Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 19	February 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to World Trade Center in popular culture and merge, where content is appropriate keeping WP:INDISCRIMINATE in mind. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One World Trade Center in popular culture

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

Nearly every entry on this list is incredibly trivial, amounting to "A shot was filmed in NYC and One WTC was in the background." There's only two secondary sources, and a quick google isn't really turning anything else up. Mcrsftdog (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mcrsftdog (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mcrsftdog (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, and probably trim heavily while doing so, to World Trade Center in popular culture (probably as a separate section). I don't really see a reason why the two should be separate as the only significance of this is that it's the World Trade Center. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG. There's no referenced discussion of this building in popular culture because the topic is not notable and the sources don't exist to provide in-depth coverage - instead we just have a list of trivial mentions, the sort of list that could be compiled for any physical thing that has ever appeared in the background in film or television: the Atlantic ocean, the Pseudotsuga menziesii tree, or Nexen-branded car tires. ----Pontificalibus 07:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to World Trade Center in popular culture per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and as a separate section per Gnomingstuff.
Blauvelt, Christian (2019). Turner Classic Movies Cinematic Cities: New York: The Big Apple on the Big Screen. Philadelphia: Running Press. ISBN 978-0-7624-9542-9. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
The book notes (my bolding):
You can't embark on a cinematic tour of New York City without taking a moment to acknowledge the Twin Towers. From when they opened on April 4, 1973, to when they fell in the horrific violence of September 11, 2001, they were a dramatic punctuation mark to the New York City skyline that conveyoed power and wealth—and a sense that we really could touch the sky. It'll take years, if not decades, for the new skyscraper that sits nearby, One World Trade Center, to be featured in as many films as its two predecessors.
After the merge, One World Trade Center in popular culture can be spun out from World Trade Center in popular culture once there is enough coverage and material to support a separate article.
Cunard (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I appreciate that folks may expect to see articles about actors they recognize, but to keep said article, we need evidence that the actor meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, which are the applicable standards. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Soo-hyung

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

Appears to only have a single significant role (Sweet Home (TV series)), so does not meet WP:NACTOR, and not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources (most are simply press releases) to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NACTOR. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seen him in Sweet Home and films.(119.160.66.140 (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I saw him in the Cabinet movie.(2400:ADCC:105:7900:3:7C76:7B14:742A (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments by IPs are arguments to avoid and unsourced. Would prefer stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His role in Sweet Home is just minor, not the significant role. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see major roles. Coverage is just a halo effect. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kasem Hallulli

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

Article lacks of good refs and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion and no comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of meeting WP:GNG here or on the other language page Jeepday (talk) 18:52, 26 February 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erti Hizmo

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

Article lacks of good refs and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Would prefer stronger consensus to close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - performing second or third stage of a major festival does not make someone pass WP:MUSICBIO, at least automatically. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - performing several times at Festivali i Këngës means that there should be a reasonable chance of offline coverage but I have no absolute proof of this Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 27 February 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gëzim Nika

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

Article lacks of good refs and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion. Would prefer stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search does not find anything supporting WP:GNG There are language issues, but there are no other language pages. There are no clear indications of notability. Jeepday (talk) 18:58, 26 February 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bujar Qamili

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

Article lacks of good refs and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Won local prizes and local coverage. That's not enough for WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 26 February 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kozma Dushi

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

The article fails WP:MUSICBIO; significant coverage is not given. Notability tag posted since December 2019.Lorik17 (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and MUSICBIO. SK2242 (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:16, 20 February 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thilakam (2002 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG as nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE that I can find. PROD was removed with "de-prod. There are a lot of false positives for this name, but seems sufficiently notable not to go for prod" Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 22:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFILM, Google search does not turn up anything that establishes notability of the film. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I find TimothyBlue's rationale the most persuasive in the debate, along with a general consensus for deletion. Daniel (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kollam

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

Disputed redirection to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (I redirected it per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES; User:Aravind V R reverted). This is a poorly-sourced article about a school that is either WP:COI or original research. Citations are to self-published sources except one press release. I'd like to get consensus that this school doesn't meet our notability criteria. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on my searches I assess this to be a notable school. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: Navodaya schools is a network of schools funded by the central government in India. There is one such school in every district and provides free education to meritorious students in every district. The school used to have a dedicated website but now the government decided to have a single website for all schools, possibly to not drain government funds on domain fees. The absence of a dedicated website might have caused this confusion that this might not be a notable school, which is not the case. These schools, in most cases, are the best public schools in every district. I just noticed several schools listed in List of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas have their wiki pages being removed by some self-righteous editors who are doing a huge disservice to this encyclopedia and are wasting the time of several editors who have contributed to these pages. Most information added in these pages might get irrecoverably lost due to the such irresponsible activism. Aravind V R (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do a minimal research on the notability of a page before suggesting it for deletion. A google search might prove enough. Aravind V R (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT) or NBUILD. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. None of the sources in the article are IS, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV and no sources have been provided above. Article does not meet NBUILD, "…they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the type all schools receive in local press. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 04:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete like mentioned by Timmy above, the school fails general notability criteria, as well as notability criteria for organisations. Something doesnt become notable because of being a part of something notable. Notability is not inherited. This particular individual school is just another school that exists. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

