Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 23

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Artificio Conceal

Artificio Conceal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

like the others in the Qanir series, still isn't notable. Being nominated for these festivals is misleading as anyone can submit content to them, it's virtually meaningless and there is an absence of meaningful coverage of the film. TAXIDICAE💰 15:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:G11; article was created by the filmmaker Ayoubqanir. Looks like Seraphimblade deleted Ayoub Qanir for the same reason. Came across this when related content was inserted at Polly Morgan (cinematographer). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:G11 and as per nom. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Research Centre

Radio Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:V. There is a Radio Research Centre at the University of Auckland, but that has nothing to do with this. Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no content and no sources Applus2021 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG There is no content and no sources. RockOften (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Morris

Amelia Morris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Searches of "Amelia Morris" and "Amelia Stanislas" did not come back with any clear examples of significant coverage. Mentioned in TWG and Gameday but neither of those would count as anything other than a passing mention. I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - I don't see "Amelia Stanislas" mentioned in the article. Where'd you get that? Hmlarson (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is mentioned under both surnames at TWG but it's only a passing mention so no WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is where contextual awareness comes into play. How many referees are women in the men's game? Is that what this is really about? Hmlarson (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by editor Hack in 2009 and has existed here for over 10 years. Why the need to delete now? Hmlarson (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If she gained a lot of significant coverage for her role, like Sian Massey-Ellis for example, then the article should be kept. I see no reason to keep the article purely on the basis of being a female assistant referee in a male-dominated role. By that logic, should we create articles on every female bricklayer or every male midwife regardless of level of depth of coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:LONGTIME is listed as an argument to avoid in AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashleyyoursmile! 05:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hartley Power

Hartley Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Significant roles are lacking, as is the attendant media notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a New York Times article, "Some People of the Broadway Stage; The Career of Hartley Power" (subscription required), but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable actor with obituaries in The Times and The Stage, the BFI lists a number of roles https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b9f765eb2 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous significant roles in films and on stage. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems a notable actor with present roles and coverage. RockOften (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dien Bien Phu on Sea

Battle of Dien Bien Phu on Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pure speculation (WP:CRYSTAL) that has only been raised by few individuals. The long quotes in the article seem to be about the extent of the use. Vietnamese Wikipedia has an article created by the same user; a search of the title there ("Trận Điện Biên Phủ trên biển") reveals little more than what the article gives. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete complete rubbish WP:CRYSTAL unsupported by RS. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We do have some articles about hypothetical conflicts (e.g. World War III), but the coverage here is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. The only sources cited in the article seem to be two primary sources that only mention the topic briefly. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CRYSTAL unsupported by RS as per Mztourist. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Neologism. It's not good enough to demonstrate use of a neologism; To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't think CRYSTAL is exactly the right thing to cite here. Strategic military hypotheticals that are given enough scholarly attention and pass GNG warrant an article. Most of these involve actual planning and preparations that simply never came to fruition eg Operation Unthinkable. This does not meet GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is there an appropriate article about Vietnamese-Chinese relations and/or preparations through war games that this topic could briefly be mentioned and merged into? CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sourcing, I don't really think this topic is worth mentioning in any Wikipedia article. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is lacking citations from multiple reliable sources. Star7924 (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Medical Syndicate

Egyptian Medical Syndicate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 22:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A quick WP:BEFORE on Google News shows that the organisation receives wide and consistent media coverage, especially in relation to the pandemic in Egypt. And I have only checked in English. It is also mentioned twice in the US State Department's 2020 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Egypt. JBchrch (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It gets plenty of independent coverage. The article needs expanding. Rathfelder (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Just a few seconds' searching uncovers reliable sources confirming that this is the body that decides whether any doctor can practice in Egypt, the equivalent of the General Medical Council in the UK. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for reasons cited above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Sembroski

Christopher Sembroski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject does not satisfy general notability. His claim to fame is as a space tourist on a future space expedition, but see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and other policies. There has been substantial independent coverage of the planned mission, but all of the coverage at this point is crystal balling.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — An astronaut is notable once he has been selected for a space mission and in this precise case he is less than six months away from flight. Preparation for the flight and training of the crew is under way. His flight is indeed the next one to take off from the US. Hektor (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG is met. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply, because the coverage is of the selection, rather than the actual flight. (Besides, the entire premise of that page is WP:V violations, which this clearly is not) He's been selected. NPR and NYT have covered it. Posting some fancy graph doesn't change any of that. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply; coverage (and reality) goes beyond speculation. There will come a time that civilians selected for space missions will not be notable, but we are not near that point yet. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the above keeps. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable as being selected for an upcoming spaceflight. He doesn't need to actually fly for that. --mfb (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to pass GNG with present coverage. RockOften (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ashleyyoursmile! 05:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

Citation needed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I understand this is a perennial nomination, but I am having an incredibly hard time finding significant, independent, reliable sources that would signify notability for this article. I recommend restoring the redirect to Wikipedia:Citation needed.

On the sourcing:

• First source I will need to AGF.
• Second source is an about me page and does not meet criteria for inclusion.
• Third source is a blog hosted on boston.com, but not written or reviewed by the site.
• Fourth source is a YouTube source, and does not meet the standards for YouTube sources.
• Fifth source is only a passing mention of the phrase "Citation needed".
• Sixth source appears to be a self-published-source.

