ഹോം ഗാർഡ് ആയി സജിത". ManoramaOnline. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ Daily, Keralakaumudi. "പച്ചയിൽ മനോഹാരിയായി സാനിയ". Keralakaumudi Daily.
^ അനൂപ്, കെ ആര്‍. "പോലീസ് യൂണിഫോമില്‍ മനോജ് കെ ജയനും, പിറന്നാള്‍ ആശംസകളുമായി ദുല്‍ഖര്‍ സല്‍മാന്‍". malayalam.webdunia.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ "ദുൽഖുർ സൽമാൻ നായകനാകുന്ന പുതിയ ചിത്രത്തിന്റെ പോസ്റ്റർ പുറത്തിറങ്ങി". March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.
^ "എതിര്‍ത്തു നില്‍ക്കുന്നവരെ അണച്ചുനിര്‍ത്താനുള്ള രാഷ്ട്രീയ തന്ത്രം കേരളത്തില്‍ ബി.ജെ.പ..." www.malayalivartha.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ Daily, Keralakaumudi. "മുഖ്യമന്ത്രിയുടെ സുരക്ഷയടക്കം ഏറ്റെടുത്ത് വനിതാ പൊലീസ്". Keralakaumudi Daily. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
^ "'കാറ്റിൽ തനിയേ...'; അപ്പാനി ശരത്തും ടീന സുനിലും ഒരുമിക്കുന്ന 'മിയ കുൽപ്പ'യിലെ ആദ്യ ഗാനം". malayalam.samayam.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more evaluation of Kichu's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The ref-bombing is just noise. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per the last relist comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, per the likelihood of new sources arising over the course of the usual draftification period. The article can continue to be developed in that state. BD2412 T 20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is a very reasonable WP:ATD here, I think. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 02:22, 6 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IEC College of Engineering and Technology

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

Delete:Does not satisfy ~~WP:schooloutcomes or~~ WP:nschool or wp:org. Apart from the primary sources there dont seem to be any other secondary sources to satisfy Notability. Vikram Vincent 13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article lacks the level of sourcing we need to show that an organization is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Non-notable awards where the reference to the awards is a dead link. Vikram Vincent 14:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article and its website certainly say it awards degrees. Are you maintaining it doesn't? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm making two claims: 1. The institute is affiliated to Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and could be merged into that article as a list item, and 2. The 'awards and recognition' section contents cannot be verified(the awards being non-notable too). Also see: The typical outcomes from previous discussions about average articles on this subject are not binding on this one and may not be relevant to this particular article. Please consider adding your opinion about whether this specific subject meets any relevant notability guideline.

Vikram Vincent 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be suggesting that consensus is irrelevant! Not sure where you got that one from. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Necrothesp. There is even a tag called {{outcomes}} to express that point. Vikram Vincent 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is the whole basis of how we do things on Wikipedia. It is never irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Vincentvikram is randomly nominating articles without any solid statement. I noticed, he provided almost same reason (Notability and non Reliable Sources) for all articles nominated for deletion. It seems like his edits are not constructive on Wikipedia. DMySon 17:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources in the article do not have SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, more database and directory style listings. The keep vote above does not list any sources to check, and the reasons listed are opinions not supported by guidelines. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. If anyone can find sources with SIGCOV, post them and I'll be happy to check them and change my !vote if this can be shown to meet guidelines. I oppose a merge because nothing is properly sourced. // Timothy :: talk 08:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source evaluation table:

Source	Evaluation
https://www.iec.edu.in/about-us/board-…	School affliated website, not IS, no SIGCOV
https://www.iec.edu.in/about-us/about…	School affliated website, not IS, no SIGCOV
"List of Affiliated Institutions - Ma…	Directory style listing, no SIGCOV
"AKTU Affiliation Letter Intake 2019-…	A form filled in by the school, not IS, no SIGCOV
"AICTE Corrigendum Report 2019-20" (P…	Government report with statistical information, not IS, no SIGCOV
"Brochure 2018-19" (PDF). Retrieved 1…	School brochure, not IS
"BOLLYWOOD ACTRESSES Reecha Sinha". R…	Not about the subject, does not mention the subject
"AWARDS & RECOGNITION". Retrieved 30…	404 page from school affliated website