verifiable existence is not notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kindly see No inherited notability, and No inherent notability, the latter guideline specifically mentions schools. In short: this school is not notable only because it's parent school/organisation is notable. To become notable, this school also has to pass the relevant criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a 3rd time as an involved editor disputed NC
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and relevant SNG criteria we have for highschools. Navodayas are no exception, unless and until we talk about the whole system. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember nominating a number of JNV articles for deletion, once bundled, but sadly, lesser participation, or the procedural close of one, left me somehow having bad response. Offcourse few were deleted. We should have a different policy on JNV schools, or atleast include one in the policies. These are so many JNVs in India. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 20:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Most people do not want to delete the article, but there is a split of opinion whether to keep or redirect, and if the latter, where to redirect to. Suggest either starting a discussion on the talk page or following the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First woman on the Moon

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

Article created by a user who has been blocked for disruptive editing. Subject in question is theoretical as it hasn't happened yet, so at a minimum falls foul of WP:TOOSOON, though i'd also suggest WP:CRYSTAL applies as anything on the subject at this time is merely speculative. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to either Moon_landing#Proposed_future_missions or List of female spacefarers; this hypothetical/future likelihood can briefly mentioned there. Neutrality^talk 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find sources for the topic such as Gender, Sexuality, and Space Culture. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. " See also WP:BITE. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the topic is not sufficiently independent of Moon landing#Proposed future missions. But searching using this title should be possible. Creator being blocked is not relevant as block not due to this page. The existence of the book mentioned above supports a broader topic, Women in space, which already exists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point about the book is that it spends several pages specifically discussing "the first woman on the Moon". That was mainly an artwork but they take the opportunity to discuss other aspects. And this is just a quick example. As the article is new, reasonable time should be allowed for development, especially as the prime author has been blocked for several days and so is unable to comment here. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Neutrality or Graeme. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect, any number of relevant target articles to choose from, eg. Women in space. The little that there is to say about the subject (for now, at least) can be easily covered in an existing article rather than creating an unnecessary fork at this stage (obviously that can be revisited if and when there is enough substance to justify a separate article). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's almost no content here, and what there is does not identify the first woman on the moon. It would be worth mentioning the gender distribution of the trainees in the Artemis Program article, but I don't think even a redirect with this title is warranted.PopePompus (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there’s really nothing here, and it is already mentioned at lead of Artemis program and noted at List of missions to the moon. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Women in space. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the event is more imminent than the next summer Olympic competition, and has already invested far more money that that event toward accomplishing this historic feat. It would be highly inappropriate in the context of WP:WHIST to subhead this world's first event under a compilation article. Likewise, the content is widely available and updating frequently today as astronauts train, applications are sought, international negotioations ensue, and funding appropriations debate in Congress.

The content within the article is lacking, but not due to scant sources as Andrew pointed out. It is due only to a lack of WP:ATD.

A global space race is in progress as we speak, and this time we are going up to stay. It will not be possible to have colonies in the solar system if we continue a male-only space program, thus, discovering the unique benefits and solving the unique challenges of both genders in extended space environments will mark an historic turning point in human exploration. If Artemis fails to deliver the first woman to the moon, the next attempt will bear the same weight in history. This topic survives even if Artemis fails; The concepts should not be bundled haphazardly together as if the riddle of women in extended space voyages were a uniquely "Artemis" or even "American" ambition WP:NOTMERGE; the historic event will serve all of humanity, and thus belongs to all of humanity.

RE: WP:TOOSOON Does not apply. The notability criteria WP:NRVE is met: "the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Likewise, the topic has invested billions of dollars to date since Directive 1 four years ago (WP:SUSTAINED).

--Frobozz1 (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be kinda silly for the US to enter a race to the moon that it won more than 50 years ago. The excitement for manned spaceflight today is just not in any way comparable to what it was in the 60s. I'm certain that if NASA ever sends another manned mission to the moon's surface, the crew will include a woman, because it would be politically impossible for them to send an all male crew. But it's easy for NASA to claim Artemis will put the first woman on the moon; the Constellation program shows what may happen.PopePompus (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a race to the moon. It is a race to establish a permanent off-planet facility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobozz1 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page averages 13 views per day^[1]
@ Graeme Bartlett - lunar missions being manned vs. accommodating both genders are sufficiently different subjects, more so than the Female president of the United States in popular culture which only answers a political question. This title may attach to any nation as applications are accepted worldwide next month, and it answers long-sought physiological questions about extended space exploration with astronauts having uniquely female attributes.