While AGF, only 1 source in the article could be argued for notability. A courtesy google search gave me this WMF source. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 13:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 13:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Susmuffin has since removed a multitude of the unreliable sources. You may visit the page as Jack describes it at Special:PermanentLink/1018141230. Chlod (say hi!) 13:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:DEADHORSE. Also, take a look at the sources found in the 2nd nomination. Tercer (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On those sources: (saw full text via sci-hub)

• De Maeyer, Juliette (2014-04-08). "Citation Needed". Journalism Practice. 8 (5). Informa UK Limited: 532–541. doi:10.1080/17512786.2014.894329. ISSN 1751-2786. "Citation Needed" is only the title, and is not referenced to the Wikipedia usage in the text. Journal is about hyperlinks in text. Not usable.
• Lu, Yang; He, Jing; Shan, Dongdong; Yan, Hongfei. "Recommending citations with translation model". ACM Digital Library. doi:10.1145/2063576.2063879. Retrieved 2018-11-06., Wikipedia's usage of citation needed is mentioned once as an example. Not significant coverage.
• Willinsky, John (2007-03-05). "What open access research can do for Wikipedia". First Monday. 12 (3). ISSN 1396-0466. Retrieved 2018-11-06. is returning a 404. AGF that it is significant coverage, but it is very likely not.
• Jennings, Eric (2008). "Using Wikipedia to Teach Information Literacy". College & Undergraduate Libraries. 15 (4). Informa UK Limited: 432–437. doi:10.1080/10691310802554895. ISSN 1069-1316., again another passing mention. "Citation needed" is used once. Not significant coverage.
• Kim, Kyung-Sun; Sin, Sei-Ching Joanna; Yoo-Lee, Eun Young (2014-08-21). "Undergraduates' use of social media as information sources". DR-NTU HOME. ISSN 0010-0870. Retrieved 2018-11-06., again another passing mention. "Citation needed" is mentioned once. Not significant coverage.
• Crovitz, Darren; Smoot, W. Scott (January 2009). "Wikipedia: Friend, Not Foe". The English Journal. 98 (3). National Council of Teachers of English: 91–97. Retrieved 2018-11-06. Cannot access this now, but i'll see if I can get JSTOR access soon.
• Kriplean, Travis; Beschastnikh, Ivan; McDonald, David W. "Articulations of wikiwork: uncovering valued work in wikipedia through barnstars". dl.acm.org. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460573. Retrieved 2018-11-06. again, another passing mention of "Citation needed". Not significant coverage.
• Klang, Marcus; Nugues, Pierre (2016-05-16). "WikiParq: A Tabulated Wikipedia Resource Using the Parquet Format". Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016). Retrieved 2018-11-06. again, another passing mention of "Citation needed". Not significant coverage.
• Lopes, Rui; Carriço, Luis (2008). On the credibility of wikipedia. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. doi:10.1145/1458527.1458536. ISBN 978-1-60558-259-7. again, another passing mention. Not significant coverage.
• Anderka, Maik; Stein, Benno; Busse, Matthias (July 2012). On the Evolution of Quality Flaws and the Effectiveness of Cleanup Tags in the English Wikipedia. Wikipedia Academy 2012. Berlin, Germany. passing mention of citation needed. Not significant coverage.

by AGF, we might have 2 scholarly sources. These are all passing mentions, and as such ineligible for GNG.JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 14:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an Archive of the one that was receiving 404 [1] WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The paper by Anderka et al. is not a passing mention, they are actually studying the use of the citation needed template. Tercer (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's studying cleanup tags in general on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia Academy sources are neither reliable nor independent so far as I can tell. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, in particular, citation needed. They present data about it, and mention it in the text: The first inline tags were Dubious and Citation_needed, which have been created in July 2004 and June 2005 respectively. and The most common cleanup tag is Citation_needed, it has been used nearly 2 million times in the 2 268 days after its creation, which corresponds to an average ratio of 871.64 usages per day. This means that on average one in 200 revisions has been tagged with this cleanup tag. They are not just name-checking it. Tercer (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That isn't exactly significant coverage. Nobody is arguing that the template hasn't been mentioned anywhere. And even if it was sigcov, it doesn't make it independent coverage. You don't just get to pick and choose which of significant, reliable, and independent a source is, it must be all three. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to somewhere, perhaps Reliability of Wikipedia. In-depth coverage is rather lacking, despite a lot of passing mentions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think that the article's content should be merged into an article relating to wikipedia in popular culture or so. (Reliability of Wikipedia seems like an alright article to merge into) However, the redirect to Wikipedia:Citation needed should be restored. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 16:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do agree that the coverage is rather limited, and initially I did consider supporting deletion, however the phrase has evidently been much referenced and used in popular culture, and some of the sources mentioned do at least suggest that the tag is well known or at least considered infamous. Should that not be enough? Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:GNG. It stipulates that such phrases must have significant independent coverage by reliable sources. 100 passing mentions do not equal significant coverage. Being known "in popular culture" is not a criteria for notability. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• To clarify my opinion: I believe this should either be outright deleted or just simply merged per Eddie891. I am not seeing reliable coverage here, so it doesn't deserve its own article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no real significant coverage, passing mention of the phrase in multiple places but not enough focused coverage to pass GNG. If a redirect was made afterwards, I would think article space Reliability of Wikipedia would be better than WP:CN. WikiVirusC^(talk) 20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to applaud everyone for doing a far better job of AFD discussion than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk page was back in 2008. We all at least looked to see what sources were available and how policy actually applies. I'm sure that several of the people in that discussion didn't even look at the article that they were discussing.

  On that note, and following the observation by Eddie891, I point out that we do have books and articles on this, one with an entire chapter on Wikipedia Cleanup processes, and the others discussing {{fact}}, other related tags, and cleanup in general at several points. So yes if we want more than XKCD there is a real umbrella subject to write about, that this can be renamed and refactored into.