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless someone can come with WP:THREE sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the article needs to be deleted. The last few pages I nominated for AFD are being deleted so the "consensus" is moving to delete non-notable tertiary institutes. Vikram Vincent 07:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:42, 26 March 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. I find TimothyBlue's !vote the most persuasive per policy. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABSS Institute of Technology

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

Does not satisfy ~~WP:schooloutcomes or~~ WP:nschool or wp:org. Just one source in the reflist. Vikram Vincent 13:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 13:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass our notability guidelines for an organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. Here is my argument for similar institutions.. DMySon 18:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In the wiki link, an argument for wp:other stuff exists has been made which is a good argument to delete. Vikram Vincent 06:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source in the article is a directory style listing, BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, more database and directory style listings. The keep votes above do not list any sources to check, and the reasons listed are opinions not supported by notability guidelines. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. If anyone can find sources with SIGCOV, post them and I'll be happy to check them and change my !vote if this can be shown to meet guidelines. I oppose a merge because nothing is properly sourced. // Timothy :: talk 08:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, schooloutcomes should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. Vikram Vincent 11:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless someone can come up with WP:THREE sources to support either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS the page needs to be deleted as a non-notable tertiary educational institution that does not award degrees. Vikram Vincent 06:27, 26 March 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 to delete, after much-extended time for discussion. This cannot be further relisted, and there is no realistic possibility for a consensus for deletion to develop, nor is it implausible that sources will be found with which to improve the article. Closed without prejudice to the initiation of a separate merge proposal, with the caveat that the subject could be merged into the article on the event, and then split out again in the future if additional content is found on the subject. BD2412 T 05:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joud el Bayeh

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

The Ehden massacre is certainly notable, and much of this article is about that event, after the subject”s death, rather than about him. The role of the subject in the lead up to the massacre is his only claim of notability, and I think WP:BLP1E applies to that. Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is jimmy, I am the creator of this article from a while ago, this is a test, can anyone see this? I will be watching this discussion.Jimmypapas (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimmypapas: yes everyone can see your comment. If you want to explain why you think this subject is notable you can comment below. Mccapra (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I read this article on Arabic Wikipedia, but there seems to be significant coverage here.Kamran Ali El-Batli (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Arabic article is basically the same, mostly not about him but about what happened after he died. This is all covered in the article in the Ehden Massacre anyway. Mccapra (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ehden massacre#Background: It looks like a WP:BIO1E. Oppose merging since it takes effort and the information in this article is mostly included in the redirect target already. The wording is almost the same for some text, see page comparison. Support redirection as an alternative to deletion and to wp:bite less as the content is archived in the redirect history. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 10:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: Also, I think you mean WP:BIO1E instead? WP:BLP1E does not apply here. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 10:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, double pinged Mccapra and accidentally pinged Elbatli (these do not ping, see source), sorry. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 10:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you. I think a redirect as you’ve suggested would be fine. Mccapra (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My search also found several references in non-english works. His other language articles have a bit more info. Looks notable to me. VocalIndia (talk) 05:58, 1 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. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cybertonica

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

Does not seem to satisfy WP:NORG. The sources appear to be based on press releases or paid adverts. Unable to find WP:RS with a WP:BEFORE. The creator is a SPA. Vikram Vincent 05:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sliekid (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 2 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. Daniel (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R S College of Management & Science

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

Fails WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a one-sentence stub that lacks zero sourcing to establish why this school is notable.TH1980 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a Google search related to the subject but can't find any source that suggested notability. Iflaq ^(talk) 19:18, 2 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. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noida Institute of Engineering and Technology