@ Markbassett & DoubleGrazing - much more has been added since these votes. News is moving quickly in the new space race. The number of possible MERGE/REDIRECT candidates is too large and too indeterminate to justify subheading this quantity of content separately.
The title is not hypothetical @Neutrality, it is actively sought internationally while the eventual owner of the title is too speculative to make a merge/redirect decision: Women in space, List of missions to the moon, Artemis program, Directive 1, Moon_landing#Proposed_future_missions, List of female spacefarers, Astronaut, Space policy of the Donald Trump administration, Or the page of any of the individual astronauts actively applying for the title.
While the title will one day soon be awarded to a named astronaut in a certain country, a merge/redirect decision today lacks a clear primary Topic area, and merging is WP:TOOSOON

@ PopePompus’ argument implies the gender mix is only a political question with strictly cultural implications, and while this is significant WP:WHIST content the argument ignores the important medical, psychological, and logistical feats required to achieve this goal, all of which will make discoveries that set scientific precedent for space exploration throughout our solar system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.197.231 (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content added doesn't really have relevance specifically to the article title and would surely be more appropriate within Women in space? It seems to have been filled up to look like a more substantial article with the content doesn't really relate to a female lunar mission. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Women in space is a more appropriate place for such discussion than a stand-alone page. Reywas92^Talk 18:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure what others are reading but the medical objectives like osteoporosis are most definitely a concern for women - not just generally in space, but specifically extended voyages. The examples come directly from NASA's "Human Research Roadmap" as well, which has dozens more gender-specific and lunar-mission-specific science goals which all belong here.^[2] Besides, where would you subhead a legislative initiative within an article that is supposed to cover "women in space"? The topic doesn't have a winner yet. It would be like subheading some new and uncompleted Olympic event page under the Olympic medalists page for the 2024 Olympics. You sort of go there looking for names, not probable medalists?
- That is true about osteoporosis, but it has nothing to do with the moon in particular. It has nothing to do with the first woman in particular. Your argument is a basis for coverint he topic in women in space, it is not a basis for this particular article about one unannounced woman. I have removed content irrelevant to this title.
Keep If the law has been passed and funded as the article states I dont think WP:CRYSTAL applies. Spudlace (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The author of the article seems to have trouble with reading comprehension. There is no "First woman on the moon" law. There are budget appropriations that fund a return to the moon, and NASA intends to include a woman in that initiative. There is no basis whatsoever to have an article on this title in particlar when the notable topic and the law are about lunar missions in general. I have removed the false assertion that HR133 says anything about women astronauts, as well as the false suggestion that the application to apply is relevant, when in fact it's for the ESA which is not going to the moon. Reywas92^Talk 06:40, 27 February 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centra (bus company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No independent sourcing present. SK2242 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray Travel

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No independent sourcing present. SK2242 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Coaches

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article relies on only one source of dubious reliability. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 20 February 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) 20:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Aycock

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

Very slim coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The sources that mention him are peripheral, and if he's mentioned, it's usually off-hand mentions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as an investor/businessman. Fails WP:NPOL as an obscure and unsuccessful political candidate. KidAd talk 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page fails the WP:Noteworthy test. Posting a profile photo with a noteworthy person does not make one noteworthy himself. Nor does partnering on a small business venture or running unsuccessfully for political office. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. OnlyThenDidI (talk) 05:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and is not notable outside of his campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kemalcan (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of notability as a politician or as a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Devoke water 10:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Lee

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

Originally citing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY for prod, but Spiderone deprod pointing to WP:AfD. I am nominating this BLP to be deleted under WP:GNG as I am unable to establish his notability. Couldn't find usable references about him via Google and in national newspaper archives at NewspaperSG. – robertsky (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. Giant Snowman 20:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any significant coverage despite the fairly weak NFOOTBALL pass. If there is nothing coming up in Singaporean newspaper searches then I can't see him passing GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Goenka

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

A non-notable businessman who fails WP:BASIC, WP:BIO. Merely on the basis of awards nobility can't be established. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are multiple references in the article, many in languages I don't read/speak, the argument by the nom is very week based on existing references. Is this a drive by nomination, or does the nom have a point? I don't know, but a better argument the explains why those references don't meet WP:GNG would make for a more effective AFD, also addressing what is different between now and the AFD the resulted in Keep Jeepday (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has a number of reliable sources. –Cupper52^Discuss! 09:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that the industry rewards (NASSCOM, Computer Society of India etc.) are a "well-known and significant award or honor". I can't locate significant coverage outside of mentions of these rewards. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharat Goenka participants who are not blocked: Vejvančický (talk · contribs), Eastmain (talk · contribs), Panyd (talk · contribs)
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bharat Goenka (2nd nomination) participants who are not blocked: Mccapra (talk · contribs), Csgir (talk · contribs), and Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus unclear. The comment appears to lean keep, while the keep vote is weak.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:03, 20 February 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 Tillakaratne Dilshan. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Tillakaratne Dilshan