  • Ayers, Phoebe; Matthews, Charles; Yates, Ben (2008). "Cleanup, Projects, and processes". How Wikipedia Works. No Starch Press. ISBN 9781593271763.
  • Broughton, John (2008). Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. O'Reilly Media. pp. 17, 125, 151, 152, 186, 189, 312, 325. ISBN 9780596553777.
  • O'Sullivan, Dan (2016). "Contributing to Wikipedia". Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice?. Routledge. ISBN 9781134766246. 'Cleanup' is the general term for improving articles. It may involve […]
  • Ford, Heather. "Infoboxes and cleanup tags: Artifacts of Wikipedia newsmaking". 16 (1): 79–98. doi:10.1177/1464884914545739. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  • Anderka, Maik; Stein, Benno. A breakdown of quality flaws in Wikipedia. WebQuality '12: Proceedings of the 2nd Joint WICOW/AIRWeb Workshop on Web QualityApril 2012. pp. 11–18. doi:10.1145/2184305.2184309.
  • Redi, Miriam; Fetahu, Besnik; Morgan, Jonathan; Taraborelli, Dario. Citation Needed: A Taxonomy and Algorithmic Assessment of Wikipedia's Verifiability. Publication:WWW '19: The World Wide Web ConferenceMay 2019. pp. 1567–1578. doi:10.1145/3308558.3313618.
  • Jack, Kris; López-garcía, Pablo; Hristakeva, Maya; Kern, Roman. Mayr, Philipp; et al. (eds.). {{citation needed}}: Filling in Wikipedia’s Citation Shaped Holes (PDF). Proceedings of the First Workshop on Bibliometric-enhanced Information Retrieval co-located with 36th European Conference on Information Retrieval (ECIR 2014). pp. 45–52.
• Uncle G (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to an rename and general article about Wikipedia clean up. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Apart from all the specific sources catalogued above, note that Wikipedia did not invent this concept. Churchill wrote, I am reminded of the professor who, in his declining hours was asked by his devoted pupils for his final counsel. He replied, "Verify your quotations." Churchill didn't actually provide a source so I tracked down the original and found that this was probably Dr Routh. Anyway, the worst case here is obviously merger to citation so why are we having yet another deletion debate? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about the concept in general though. It is about the citation needed tag specifically in regards to Wikipedia. A lot of people have mentioned merge, but a rename and expansion to Wikipedia Cleanup in general based on the sources posted by Uncle G could also work. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It was agreed to be kept during the previous AfDs. Per reliable sources indicated above and in the previous AfDs, as well as the reasons above, the article is still good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources directly above aren't for the citation needed template, but more on general cleanup tags in Wikipedia. And if you look at the top, I run down all of the sources presented in the 2nd AfD nomination, finding all of them are unsuitable (just passing mentions of "citation needed", instead of about it. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: See also above and previous nominations, there are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. User3749 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The tag has become a permanent fixture on the Western cultural landscape. It's a cultural icon and as such doesn't need a treatise in several volumes dedicated to it for its significance to become apparent. As for sources, quite a few have been brought up above, and even a cursory search will come up with more (on Google Scholar there are about half a dozen papers on the first two pages that are about Wikipedia and have "citation needed" in their title). – Uanfala (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everything pointed out above. I feel like this is the second time within this year I'm seeing this up for AFD, were the last couple of ones not enough to establish that it's clearly notable?★Trekker (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Neville

Harvey Neville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability is not inherited, so he's not simply notable because of his notable father. He's also not notable as a footballer, as he's never played in a competitive, senior match for a fully professional club. He's ALSO not notable for any other reason, as demonstrated by the lack of non-routine coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – PeeJay 15:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 16:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep seems to pass GNG despite clearly failing NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 16:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as article creator) - clearly meets GNG per Guardian and BBC Sport references. NFOOTY is irrelevant in this case SK2242 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no, does not meet GNG. All sources are routine news. GiantSnowman 08:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

so player signings and international call ups are now routine? SK2242 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have they ever not been? JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life, where his embryonic career is mentioned; he's a plausible search term. The sources currently in the article don't constitute anything like a GNG pass: their content is basically son of well-known football figure joins academy, son of well-known football figure signs pro forms, Ireland pick U19 team including son of well-known football figure. The Guardian and one of the BBC pieces are puffed out with the same lengthy quotes from justifiably proud daddy, and all have more about the notable family members than about Harvey. I can't find any RS with in-depth coverage of Harvey himself at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re stretching this; the articles provide SIGCOV of Harvey and that’s that really. This doesn’t fall under WP:NCORP where the standards are clearly higher to keep out nn spam. SK2242 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect, per Struway2. Notability is not inherited; coverage needs to be direct and in depth. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life as per all above. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life. There's not enough significant coverage to guarantee the article of it's own. Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life as per Struway2 explained above.Poppified ^talk 06:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Phil Neville#Personal life as all above. Riteboke (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lokesh Kumar Meena

Lokesh Kumar Meena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NSPORT. The claim to fame seems to be on obscure records without any verification, participating in obscure championships. The claim for Asian indoor marathon record is utter nonsense. First of all their is no verification, Asian Athletics doesn't even track that event [2]. No substantial coverage in any RS. Roller26 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Dudhhr (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable coverage, doesnt meet WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zenetic Esports

Zenetic Esports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is on a company that does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The sources used certainly don't point to the contrary. I have not found sufficiently reliable coverage on a WP:BEFORE search. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The current article appears to be written as an advertisement, and looking at the edit history shows that there is unlikely to be much of value lost if the page is deleted. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No significant hits in secondary sources and clearly promotional. IceWelder [✉] 08:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Pbrks (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough sources to showcase notability yet. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Water caltrop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singhara Kachari

Singhara Kachari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I do not consider this notable -- I know its hard to tell in this field, but refs 1 and 2 are primarily about other foods. I'm not in able to look properly for references in Hindi, so I'll withdraw this if people can find substantial references. DGG ( talk ) 10:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Water caltrop. Ingratis (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm finding a lot about water chestnut flour as an important grain substitute(p79) for religious purpose and a mention of puri and katle(barfi?) also made from chestnuts, but nothing about a mash of fresh chestnuts. Finding RSs for food is a certain kind of suffering (there are food blogs I'd trust with my life, but never use on WP. Others don't seem to share my hesitation). If no foreign-language RSs turn up, Water caltrop would benefit from some additional information. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Water caltrop as per Ingratis. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect After consideration and examining the Water Caltrop page, I think it'd be nice if the paragraph starting with "In India and Pakistan..." were moved to its own section under Culinary Use and the images from this article moved to accompany it. I looked around for other articles that would incubate Hindu-fasting cuisine, but I was surprised not to find any. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bayo Ododo

Bayo Ododo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable musician. unreliable sources. Some are interviews, not secondary sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC Xclusivzik (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - satisfies neither WP:GNG nor WP:NMUSICIAN; coverage consists of some promotional Q&As, brief press releases/announcements and links to download his songs Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as said above, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Riteboke (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Basso