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

Fails WP:RS, ~~WP:schooloutcomes,~~ wp:nschool. Vikram Vincent 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC) * Propose a merge with the university page, since that is notable. Vikram Vincent 10:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, so most certainly satisfies WP:Schooloutcomes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Degree awarded institute which is affiliated with a recognized university Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University. I also removed promotional content. Here is my argument for similar institutions.. DMySon 18:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and ORGCRIT, no sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in the article are a 404 page on the school website, a Facebook page for an individual, and a link to another institution with no info on the school. BEFORE showed directory style listings and promos, nothing that meets SIGCOV. Keep votes above provide no sources and offer only opinions not supported by guidelines. // Timothy :: talk 11:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a directory to list non-notable tertiary educational institutions which do not award degrees. Stating wp:schooloutcomes is a circular argument and is to be avoided as it adds no value to the discussion. After cleaning up the advertisement and the self-published sources, it does not satisfy wp:hey. Unless someone can list wp:THREE sources to show notability via wp:gng or wp:NSCHOOLS the page needs to be deleted. Vikram Vincent 04:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just being a degree awarded institution doesnt make it notable. For that we also need reliable sources to establish GNG and in this case, it does not have. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 09:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't demonstrates WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 12:57, 26 March 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 moved to Draft:Ezhilan Naganathan, pending potential coverage that may arise with development certain to occur within the next six months. BD2412 T 20:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhilan Naganathan

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

WP:BLP of an activist and political candidate, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion standards. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won -- the notability test for politicians is holding office, not running for it. But this is not properly demonstrating that he has preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him a Wikipedia article independently of his candidacy -- it's written like a résume, heavily overbolded, and referenced two-thirds to primary sources and YouTube videos that are not support for notability at all. And of the two sources that are actually real media, one is a very short blurb about him being appointed to a not-inherently notable position on a committee and the other is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him, so neither of those sources are getting him over WP:GNG either.
The only reason I'm not speedying this is that it's a recent rewrite of a stub that's already been here for six years -- but just reverting the advertorialism doesn't fix the problem, because the old stub wasn't properly demonstrating or sourcing any actual notability either. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NPOL. --RaviC (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Dr. Ezhilan Naganathan has over a decade’s experience in the field of infectious diseases, preventive medicine and diabetology. He has been a leading voice against the implementation of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) in Tamil Nadu for MBBS admissions. Reliable sources here below:

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/leading-voice-against-neet-who-dmk-s-thousand-lights-candidate-dr-ezhilan-145123
https://www.hindustantimes.com/elections/tamil-nadu-assembly-election/importance-of-neet-in-tamil-nadu-assembly-elections-101615806185065.html
--Madhusmitabishoi (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, a person has to be the subject of a significant volume of reliable source coverage and analysis about his work. It's not enough to just offer one or two pieces of verification that he's had jobs — there have to be numerous sources analyzing why his work in those jobs can be seen as significant. There is no job that any person can hold that makes them so "inherently" notable that they're exempted from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing, and just showing two footnotes verifying that he's done stuff is not enough to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't soft-delete due to contrary view expressed here, as persuasive as the nomination is. Relisting for additional input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, subject needs to win the 2021 election before meriting any space on Wikipedia. -- Eatcha 05:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Subject is contesting an election on 6th April 2021 and the result is expected on May 2nd.Hence feel it best to draft rather than delete and the article which was created in 2015.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:59, 4 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.