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

Fails WP:NLIST. No source discusses his centuries as a group. The consensus is that such lists are not required. Störm (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Tillakaratne Dilshan. Lists of international centuries are, by definition, notable achievements and detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go. These lists have the necessary context and explanation so do not fail NOTSTATS. Having said that, there are no issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT, so a merge would be appropriate. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the option of some prose and, possibly, a much cut down summary version of these tables added to the player's page. We don't need to be clogging up biographies with massively complex tables of statistics when we could summarise - and perhaps usefully use a table at that time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:RAWDATA. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article is just a list of scores from ESPNCricinfo and has no independent sources covering these individual achievements as a set. Agree with nom that there should be no precedent to include these on players' articles. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to AFD closer recent afds were closed as Merge - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Faf du Plessis (2nd nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Marvan Atapattu; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Cheteshwar Pujara, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Hussey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Desmond Haynes; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Colin Cowdrey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Martin Crowe; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Wally Hammond; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Justin Langer Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following also resulted in DELETE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan while these following articles resulted in redirection to player's article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. With all of these lists of centuries or five-wicket hauls for players we are getting mixed outcomes. Admin needs to allow greater discussions (longer than a week) on all AfD's without resulting to arbitrary outcomes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fails WP:NLIST. Can be better merged into the main article about the subject. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per those above. BD2412 T 06:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AJF773 ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTSTATS; we're not Cricinfo, and users wanting to get this non-encyclopedic information ought to go there instead, since 1) it's always up to date; 2) it's free from vandalism; 3) it's the usual source for this anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above and per WP:ATD - if there's an appropriate page to merge, it must be selected over deletion. In this case there is. Deus et lex (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except keeping this as a redirect opens up a pandora box because people will expect it to be made into an actual list, or for this kind of thing to exist for other players; which it simply shouldn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. Firstly, no one is saying the material shouldn't be merged into the article in a way that isn't inappropriate. A list of centuries is contained and discrete and can be put in the article (which is mostly text-based) in a way that works. The way in which that is happening is not being determined here, the question is simply whether a merge is appropriate, which it is. And let's not raise a "floodgates" argument - let's stick to THIS AfD about the one cricket player. Deus et lex (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the player's page - there's a possible WP:SPLIT as well with his other honours, but this is too specific of a topic to keep straight up. SportingFlyer T·C 18:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan McKechnie

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

Has possibly played less than one minute of football at the professional level to scrape a passing of WP:NFOOTBALL. Conducting a WP:BEFORE search, I can find little evidence to support WP:GNG. The best source was this match report. There is clear consensus that passing GNG is more important in such cases as this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might meet NFOOTBALL, might not - but more importantly does fail GNG. Giant Snowman 20:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really think if you have made one substitute appearance at second tier level then that is not grounds in itself for having an article, and would agree with the above view that he fails GNG. Dunarc (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Horowitz

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Of the two provided sources, the first is a directory and genealogy that is not available online; based on the texts' description, it seems unlikely to have coverage of the subject that is both significant and independent, as it was written and published by the Horowitz-Margareten family. The second source, [1], does not mention anyone matching this articles' subject's biographical information. Searching online and on Google scholar, I was only able to find false positives about other individuals named Yaakov or Jacob Horowitz. The pre-existing redirect should be reinstated, as the current article's subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any other relevant guideline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is a link to the full online text of the Horowitz-Margareten family ( https://archive.org/stream/directorygenealo00marg/directorygenealo00marg_djvu.txt). Reb Yaakov Horowitz, who was the eldest son of famous Hasidic Rebbe, Shmelke of Nikolsburg. He among the earliest Hasidic rabbis of Hungary, which makes him notable in his own right. Genealogy plays a huge role in Hasidic Judaism and Reb Yaakov Horowitz is a largely relevant figure in this capacity. Ibn Daud (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find any independent sources that establish Yaakov as an early Hasidic rabbi in Hungary? The text you've provided is non-independent and I haven't been able to find any other texts that can verify the claim. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Genealogy plays a huge role in secular European society, but we have eliminated literally hundreds of articles about minor nobility who are unsourced except to family lists. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG. The first source is an inaccessible genealogy directory and the other doesn't even mention him. Even if he was an early Hasidic rabbi in Hungary (a claim for which no evidence has been provided), that alone would not make him notable (see WP:OUTCOMES)Yaakovaryeh (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pequeños Gigantes