Mike Basso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NBASE. While minor league baseballers can be notable, and he received lots of piecemeal coverage (as reflected by the last no consensus, which no consensused on the grounds of non-significant coverage), I don't think WP:GNG is met here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like I said the first time, there is some coverage but it is all routine in nature, not in-depth as required for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Simply not possible Basso managed for 10+ years, including six years at Double-A and Triple-A, and didn't receive enough media coverage to pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage I'm seeing from Newspapers.com is basically at best brief quotes from Basso on his players and mentions of him as manager. There's maybe one article with some depth from May 1991 in the Wichita Eagle, although it's pretty local coverage. And anyway, one is not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete News coverage and sources are not enough to pass WP:GNG. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Beecham

Ashley Beecham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable assistant referee. Despite having 33 references in the article, there is no evidence that Beecham meets WP:GNG at all. The creator is an WP:SPA with a probable WP:COI as, in there many years of editing, they have only edited this one article.

Clearly a lot of effort has gone in to this exhaustive list of matches that Beecham has assisted in refereeing, including a list of youth matches and friendlies. Each of the references, the ones that are accessible via archive anyway, are only passing mentions. A search centred on Australian searches yields no useful results nor do Google searches. Mentions are always brief such as News.com.au, SMH and A League. Beecham is never mentioned in detail; just a passing mention, then quickly onto the next person.

Referees do not inherit notability from the matches that they are involved in. They must meet GNG in their own right. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I disagree that Ashley Beecham is "non-notable." How many women referees are there in the men's game? Is that what this is really about? Hmlarson (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it has any relevance whatsoever but Beecham is clearly a man. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Tigray war in photos

The Tigray war in photos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This collection of photos would be better placed in the Wikimedia Commons. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the copyright holders gave permission for the photos to be used in Wikipedia. ... discospinster _talk 20:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (1) It is true that these photographs are on Wikimedia Commons, but there the user cannot find them easily in such a way that they are not organised thematically. (2) Discussion about several photographs is ongoing on Wikimedia Commons. If some photos are deleted there, they will be deleted also in this gallery.Jnyssen (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So rather than do that thematic organization on Commons and make a gallery page, such as commons:World War II for example, you came here to do it. This is entirely mis-placed on the wrong project, quite obviously as a consequence of your being repeatedly blocked for persistently uploading content that is not your own as your own and not getting the author to supply permissions on the right project that does do image galleries.

    Wikipedia is not a Commons gallery by the back door. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Uncle G. Well, simply, I did not know about the possibility to organise Commons galleries, like WWII. For sure, then, the place of this Gallery is on Wikipedia Commons and it can be deleted here. The recent issue on Wikimedia Commons that you mention is unrelated. Problem there is that I used a "Twitter to Commons" interface, taht leads then to easy uploads from Twitter. They better deactivate that interface.Jnyssen (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTGALLERY. Encyclopedic context is necessary, and a standalone article isn't the right format for that. — Goszei (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated above, agreed for Delete. Jnyssen (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a photograph gallery. This can be served with a link to a Commons category. JIP | Talk 13:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOTGALLERY applies here on Wikipedia.--Chuka Chief_talk 15:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Super Ψ Dro 07:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chuka. Violates WP:NOTGALLERY. Kosmosnaut87 12:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sudarso Hardjowasito

Sudarso Hardjowasito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No reliable sources cited in the article and Google Books has just the one passing mention of him. A search of Indonesian sources comes up with a passing mention in These Football Times and another in Weszlo. Even his World Referee profile page has barely anything about him. Referees do not have an SNG so the fact that he officiated a final, which is presumably the reason for the article, is not enough on its own. WP:GNG needs to be met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Most searches are mirrored from Wikipedia, no notability is established. Failed WP:GNG. SunDawn (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Lawyers Association

National Lawyers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No references and online search doesn't show up multiple independent secondary sources to warrant for said association's notability. nearlyevil665 20:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 20:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 20:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find zero sources about this outfit. Marquardtika (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there are a few passing mentions in the press, but nothing substantial enough to meet WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are thousands of non-notable passing legal organizations of this sort. BD2412 T 04:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhipuram flyover

Gandhipuram flyover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Even with the additions, we have two sources, all of which are just news items about the opening. NO evidacne this is any more notable than any other flyover.

I am seeing no real notability here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gandhipuram, Coimbatore Ingratis (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gandhipuram, Coimbatore as per above. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Red

DJ Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Long-time unsourced BLP; fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage of this person. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 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, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2006-10 ✗ deleted

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) — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants: Original Theme Highlights

SpongeBob SquarePants: Original Theme Highlights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

While Spongebob is generally the better ones in the notability department with its soundtrack releases, I can't say this EP meets WP:SIGCOV, as there's only an Allmusic review to find. I was also considering nominating The Yellow Album for deletion, but I've been a bit more skeptical about doing that as at least there I could also find a Sputnikmusic staff review and a book about the Beatles briefly discussing the album, and its title and cover art is a parody of the White Album. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found sigcov from AV Club regarding a vinyl reissue and from Altpress twice over (1, 2), though the latter could be argued to be more representative of a single song than the album. The Allmusic review is their more reliable sort. I still wasn't quite happy with all this, and I suspected there were print magazine sources missing from my analysis. I headed to newspapers.com not expecting much and was somewhat surprised to indeed find sigcov from the Iowa City Press-Citizen (13 June 2002, page 36) and Reno Gazette-Journal (14 August 2001, page 26). The combination of googleable and paywalled sigcov leaves me confident of a GNG pass, if narrowly. Vaticidalprophet 14:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's... better, although the Altpress sources are announcements, and the A.V. Club, although released a decade later after the album, is an announcement as well. I'll have to find out if the newspapers.com sources are sigcov. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article can be improved with the additional sources found by Vaticidalprophet above, though I agree with him/her that it's a close call. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vaticidalprophet's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Vaticidalprophet's rationale. Riteboke (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Miracle Ross