As per Election results announced by today, he will become an MLA of Thousand Lights. I believe now the person meet our notability guidelines for politicians . Shall I move this to mainspace? -Neechalkaran (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 moved to Draft:Crab Goalkeeper, per WP:PRESERVE and the hopes of some discussion participants that this can be rendered article-worthy. BD2412 T 06:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crab Goalkeeper

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

Sourced only to the (archived) official website since 2006 until I added a non-WP:RS link to IMDb yesterday. A WP:BEFORE search for both of the English titles (Crab Goalkeeper and Kani Goalkeeper} and the Japanese title (かにゴールキーパー} turned up a remarkable number of listings sites, but nothing indepth about the film. The corresponding Japanese article ja:かにゴールキーパー did not help. The best I found was this (via Google Translate), which gives a more detailed version of the plot. Notability is not WP:INHERITED from the director, Minoru Kawasaki. This film was mentioned, apparently in passing, in Japanorama#Series 2. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom. Is 13 WP:AECs while trying to post at AFD a record? I've just wasted 15 minutes trying to get this report to stick. ProTip: get your bogles clenched, and make a multiple report in one go. Narky Blert (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has sources. Dunny29 (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck comment from confirmed sock. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this film ever received significant coverage, no evidence or even a claim of passing any criteria within WP:NFILM. A passing mention in a documentary isn't enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Send to Draft status. I added a reference source to the article and reworded to avoid existing plagiarism issue. I'd support seeing this article moved to Draft status to let editors have another stab at it.--Greysonsarch (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as there is some minor coverage such as the first two links here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ja:かにゴールキーパー has no ref links. Searching in Japanese only brings up IMDB like databases or blogs. I tried, but couldn't find any secondary sources to add to the article in Japanese.Craft777 (talk) 05:14, 5 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Robert Fuller

AfDs for this article:

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

The sad story of someone who committed suicide. Extremely widely covered in the media due to the nature of the suicide (hanging). I've looked carefully at WP:BLP1E and this seems to fit exactly into that. He never sought any attention and can be defined as a low profile individual as mentioned in BLP1E. --- Possibly (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article went through Afd less than 8 months ago. Same rationale for Keep now, per extensive coverage, refs in article and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the previous AFD discussion. Pladica (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject of the article is the event, not the person, so WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E should not apply here.
As for notability as an event, the previous consensus was that it meets WP:GNG (and is not the main policy contested in this AfD). ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 11:40, 2 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 Welcome to Momoland. Seems rather clear there is consensus per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jjan! Koong! Kwang!

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

The song does not seem to meet WP:NSONG. The secondary sources in the article itself are either unreliable or don't mention the song itself, and are instead about the group's debut or the release of the debut album the song is a part of, so that content is more appropriate to those articles, which already exist. A WP:BEFORE resulted in the same type of results, either unreliable sources or a mention in passing of the song. Nangears (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its the debut single of a fairly notable South Korean girl group. Just because it didn't chart, doesn't make it a non notable song and that a Wikipedia article should not exist. Rather than deleting the article, this should be placed under a category or a Wikipedia project to encourage editors to expand the article. The article is well sourced and all references added in the article have MENTIONED the song itself.TheHotwiki (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NALBUM, a song does not inherit notability and I'm not disputing that Momoland or their debut album are notable enough for articles, but that doesn't mean the song is automatically notable by extension. The only one of the reliable secondary sources that even mentioned the song directly when I first nominated it was ^[1], which names it as the debut single of their debut album in discussion of their debut as a group on MCountdown but still not substantial coverage. Now, some of the sources you added mention the song, but ^[2] that you added is the only one that discusses the song in more detail in discussing the release of the dance version of the music video. The other sources are either primary sources, unreliable sources, don't mention the song directly, or like with ^[3] includes the video to the song but the article itself does not discuss it all. Nangears (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nangears (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Nangears (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Welcome to Momoland, as per WP:NSONG. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Welcome to Momoland as the album is notable, but the song can not be said notable per WP:INHERITED. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per TheHotwiki. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig could you provide the three sources you think best demonstrate notability? As I said above, none of the sources I am seeing in the article or that I found in my WP:BEFORE demonstrate the song's notability, but if you disagree I would like to look at which sources you are pointing to that satisfy WP:GNG. Nangears (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Welcome to Momoland as per above. The album the song is from is notable, but it does not inherit this notability, especially with the lack of sources available. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 10:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