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

I struggled to find at least anything about this show to pass the notability guidelines, but I couldn't. There's plenty of coverage about the Mexican one, but not about this. In my opinion it fails notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I could only find a source from Soho Magazine [2], but I doubt it is enough to prove notability per WP:GNG and WP:3REFS. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep: apart from the ubiquitous telenovelas, this was one of the most popular and best-remembered TV programmes in Colombia during the 1980s. It was the launchpad for the careers of many of Colombia's now-adult actors, most notably Carlos Vives, who was an actor before he became an internationally renowned singer, Ana María Orozco, who went on to play the title role in the original Colombian version of Ugly Betty, and her sister Verónica Orozco. There are several "where are they now" articles online... the article in SoHo magazine that P,TO 19104 mentions above, as well as the El Tiempo and Publimetro newspapers [3], [4]. There's also a similar article on Caracol TV's web page [5] but given that this was the network that transmitted Pequeños grandes, this could be seen as a WP:PRIMARY source. This is going to suffer from the fact that the programme pre-dates the internet by about 25 years, and therefore there is going to be little coverage online, so I can't make a strong "keep" argument, but the fact that three different newspapers/magazines have decided that it's memorable enough to run "where are they now?" features is a good indication that the programme was very well known. Richard3120 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus unclear. Two of the three votes expressed tentatively.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Richard3120 the topic meets WP:TVSHOW as a television series with a national audience. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Film Productions

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

Non-notable Indian film production company, established in 2020. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bbarmadillo Anything on WP:BEFORE? I was able to find only one ref. [6], which is not enough to pass WP:CORP in my opinion. Kolma8 (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 08:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:COI article promoting a new company which is about to make its first short film, with particularly promotional text added by IP in between the edits by Actor Ijaaz Ebrahim. The several newspaper items say little more than that the company intends to make its first film, and fall under announcement-based trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Legien

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

Does not meet either WP:NHOCKEY, and there is not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quite; there's just no there there, and every reference is either primary or a stats aggregator. The article creator's made other questionable articles as well; I've just prodded a couple of unreferenced season articles for a junior "B" league, far under the threshold required by NSEASONS. Ravenswing 21:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A rather non descript minor leaguer. I see nothing that would satisfy GNG and there is nothing remotely close to satisfying NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sportnews.mn

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bumblehood

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't confirm WP:GNG based on a quick search of Croatian sources, which would typically be very odd for companies operating in Croatia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG I don't see anything in the article or my search to make this notable. Jeepday (talk) 19:27, 26 February 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threadbombing

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable website. The one working reference isn't what I'd consider substantial coverage. Nothing found in Google search, apart from a Twitter profile with no followers. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept might be notable, but this website with that name is not. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LaasqorayNET

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article evidently does not meet notability requirements.Jacob300 (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not mentioned in the article but in 2009 the jailing of a journalist associated with the site attracted some international attention: ifex, Reporters sans frontières. AllyD (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Army Rumour Service

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the website aside from a brief description in a book and a book about it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 26 February 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 Bert Sperling. Daniel (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sperling's BestPlaces

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bert Sperling: Barely found anything about the website. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abderrahim Lahjouji

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

Biography of a recently deceased Moroccan figure. He was a successful businessman in the construction sector and unsuccessful politician candidate. There are French and Arabic articles about him too, both thinly sourced and neither really establishing that he was notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad about his death, but fails GNG. -Cupper52^Discuss! 09:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to have been a notable personality in Moroccan society, his death covered as mainstream news in multiple sources; https://telquel.ma/2021/01/08/hommage-abderrahim-lahjouji-un-entrepreneur-engage-pour-ses-pairs_1707053 , https://aujourdhui.ma/economie/lex-president-de-la-cgem-abderrahim-lahjouji-nest-plus , https://www.barlamane.com/fr/abderrahim-lahjouji-ancien-president-de-la-cgem-nest-plus/ etc. Condolence issued by the king: https://www.maroc.ma/en/royal-activities/hm-king-extends-condolences-family-late-abderrahim-lahjouji-alami , the condolence itself becoming a news story https://www.h24info.ma/maroc/le-adresse-ses-condoleances-a-la-famille-de-abderrahim-lahjouji-alami/ . French L'Express press clip from 2002 https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/afrique/la-participation-est-l-un-des-grands-enjeux-de-cette-election_497936.html . News stories unrelated to his death: https://rue20.com/261861.html , https://ahdath.info/361460 , https://archive.aawsat.com/details.asp?issueno=8435&article=125190 , http://m.alyaoum24.com/632781.html , etc --Soman (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Soman. Weak because I'm not particularly familiar with the sources, but seems to meet GNG. Also found some passing mentions in [7], [8]. It is not unlikely more coverage exists in LOTEs such as french. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Neither the keep or delete votes are particularly convincing (the former ones mostly given weakly). There doesn't seem to be any clear consensus at this time other than that she may scrape WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Robinson (author)