Carolyn Miracle Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable American geologist. No major scientific achievements, in-depth book coverage or press coverage. Fails WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It looks like her scientific contributions were essentially founding a subgroup within a local geology group? She has an undergrad degree and no scholarly publications that I could find outside of maybe a book, so certainly wouldn't meet NPROF, which leaves GNG as the only avenue to notability. Google yields nothing outside of articles by HGS and AAPG, which obviously cannot contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She isn't a notable Geologist. Originalcola (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing as keep, noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Loomis

Jennifer Loomis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I do not think this article about a photographer meets WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. It has been tagged for notability since 2009. There is a link to an Associated Press article which does look like decent coverage and has three paragraphs about Loomis. There is a link to an archived article about an exhibition, which looks as if it could be a press release. There is a quote from a review of her book which I think may be the puff from the book cover (reference just says Review of Portraits of Pregnancy by Ricki Lake and Abby Epsiten, authors of Your Best Birth). I have found and added a recent interview but cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BASIC - I have been working from a list of sources on her website, and have found more than trivial mentions of her and her work as a photographer in the San Francisco Chronicle (2004), The Los Angeles Times (2004), CBS News (2007), Time (2008), in addition to the Associated Press (2006); there is also a brief mention in The New York Times (2007) and coverage I cannot fully access in The Wall Street Journal (2005). Some of these sources also offer biographical and career information that could be incorporated into the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough sources to pass WP:GNG and as per sources presented by Beecaynr and per below.
• https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jun-19-et-netburn19-story.html, http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,1727691,00.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/style/tmagazine/15tbaby.html
• https://www.today.com/popculture/celebrities-make-pregnancy-seem-glamorous-wbna12466527
• https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/the-3-minute-interview-with-jennifer-loomis/
• http://seattlerefined.com/features/artistoftheweek/artist-of-the-week-jennifer-loomis
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112372315198410490 Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most of the coverage demonstrated by Beccaynr and Frigidpolarbear appears sufficient to meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. VocalIndia (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Tacyarg this is why WP:BEFORE is a very good idea. I looked at how the article was before you nominated it for deletion, and yeah, it was pretty marginal. It's now not remotely marginal, not going to be deleted, and your nomination statement is so at odds with the current state of the article that it's painful to see the disconnect now, EVEN THOUGH when you nominated it this article was indeed a pretty "meh" BLP. I suggest you withdraw the nomination, because the added sources demonstrate that indeed, Ms. Loomis is exactly the sort of artist who should be profiled in Wikipedia. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw (as nominator). Thanks to other editors for finding the sources which I did not find in my WP:BEFORE. Tacyarg (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Büşra Taşkın

Büşra Taşkın (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A very similar case to Büşra Demirörs and Sude Mihri Çınar. No inherent notability from career to date so we need to look at WP:GNG.

Current references do not show any WP:SIGCOV and the article is currently a synthesis of stats from the Turkish Football Federation. Google searches and a Turkish source search come back with a passing mention in an under 19 report, a squad list mention, one sentence about her scoring 13 goals in a regional league and one quote from her in Aksam. None of the sources found address Taşkın in depth. There does not appear to be anything that we can build a biography from. Wikipedia is not a TFF mirror. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sankha Subhra Devbarman

Sankha Subhra Devbarman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Vanity article on a non-notable person (writer? civil servant? son-of-a-politician?), so much so that I would have requested speedy but there's a bit of a history there already. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO.

Also, there's at least one of these in drafts, so if this AfD results in deletion it may be worth salting the name, as the creating editor seems persistent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article as written does not establish general notability or author notability. There is also a draft, which can be kept if the article is deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The version that is now in draft space was moved from article space to draft about 24 hours ago, after which time this version was created in article space. This behavior is characteristic of an attempt to game the system by creating multiple copies. Concur with nominator's recommendation that the title should be ECP salted after deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, and most likely a case of UPE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I gave the author the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to improve the article. I don't think giving them any further chances will achieve anything. Deb (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Matthew Luke

Brother Matthew Luke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Long-time unsourced BLP, fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afia Amankwaah Tamakloe

Afia Amankwaah Tamakloe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable and clear fail of WP:GNG Nearlyevil665 (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are several national awards here, all cited to sources independent of the article's subject. Furius (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The notability and significance of said national awards is not established. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject in article is notable in Ghana, per checks from articles and references, the subject is a notable tv and radio personality in Ghana Ampimd (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per above, Subject in article is notable in Ghana for receiving national awards. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject in the article is a notable broadcast journalist in Ghana. From the sources, she has been given national awards. Mellowdeaous (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Looney Tunes Show. Selectively - whatever is reliably sourced and duly relevant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from The Looney Tunes Show

Songs from The Looney Tunes Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

Only sources to find is listings in retailers. That's all the coverage, folks! 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into The Looney Tunes Show. Trivialist (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Archival searches show up nothing more than FUTON ones do, unsurprisingly given the relatively late date. Not sure this is important enough to merit a merge, but could be convinced. Vaticidalprophet 15:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to The Looney Tunes Show. As opposed to the merge suggestions above, I don't think there is much worth merging because this album article is little more than a list of songs that have received no independent coverage on their own or as a group in soundtrack form. It is possible that the album title could be a search term, in which case the searcher can be sent to the show's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Music of Samurai Champloo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Champloo Music Record: Departure