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) 08:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besomorph

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

Does not appear to meet the notability criteria for musicians; it was also likely created by a undisclosed paid editor who has since been blocked. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable musician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Sliekid (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much more than an array of references linking to unusable sources. BD2412 T 05:58, 5 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arny Schorr

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

Poorly-sourced promo piece about non-notable exec, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article on a non-notable individual. If we are going to throw around words like "pioneer" we need lots of sources to justify it. Extraordinary claims (being a pioneer in a field) require sourcing that match them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As one of the executives since the start of the home video business, the claim is legitimate and is supported by the articles included, but I will add more today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradmarcus (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 11:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The two billboard sources are significant enough to establish notability, which is all that matters. The comment regarding being a "pioneer" is irrelevant to a deletion and should be taken up on the talk page as part of the editing process. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs a lot of work, and is probably my Terrible BLP Image of the Day. I've come around about "articles that might be notable but need a ton of work"; a lot of stuff is worse than a redlink, in terms of ever actually getting improved. That said, I don't think this is worse than a redlink. Those sources might be difficult to draw up at first, and if they aren't, there's likely even more that is considering the era involved (trust me -- any newspaper coverage on Google from the 70s/80s is about 5% or so of what you can get in paywalled search sites). I think there's enough demonstrated here for people to be encouraged to rewrite it. Vaticidalprophet 17:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most newspaper mentions are in wire service articles where he is quoted in his capacity at Rhino in 1989–90. I'd merge or redirect to Rhino Entertainment, personally. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with no prejudice against recreation if someone can find adequate sourcing. With the sources that are in the article right now, I don't see notability as established – I can't see the online Billboard source, but the book one doesn't strike me as very significant coverage, and the NYT pieces go into the same direction; since this is a BLP, I believe that we need to take special care when it comes to sourcing standards, and unless the remaining Billboard source backs up all the content currently in the article, I don't think it's sufficiently verifiable to stay up. Blablubbs|talk 16:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Rhino Entertainment, with no prejudice against restoring to draft if additional sourcing can be found. Removing the unusable content from this article would leave nothing worth calling an article. This level of introduction of material should not be rewarded with any measure short of deletion. BD2412 T 05:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted a rescue: I have tried to fix its tone to be more professional, please take a look there. I do not know, however, whether it is really that notable, and I am neutral over that. --DePlume (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - content rescued and additional sources added. Article also reorganized and the lead was expanded. Two companies that he founded got sparing coverage, which just barely puts him over the top, and also argues against a single redirect. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - his direct connection to Rhino and the Variety story are the bare minimum for notability. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The NYT source is a single passing mention and one the Billboard sources is a 404 error. Nothing here convinces me of notability and in my book this fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:57, 7 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. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kai (artist)

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

Very poor refs for a BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 00:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources don't demonstrates WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG for this artist. Sliekid (talk) 12:58, 26 March 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 due to lack of secondary sourcing and tainted origin. No prejudice against any editor in good standing creating an appropriately-sourced article on the subject. RL0919 (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Postal orders of Bangladesh

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

Created by a sockpuppet of a banned user in violation of their ban. WP:G5 was declined on the grounds that "other editors have worked on this article". Said work has consisted of category maintenance, link disambiguation/removal, capitalization fixes, and the deletion of one "word to watch". (As vital as such gnoming is, I would call it "no substantial edits by others".) The article has never cited a source (the external link doesn't mention Bangladesh or Pakistan), and I haven't found a reliable source to support any of the content. Worldbruce (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick bit of research convinces me that everything stated in this article is misleading, or has zero informational content, or is a just plain trivial application to postal orders of things that are true in general. Getting rid of this and starting again (if possible) seems to me to be the correct course of action. Uncle G (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: unfortunately very little has been written and available online of postal orders in general. Some offline specialist books are available but hard to find. Describing this as misleading seems disingenuous as everything does seem true but is unsourced at the moment even if created by a sockpuppet. ww2censor (talk) 10:42, 26 March 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] Desk, The Hindu Net (March 8, 2021). "Dulquer Salmaan film with Diana Penty titled 'Salute'". Archived from the original on March 13, 2021. Retrieved March 14, 2021 – via www.thehindu.com.