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

Current sources shows borderline notabilty, Fails WP:GNG Cuoxo (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cuoxo (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer and journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a notable person and has been featured on many independent notable sources like Forbes, CNN and Wall Street Journal. Yoziak (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being "featured" in Forbes is basically like saying "but they have an approved Facebook account!" For the right amount of money, Forbes will pretty much publish anything. CUPIDICAE💕 18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete and redirect to the magazine. CUPIDICAE💕 18:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Current sources seems somewhat promising to pass WP:BASIC. Pilean (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - in the publishing world, there are few publishers who are notable, and I think she passes barely. I am leaning keep to avoid our inherent bias. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 26 February 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Playlistify

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Playlistify.org seems inactive since 2012. An extremely personal page that is around since 2010. It gets nowhere near the WP:GNG. Good catch, DJFace1! A newer service, playlistify.app, has coverage but is unrelated. Playlistify.org is a nothing burger. gidonb (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything recent either per gidonb's comment. Not seeing any sources that show that Playlistify meets WP:GNG Redoryxx (talk) 07:07, 25 February 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 00:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D&D KM-IT

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikishire

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are the notability criteria for Category:MediaWiki websites? it seems that the bar for inclusion is incredibly high if the General notability guidelines are applied. Owain (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline for all websites (there is nothing special about MediaWiki websites in this regard) is WP:WEBCRIT. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no independent coverage of the site that is even remotely in-depth. Indeed, relying exclusively on independent sources I could verify that (a) it exists, and (b) it has maps showing traditional county borders, and (c) at least some of the data is sourced from the Historic Counties Trust. Only (a) and (b) can be verified in independent reliable sources (c comes from a personal WordPress blog). Every single one of the other mentions I've found (there were so few I've looked at them all) were simply mentions in lists of links or attribution as a source of information. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PunkTV.ca

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible evidence of notability is shown here besides the fact that it exists, and no reliable sources are being shown to get it over WP:GNG. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform where everything that ever existed is automatically entitled to keep an article just because it existed. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mortgage News Daily

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage of any kind found about the website. Probably too industry-specific to have mention... Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nexon. Feel free to redirect if you try to find content to merge and fail. Daniel (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlockParty

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Nexon. We can document it existed [9] but it apparently has quietly died around 2011. It is non-notable on its own, but is a searchable term. --Masem (t) 18:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nexon as a valid WP:ATD. Seems that it never actually launched, as even 2 years after the initial announcement, it was "coming soon" [10]. The website was shut down since. There is some routine coverage [11] and what Masem posted, but it isn't enough to have an article on it's own. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a significant trim and corrections for the content that could actually be sourced for a merge. The features section should be rewritten too. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nexon per above. GNG/NVG are not met and there is not much content to merge here. Oddly enough, BlockParty is not mentioned in Nexon's article yet. IceWelder [✉] 11:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hayland.am

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime Confidential

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 20 February 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, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2013-04 Denyse Tontz no consensus

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. Even after discounting the nomination by a now blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics007

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability – Thjarkur (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEBCRIT as this website does not appear to have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources under either of its names Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Having an Alexa rating >100000 is a sign of non-notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet requirements for either WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG --Kemalcan (talk) 10:26, 23 February 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. Delete votes address sources, and while the keep votes attempt to refute them, they do not do so in a manner that is able to achieve consensus. Additionally the keep votes do not address the arguments for promotion in a way that is consistent with policy—simply claiming someone is notable is not a counter argument to the deletion votes on spam grounds as promotion is a violation of WP:NOT, which is an independent grounds for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Chanchlani