Samurai Champloo Music Record: Departure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Samurai Champloo Music Record: Impression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Samurai Champloo Music Record: Masta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Samurai Champloo Music Record: Playlist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I'll individually nominate the other animation soundtrack articles, but I'm nominating all four records of the "Samurai Champloo Music Record" series for deletion because (1) There all of the same series (2) It is only four articles, people, and (3) they are all non notable. You will not find one bit of WP:SIGCOV for these albums anywhere... None! I dare you to find it. If you do, I will award you with money for a vacation to the Bahamas followed by several tickets to Chuck E. Cheeses. Please someone find coverage for these.... because I can't. At least the other animation soundtracks in that bundle animation had an Allmusic or Common Sense Media review, which doesn't itself establish WP:GNG, but I'm bringing it up to show how not notable this topic. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• !vote I created a couple of these articles I'm not completely sure about where to fall on this in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. But I can at least provide some context and sources. In terms of significant coverage of the Samurai Champloo soundtrack: here are some magazine articles from Pitchfork^[1] (listed as one of 9 of "rap's most memorable animated moments") and 34th Street^[2] (an album review). I believe this qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. There are also interviews^[3] and a book^[4] that discuss the soundtrack further in depth. The difficulty of finding more sources can be explained by two reasons. First, this music has become popular in the Lo-fi hip hop community recently, but was not popular at the time the anime was released, and thus did not receive contemporary reviews. Second, many articles about the albums and its creators are in Japanese. For instance, see this magazine interview [3] of director Shinichiro Watanabe where they discuss the Samurai Champloo soundtrack. Given there is in fact a bare minimum of significant coverage despite these factors, I would lean towards keeping this content around somewhere, perhaps refactored in some way eg. to a single page. Anair13 (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the sources. I also should clarify something else. I don't have money for that Bahamas trip or any Chuck E. Cheese tickets. 👨x🐱 (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, no problem, I won't hold you to it. Anair13 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a new article called Music of Samurai Champloo. Not covered as unique albums, but sources shown above by Anair13 show coverage as a set. — Goszei (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a good idea to me, this is also how Music of Cowboy Bebop is done. Happy to start this page if there is consensus. Anair13 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Samurai Champloo. The show's article is repetitive and unorganized on the topic of the music. There is a Soundtrack section, but then the same matters are covered in more detail a little later in the Other media section. Cleanup needs to be done over there. With that out of the way, this particular soundtrack got some minor notice due to Fat Jon's involvement, but introductory coverage at the show's article (whichever sub-section applies) is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a new article, titled Music of Samurai Champloo, per Goszei. Link20XX (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Following the discussion, I created the Music of Samurai Champloo page which merges these pages and adds additional sources and context; should I go ahead and make these articles redirects? (It's not clear to me what the process is to resolve an AfD.) Anair13 (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rock-a-Doodle#Soundtrack. Ultimately I found the merge arguments to be more convincing than the straight keeps; namely, that the soundtrack reviews tended to also contain coverage of the film, and the coverage in the film reviews is effectively secondary to that of the film. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rock-A-Doodle (soundtrack)

Rock-A-Doodle (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Was originally nominated as part of a bundle nomination of equally non-significantly-covered animated soundtrack albums, but commenters ignorant about the coverage of the topics tried to convince me they were somehow individually notable. The commenters used lousy reasoning, or WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, in trying to suggest certain topics in that nomination had individual notability. One suggested a couple of albums were by notable artists, including this one which is credited to Glenn Campbell. This means nothing as Notability is not inherited. Only thing this album has gotten is an Allmusic review, and a couple of blog posts [4] [5]. That does not establish notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Rock-a-Doodle#Soundtrack. Much of the information here already appears in the Soundtrack section of the article about the film. This soundtrack appears to have received little coverage on its own (I have found no full reviews, nor any indication that it hit any music charts), so covering it in the film's article should be sufficient. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, does one not think that an established artist like Glen Campbell didn't have coverage when the album was originally released? This is not some unknown person, nothing he has released has flown under the wire at the time of release. Maybe now, 30 years on, nothing can be found online since not everything has been digitalized and archived. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we cannot assume the album has print coverage we don't know about just because Glenn Campbell recorded it. Mind providing any evidence you found there are legit sources covering this thing? 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allmusic (a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources) rated it one and half stars [[6]] That and the LA Times should be enough for WP:GNG. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. AllMusic is reliable but that alone does not establish notability, and LATimes does not talk about the soundtrack LP itself. It talks about the film. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I've added one article from the Los Angeles Times. Will look for others. 1990s coverage is often behind a wall. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • LA Times cite is about film, not the soundtrack LP. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did I say it was about the LP? Nope. I just provided a citation for some of the info in the wp article. And the Los Angeles Times article cited is a feature on Campbell and his role in the film, not the film overall. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the film as most of the coverage is about the animated film as a whole (though the soundtrack is covered). The nominator ought to consider merging articles like this with their film articles before bringing to AfD and only bring to AfD if the merges are reverted. Would save researchers some time. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rock-A-Doodle. Trivialist (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although it's a weak lean to that. Full-length review dedicated solely to the soundtrack in Citizen's Voice (30 June 1992, page 23), mixed film/soundtrack review in LA Weekly (18 June 1992, page 78). It's an interesting one to search, as the soundtrack is such a part of the film that the film's reviews discuss it a lot, in a way on the border of sigcov. Considering that significant reviews of the soundtrack alone exist, I'm inclined to lean weakly towards the combination of them with borderline sigcov elsewhere makes for a GNG pass. Vaticidalprophet 15:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The soundtrack album received some reliable reviews as found by the other "keep" voters above. Perhaps the soundtrack only got noticed because Glen Campbell was involved, and the coverage is still pretty thin, but there is enough for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the significant coverage identified in this discussion such as Citizen's Voice, LA Weekly, AllMusic so that WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Rock-a-Doodle: 99,99% of coverage is related to the film CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AMC News

AMC News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA. The references are not enough to pass WP:GNG. There are some references like whois.com, which is not acceptable. Chirota (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article part of developments of Media in Botswana / Template:Media in BotswanaDownTownRich (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See articles articles of the same country and I did mention they just got web presence that is why I used the Whois to show that information. The news outlets in Botswana that is what we usually face on finding information about them but they are key to Wikipedia see Daily News Botswana, Mmegi, The Botswana Guardian DownTownRich (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a generic Wordpress site probably just re-writing and publishing what actual journalists have researched and written. They haven't even removed the default text of the theme. No evidence of notability, etc, and the article is a stub anyway. Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - And I did mention the reason I included the Whois was because they just got web presence.DownTownRich (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would recommend the whole articles in Media in Botswana thereafter to be reviewed as they present the same context as the one presented above.DownTownRich (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete completely and utterly non-notable self published blog masquerading as a news outlet, being spammed crosswiki. TAXIDICAE💰 15:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend blacklisting as they're a source of copyvios. See this article they published without any sort of attribution or indication that it was copied from Bloomberg. TAXIDICAE💰 16:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMEDIA. Sonofstar (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I previously mentioned this article is part of the Media in Botswana and I have since created Kutlwano Magazine, Radio Botswana 2 and will be creating the other ones red linked in the template. All the articles of Media in Botswana are stubs because over time they have been print, the television and radio stations they dont have web presence. But as I was writing the srticles I made sure I only include valuable information to avoid adding uncitable information.