[2] "Dulquer presents first look poster from upcoming film 'Salute'". The News Minute. March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 8, 2021. Retrieved March 14, 2021.

[3] "Dulquer Salmaan is surely a crowd-puller and here's the proof | Malayalam Movie News - Times of India". timesofindia.indiatimes.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-12. Retrieved 2021-03-15.

[4] "Dulquer presents first look poster from upcoming film 'Salute'". The News Minute. March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 8, 2021. Retrieved March 14, 2021.

[5] "Dulquer Salmaan shares the first look poster of his upcoming movie 'Salute'". Deccan Herald. March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[6] World, Republic. "'Embarrassed' Dulquer Salmaan shares poster of his new movie 'Salute'". Republic World. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-10.

[7] "Dulquer Salmaan shares new poster from Salute & reveals his character name in the Rosshan Andrrews directorial". March 17, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[8] "Dulquer Salmaan transforms into a cop in Salute first look; Malayalam action flick to also star Diana Penty - Entertainment News , Firstpost". Firstpost. March 9, 2021. Archived from the original on March 10, 2021. Retrieved March 16, 2021.

[9] World, Republic. "Dulquer Salmaan introduces fans to 'Aravind Karunakaran' with latest 'Salute' poster". Republic World. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[10] "Dulquer sports new get-up for Rosshan Andrrews movie 'Salute'". The News Minute. February 26, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[11] Narayanan, Nirmal (March 15, 2021). "Dulquer Salmaan unintentionally spills beans on Salute storyline". www.ibtimes.co.in. Archived from the original on March 16, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[12] "Dulquer Samaan's birthday wish for Manoj K Jayan goes viral - Malayalam News". IndiaGlitz.com. March 16, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[13] "Mohanlal, Dulquer Salmaan, Tovino Thomas: M-Town celebs who made headlines this week". The Times of India. March 14, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[14] World, Republic. "Dulquer Salmaan unveils poster of Saiju Kurup's 100th film on his b'day, pens a sweet note". Republic World. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[15] "Fans celebrate Dulquer Salmaan's new look - Malayalam News". IndiaGlitz.com. February 25, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[16] World, Republic. "Captain Gopinath lauds the character of Bommi from 'Soorarai Pottru' on Women's Day". Republic World. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[17] "പോലീസായി മാസ് ലുക്കിൽ ദുൽഖ‍ർ സൽമാൻ; ചിത്രത്തിന് പേര് 'സല്യൂട്ട്'". malayalam.samayam.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[18] "'സെറ്റിന് ജീവൻ നൽകുന്നത് മനോജേട്ടനാണ്'; 'സല്യൂട്ട്' സെറ്റിൽ നിന്നും ഡിക്യുവിന്‍റെ പിറന്നാളാശംസ". malayalam.samayam.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-16.