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

As per the previous two afds, he still isn't notable - his Nick win is the only thing that changed but it hasn't resulted in any additional coverage. Forbes 30 under 30 is meaningless, it has no value and it's based on a lottery and persistence and is awarded to 600 people a year, which is far from unique. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani has an extensive review of the sources (minus the current passing mentions which are worthless.) The Nick award is interesting from a Wikipedia point of view because it's a kids choice award, and yet his channel is very much not a children's channel, which leads me to believe the voting was, let's say untoward... CUPIDICAE💕 17:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All sources claim, and a career was needed which I made. Ashish Chanchlani#Career — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.238.206.29 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: No new definitive GNG sources to help since July 2020. 30 under 30 doesn't establish notability. The Nick award really depends on better outside coverage and is about as notable as a Streamy award or a Behind The Voice Actors award. As I said in the CSD, this should have been rewritten completely at draft without any use of unreliable/not-so-reliable sources. If he is as popular as Dream (YouTuber) (23.5 vs. 24.4 million) there should be multiple RS'es that give him lots of coverage. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF The more I dig into the Nick award, the more concerns I have about it's value and general trustworthyness. Why is a channel - geared very clearly toward adults, publishing content like this, winning a KCA, intended for children? KCA is also overall kind of irrelevant to notability because all it requires is an online-click campaign. Not to mention our article on KCA India leaves me to believe this isn't the same award it once was. CUPIDICAE💕 19:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THe idea that because he has x viewers and so did y person, so he should be notable is flawed though. As the Nick award shows and the countless number of Facebook likes for certain websites that don't even exist, viewers and subscribers can be bought. The only thing that matters here is sourcing. And it simply doesn't exist yet. CUPIDICAE💕 20:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bring up Dream because he had an extensive AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream (YouTuber) (2nd nomination) where a pile of sources were vetted or rejected to clean up the article and other editors eventually allowed for enough RS'es to show up. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India depends more whether it's an established award or whether it's a trendy for that edition award or one of those magazine top 10 / year-end awards which don't really give the person anything except the media mention. It's hardly the Emmys though. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's some "favorite youtuber" garbage. Which is frankly laughable. Also their own website no longer works and doesn't appear to have worked for about a year, so that says a lot. CUPIDICAE💕 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fail to understand how come someone who is nominated for notable award like Indian Television Academy Awards See This and has won multiple awards like Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India This, see this and this and World Bloggers Awards See Forbes article mentioning his win, Apart from this he has references on highly reliable sources like Forbes, BBC World, Indian Express, Telangana Today, Republic Wolrd, Business Insider and many others How come this fails to not pass WP:GNG? Dtt1^Talk 20:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeatedly explained to you, these are all brand posts, press releases, unreliable and deprecated or social media. Go take a long read of WP:RSP. CUPIDICAE💕 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a single reference mentioned above is a brand posts, press releases, unreliable and deprecated at all If you have checked them closely then you must not have written this, and about WP:RSP I am VERY WELL aware about it and have gone through it briefly The Indian Express and others all are among reliable ones in the list :) Kindly Check Dtt1^Talk 20:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dtt1 WP:IDHT is jsut as disruptive as vandalism. I don't know if you're incapable or unwilling but literally the sources you linked: published by the awarding body, social media, press release, press release, a contributor piece which isn't reliable per WP:RSP about an award that isn't notable and cannot be verified in actual rs, a worthless 30 under 30 award given to 600 people a year that parrots an unverifiable story from a contributor, an interview that isn't remotely close to independent, a cruft piece in a listicle, a rehash of his video which i already outlined it's lack of appropriateness in the prior afd, deprecated source as per WP:RSP, literally sayas brand post in the header! CUPIDICAE💕 20:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Dtt1 (talk · contribs)'s comments, plus a lot of his youtube videos from 2 years ago were school and college oriented, and viewed a significant number of times. It’s entirely plausible that he legitimately won the kid’s choice award, and that his audience has since, let’s say … grown up. ~~He also won an award at the Cannes Film Festival.~~ SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, he did not win an award at the Cannes Film Festival. He won a non-notable award where the award function (a one-off event) was held in Cannes – no connection to the film festival. (Cannes hosts many festivals and events of various kinds, the city is known for it.) This was discussed at some length in one of the previous AfD discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish A. Chanchlani. --bonadea contributions talk 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right - I withdraw that statement. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the kids choice awards "Grew up" is just as flawed as Dtt1's WP:TE and has no basis in policy. What sources is this based on? CUPIDICAE💕 23:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that the awards grew up, I was referring to Chanchlani's youtube audience.SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