The reason I chose to improve and add these articles started with noticing that the above mentioned AMC News was no online. Even though your input is valued I asked about the future of Botswana Guardian, The Botswana Gazette, Mmegi and more mentioned as they are of the same context of Media in Botswana.overtime I have added the need more citation tags because even though they are minimal they remain important to Wikipedia. DownTownRich (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that is what I face when making articles about Botswana in general, like this one DownTownRich (talk) 15:22, 20 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 Phishing. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page hijacking

Page hijacking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article basically describes Phishing, except with no sources. When I search for "Page hijacking" I get a bunch of blog-spam articles which in my opinion don't meet criteria for reliable sources. All of the uses of this term seem to refer to Phishing, which is a notable subject. Therefore I propose deletion of this page with and redirect to Phishing. See prior discussion above. Talk:Page_hijacking contains earlier proposal to merge Page hijacking into Phishing, but I don't see what can possibly be carried over during the merge. I propose creating a redirect to Phishing without any edits to Phishing article itself. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to Phishing#Techniques. I've heard page hijacking exists, but it seems to be a type of phishing, and there's clearly not enough information on it for its own article. AdoTang (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are a variety of techniques including Pharming and Domain hijacking. What the page in question is currently talking about is hacking a website to add some malware or misinformation to it so that visitors are exposed or misled. This is a real and significant threat. It would be quite ironic if we were to overwrite this page with a link to another, less relevant page. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Page hijacking and Pharming look like marketing neologisms. Both articles have very few low-quality sources (multiple cited sources are outright dead, I'll try to rescue them). Please note the section Pharming#Controversy over the use of the term. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, this is a phishing technique, already covered at Phishing. No idea why this has been de-proded. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Phishing#Techniques: Per AdoTang. It's best to discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Seems to be a particular type of phishing. Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to Phishing. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 06:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Redirect to Phishing, per nom. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just a comment for now to say that it's not a type of phishing. Phishing is a common goal of using this technique. This has also been done to redirect legitimate traffic to ad-stuffed garbage pages or affiliate links or otherwise serving a monetary purpose other than phishing. Other times it could be to troll or manipulate a website or its users. To be clear, a merge/redirect may make sense here. Phishing has hcertainly become a common reason for this, and one which receives a lot of coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoochery Distillery

Hoochery Distillery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

promotional and non notable. A long list of local awards, but no substantial non-` promotional coverage. DGG ( talk ) 09:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I stopped at 'oldest continually operating distillery' and then realised it was founded in 1995. Indeed!!! But a Google news search gets quite a lot of coverage. [7] [8] Someone needs to add it all to the article, it's here [9] but the company passes WP:GNG and does indeed have "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." so passes WP:ORGCRITE Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - covered in multiple independent sources and demonstrates WP:ORG. Deus et lex (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG as covered in multiple independent sources. CeltJungleSnake (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolos Gerasoulis

Apostolos Gerasoulis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:SOAP no sources, no evidence of notability. Acousmana 15:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Acousmana 15:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep he does have a GS profile with a total of 4200 citatations and an h-index of 27, which is not a whole lot in his field of computer science, but quite decent. However, a decent number of publications + creation of an algorithm that is widely used and powers a well known (relatively well known) product, taken together that is notable. --hroest 16:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: in addition to the points hroest mentioned he also won an award from ACM (Test of Time) which might help him meet one of the criteria of WP:NPROF. Additionally, I found this article about his wedding on the New York Times: link to article KNivedat (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Edited the page a bit and added 7 citations that I could find. KNivedat (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG as per sources below.

• https://www.forbes.com/2007/10/02/internet-paid-search-tech-cx_ag_1003google.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/24/style/weddings-apostolos-gerasoulis-xiaolan-zhang.html
• https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-apr-01-fi-techsearch1-story.html
• http://www.e-marketing-news.co.uk/Feb05/apostolos.html
• https://www.seroundtable.com/archives/003764.html
• https://sciences.academickeys.com/whoswho.php?dothis=display&folk[IDX]=105904
• https://www.ilab.cs.rutgers.edu/~gerasoul/ Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shivaan Bardolia

Shivaan Bardolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players 2 FC matches for a uni side, not really seeing any coverage at all apart from database stuff. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players as per above. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players. Plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Ashok

Anand Ashok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players 4 FC matches but all for uni sides, I'm only seeing a couple of match reports and usual database stuff. Did score a century though so that may have got him coverage in Wisden. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and maybe could have been BOLDy redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players as per Rugbyfan22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frigidpolarbear (talk • contribs) 15:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even on the scale. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article lacks substantial significance, how is this one rugby player different from every other world class rugby player also not covered broadly in the news? Star7924 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Star7924: cricketer. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Arif

Adil Arif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players 7 FC matches for uni sides, but I'm not seeing anything other than match reports, so no real significant coverage. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and another that should have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Cambridge UCCE & MCCU players as per Rugbyfan22. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. Very very poor quality article on a sportsman. scope_creep^Talk 21:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment scope_creep much like this article on a pond. StickyWicket (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. He hasn't done much after his FC appearances, is currently a cricket coach at Oundle, but a redirect to a list seems sensible. StickyWicket (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @AssociateAffiliate: The primary difference, is that lochan has got 3 independent sources and is packed with detailed properties that describe it exactly. This article has five db/script generated references that are woeful. There is a world of difference. Nothing with do with the size of the article. I see your the article creator. If you think it is a pond, then your really must in a downer. scope_creep^Talk 22:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Scope creep: Charles Elton would agree it's definitely a pond. And I did create the article, but I don't care all that much for it hence my redirect vote. StickyWicket (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: Ponds are artificial constructions, wheras this is natural. I'm not that keen on doing these lochan articles, but there are tremedously popular with the fly-fishing crown and they tend to be great walks. Who is this Charles Elton exactly and why is he known or associated with ponds? scope_creep^Talk 18:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Rashid