[19] "Dulquer Salmaan | 'സല്യൂട്ട്'; കാക്കി അണിഞ്ഞ്, ലാത്തി പിടിച്ച്, ബുള്ളെറ്റിലേറി ദുൽഖർ". News18 Malayalam. March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[20] "'നല്ല ആളുകളിൽ ഒരാൾ', മനോജ് കെ ജയന് ആശംസയുമായി ദുല്‍ഖര്‍". Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[21] "എനിക്കറിയാവുന്നതിൽ ഏറ്റവും ക്ഷമയുള്ള, പോസിറ്റീവ് ആയ ആൾ! മനോജ് കെ.ജയന് ജന്മദിനാശംസകൾ നേർന്ന് ദുൽഖർ സൽമാൻ | dq wishes manoj k jayan bd news". vanitha.in. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[22] "പോലീസ് വേഷത്തിൽ ദുൽഖർ, റോഷൻ ആൻഡ്രൂസ് ഒരുക്കുന്നു 'സല്യൂട്ട്'". Mathrubhumi. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[23] "കാക്കിയണിഞ്ഞ് ദുൽഖർ; റോഷൻ ആൻഡ്രൂസ് ചിത്രം 'സല്യൂട്ട്'-ന്റെ പോസ്റ്റർ പുറത്തുവിട്ടു". March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[24] അനൂപ്, കെ ആര്‍. "ഐപിഎസ് ഓഫീസര്‍ അരവിന്ദ് കരുണാകരനായി ദുല്‍ഖര്‍ സല്‍മാന്‍, സല്യൂട്ട് ചിത്രീകരണം പുരോഗമിക്കുന്നു". malayalam.webdunia.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[25] "പൊലീസ് വേഷത്തില്‍ കിടിലൻ ലുക്കില്‍ ദുല്‍ഖര്‍, ഫസ്റ്റ് ലുക്ക്". Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[26] CUE, THE. "പ്രീസ്റ്റ് മമ്മൂട്ടിയുടെ കൈകളിൽ ഭദ്രം; ഗംഭീര സ്ക്രീൻ പ്രസൻസ്; സിനിമയെക്കുറിച്ച് പ്രേക്ഷകർ". The Cue. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[27] "അതിജീവിക്കും, ഏത് അഗ്നി പരീക്ഷയും; കോഴിക്കോട് ജില്ലയിലെ ആദ്യ വനിത ഹോം ഗാർഡ് ആയി സജിത". ManoramaOnline. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[28] Daily, Keralakaumudi. "പച്ചയിൽ മനോഹാരിയായി സാനിയ". Keralakaumudi Daily.

[29] അനൂപ്, കെ ആര്‍. "പോലീസ് യൂണിഫോമില്‍ മനോജ് കെ ജയനും, പിറന്നാള്‍ ആശംസകളുമായി ദുല്‍ഖര്‍ സല്‍മാന്‍". malayalam.webdunia.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[30] "ദുൽഖുർ സൽമാൻ നായകനാകുന്ന പുതിയ ചിത്രത്തിന്റെ പോസ്റ്റർ പുറത്തിറങ്ങി". March 8, 2021. Archived from the original on March 17, 2021. Retrieved March 17, 2021.

[31] "എതിര്‍ത്തു നില്‍ക്കുന്നവരെ അണച്ചുനിര്‍ത്താനുള്ള രാഷ്ട്രീയ തന്ത്രം കേരളത്തില്‍ ബി.ജെ.പ..." www.malayalivartha.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[32] Daily, Keralakaumudi. "മുഖ്യമന്ത്രിയുടെ സുരക്ഷയടക്കം ഏറ്റെടുത്ത് വനിതാ പൊലീസ്". Keralakaumudi Daily. Archived from the original on 2021-03-17. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[33] "'കാറ്റിൽ തനിയേ...'; അപ്പാനി ശരത്തും ടീന സുനിലും ഒരുമിക്കുന്ന 'മിയ കുൽപ്പ'യിലെ ആദ്യ ഗാനം". malayalam.samayam.com. Archived from the original on 2021-03-09. Retrieved 2021-03-17.

[34] ttp://view.asiae.co.kr/news/view.htm?idxno=2016111020175434751

[35] ttps://news.kstyle.com/article.ksn?articleNo=2056878

[36] ttps://kenh14.vn/mac-fan-chui-nhau-black-pink-va-twice-van-than-thiet-cuc-de-thuong-tren-san-khau-20161113144723606.chn

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[1]

[2]

[3]