Shaun Rashid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players 7 LA matches, but all for a minor county. I'm just seeing a few match reports, and nothing that would signify significant coverage. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and probably should have been BOLDly redirected to save the AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tenious at best. Fails WP:NCRIC. scope_creep^Talk 21:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia at the 2013 Summer Universiade

Macedonia at the 2013 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

enormous amount of red links, not a notable attendance event whatsoever — dylx ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The event per se is notable. That Macedonia competed is notable, though I would wish for better referencing. The quantity of red links ought not to be a deletion rationale for an inherently notable attendance at an inherently notable event (no, I am not claiming inherited notability). The article needs attention, that is without argument, and the athletes concerned ought to have articles where they pass our threshold. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Fair points, you've convinced me. I looked at a similar article (Japan at the 2013 Summer Universiade) and noticed that the Macedonia page was lacking a lot of information which the Japan page had. Could the Macedonia page be merged into a page with more information? — dylx ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylxpedia I think that custom and practice is for the attending nations to have an article per attendance, even if they did not emerge clothed in glory. For me this holds true even if the article is as naked as this one. Are you considering withdrawing your nomination? Fiddle Faddle 18:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Actually, I've changed my mind again. See 2013 Summer Universiade#Participants. Many of the participants (many of which have more athletes and won more medals than than Macedonia) do not have their own articles for this specific event.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - enormous amount of red links cannot be a criteria for deletion? Riteboke (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. I would suggest merging this if a) it can be reliably sourced and b) we can identify a place to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: there simply isn't enough content to warrant an article here. At what point do we say "well we've got Category:Great Britain at the Summer Olympics by year crossing over with Category:Nations at the 2012 Summer Olympics, therefore we should have Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics in Underwater Basket Weaving. It becomes a content fork which smacks of IRL cruft. SITH (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daytonnati

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

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

article is about a neologism which isn't used in any kind of local vernacular, only 3 sentences long, and has only 1 real source (a newspaper article from 1998) Bobbysirchism (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete my search largely turned up total mirrors of this article. So to date the consensus seems to be this is not yet a thing at all, and so expecting there to be an agreed upon name for something that does not yet exist is unreasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage of this term was found in my BEFORE-style search. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not widely used, just one writer's neologism. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO. Even if its usage was well-documented, it wouldn't be appropriate here - we're not a dictionary. The fact that there's virtually no record of it makes our job even easier. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My BEFORE search came up with this article, a few Wikipedia mirrors, a Reddit post, a DGuide entry, the 1998 newspaper article cited here (and a similar one published one week later by the same paper), and another website that's just a copy and paste of this article. Also fails WP:NEO.--🌀Kieran207-talk🌀 23:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everybody above. If the idea described here ever comes to pass, it will justify an article, but the title of that article will likely be something like Cincinnati-Dayton Combined Statistical Area instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Quest for Zhu. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quest for Zhu: Music from the Motion Picture

Quest for Zhu: Music from the Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

For this, there is nothing to find on Google searches besides this that looks like a self-published blog . No WP:SIGCOV 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quest for Zhu. It is possible that someone will search for the album under the "Music from..." title, but the album received no notice as a stand-alone entity. A brief mention of its existence at the film article is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above, not independently notable in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Once Upon a Forest#Soundtrack. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Forest (soundtrack)

Once Upon a Forest (soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

For this, only refs used are reviews from Allmusic and an unreliable blog. That is not WP:SIGCOV. 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Once Upon a Forest#Soundtrack. This soundtrack did receive an AllMusic review but it is not too detailed, and I can find little else on the album itself. There is enough to beef up the soundtrack section over at the film's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above, not independently notable in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caliber Home Loans

Caliber Home Loans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NCORP Sock creation.scope_creep^Talk 14:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Another run of the mill business. WP is not a business directory. --Kbabej (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Move to New Residential Investment Corp. The company has been bought out and there is recent news on this. I have added the new info and also added sources from MarketWatch and Dallas Morning News, which states its the 5th largest lender as a result of merger. Peter303x (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have usual list of routine annoucements, press-releases and profiles that fail WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 23:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. I cannot see a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I only see one possibly reliable reference - Dallas News, that’s not really “substantial” coverage. Star7924 (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Junaid

Mir Junaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-Notable Politician. Fails WP:NPOL, According to WP:POLITICIAN, politicians are notable if they held international, national or state/province post. Also somehow looks promotional to me. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 15:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The subject has never been elected into any legislative bodies thus failing NPOL. In that case he must pass general GNG criteria. As I can see, there are no sources giving him enough significant coverage. I dont know whether there are any sources in local language. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The person fails WP:NPOL but has been covered in mainstream media as social activist. Riteboke (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Riteboke, Not significantly tho, Passing mentions don't demonstrate notability. He Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 11:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Ankit (Talk with me) 20:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. the wub "?!" 14:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a SpongeBob Christmas! Album

It's a SpongeBob Christmas! Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

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

For this nomination, all there is is WP:ONEVENT press release announcements and one Common Sense Media review. That's not enough to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Wired cite is not about soundtrack album but about the special itself. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are some issues with the copy/pasted reasoning in the rush of 21 different AfDs for cartoon soundtracks by this nominator. In short, blanket reasoning for an attempted bundled AfD has been applied to every individual album therein. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pebble and the Penguin (soundtrack) for more details. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A substantial article about the album (and not just the associated film) in Wired counts as non-trivial coverage under WP:NALBUM #1. This article could use some cleanup though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even so, that stuff could just as well be in the film article, plus it was published upon the film's release so that's not long-lasting notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:NTEMP. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also see WP:SINGLEEVENT. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That one is for people. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Doomsdayer520's rationale and Wired article. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]