his audience didn’t grow up magically in the 2 weeks since the award. It’s the kids choice awards. But what sources can you provide to support your statement as I’ve thoroughly debunked those that Dtt1 provided. CUPIDICAE💕 00:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ashish Chanchlani. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article as written does not make a case for general notability.
- - The onus is on the author of an article to establish notability under any circumstances.
  - The onus is even more emphatically on an article to establish notability when previous deletion discussions have found that the subject is not notable.
  - There have been two previous AFDs and an MFD.
  - Prior articles did not establish notability, and this article does not establish notability.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: The current article mentions,"Chanchlani was interviewed on Worklife India..." This show is a regional chat show and NOT an interview of notable personalities. The Indian Television Academy Awards is a vanity award event. Moreover, he is one among 5 'social media stars' nominee. The Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards India, cited sources (medianews4u, style.yahoo) are unreliable, which suggest that, these awards are not significant. Neurofreak (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The things that have changed since the last AfD are the Nickelodeon kids award and the Forbes India list. The award is of very doubtful notability, and being included on the Forbes India 30 under 30 list (which is not independently notable) doesn't in itself confer notability on an individual. Being interviewed on TV does not make a person notable either, unless there is independent coverage, but as it is, all sources in the article (including those that have been removed) are primary and/or not independent. Regarding the ITA Awards nomination, even if he were to win on Monday that means nothing – it's a "popular" category, not a notable award. This is an individual who makes money from adding covert advertising to his YouTube videos, and so it is probably important for him and his marketing people that he is as visible as possible on the Internet, to attract more customers. That's not Wikipedia's concern, however. --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by Dtt1. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig, which GNG sources are there? Please list them as the ones Dtt1 are being questioned. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is unfortunate that there are no WP:RS to reflect notability though the person is quite famous IRL. The three step methodology of the Forbes India magazine is a bit suspect as actual data is not provided to substantiate claims along with 'how were the experts chosen?' and 'what parameters did they use to identify the final 30?'. Further, voting in the second phase is prone to gaming and hence problematic. I'd have a similar set of objections to the Nick awards. Vikram Vincent 16:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would seem to meet WP:Entertainer, 23.5M subscribers is more than the population of most countries, certainly qualifies as "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Followers, as pointed out in several policies and guidelines, are generally worthless since they can be purchased. WP:BLP REQUIRES independent reliable sourcing. Not some arbitrary number that is full of bot accounts. CUPIDICAE💕 19:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that publicists like their clients to have Wikipedia articles is indeed not our concern, in that it has no bearing either way on notability. I have to question how "extensive" the review of the sources in the previous AfD was. One of the sources classified as "unknown/spam?" is in fact the Indian edition of Entrepreneur magazine, something that would have taken roughly 30 seconds to learn: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/346458. And whatever the methodology or rigor of the Forbes list, its result is nevertheless coverage in a magazine that consensus has deemed reliable per WP:RSP. (The previous AfD claims that the article is a Forbes contributor piece; it is not. It ran in the print edition.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the concerned source was kept under "uncategorized.." not under "unknown.." as you mentioned above. This is a link to a guest list of an Entrepreneur India event. The same wikpedia article still can be read here: https://en.everybodywiki.com/Ashish_A._Chanchlani. As far as I know, it is not considered as a reliable source for wikipedia entries. Neurofreak (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that a publication has ancillary promotional events, PR wings, or "X Under X" lists is not a referendum on the entire publication's notability or reliability. Forbes is a good example of a case where the extended universe of promotional/"guest" content is separate from the publication itself, and the Entrepreneur article appears to be similar (the note at the bottom states it, too, was published in the print edition). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither I commented on Entrepreneur notabilty/reliabilty nor I added the (entrepreneur.com) under "uncategorized/spam" in the previous AfD. I merely listed (entrepreneurindia.com) under uncategorized with a question mark, since the cited link was directing me to the speakers list of an event. Neurofreak (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gnomingstuff Did you even read my source analysis? Would you like to provide at least one independent source about this person? Because right now there's nothing that meets this criteria. Your assertion that my nom is simply because it's paid is ridiculous and untrue, considering I've now done three indepth analysis of the sources and not a single keep here has provided a single independent reliable source much less one that isn't paid for PR, which by definition doesn't contribute to notability. Further, Forbes is discussed EXTENSIVELY at RSP/RSN - 30 under 30 isn't a prestigious or notable award that establishes notability in and of itself, it's awarded to 600 people a year and there is nothing more that determines it other than a self-submission and luck of the draw. Further, he hasn't received significant coverage because of that itself. CUPIDICAE💕 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Gnomingstuff the previous AFD that discussed this forbes piece is a contributor piece as per the giant notice at the top and it is not in a print edition and the award itself is not from Cannes Film Festival, it just took place in Cannes and is a non notable award per our own determination. CUPIDICAE💕 20:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be talking about different Forbes pieces. The one I am referring to (https://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30-2021/ashish-chanchlani-going-viral-for-a-living/66315/1) is a piece that ran in the magazine. The author, Mansvini Kaushik, was employed by Forbes at the time of publication, and the piece ran in the print magazine ("This story appears in the 12 February, 2021 issue of Forbes India."). This is the Forbes category listed as reliable on WP:RSP. The awards are not the reason I bring this piece up, but the fact that the magazine decided to run a profile of him in the print edition. If you would like to argue that these are "paid-for PR" you will have to provide proof of that (and, by definition, it can't both be "paid-for PR" and "luck of the draw"). Similarly, the Enterpreneur piece is also a staff profile independent of this guy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that's what I am trying to explain which Gnomingstuff just did well and better than me, apart from Forbes and Enterpreneur there are others too like (https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/entertainment-others/youtuber-ashish-chanchlani-family-coronavirus-covid-19-6565075/) this from Wikipedia:INDIANEXP which is again by their employee and also if we keep aside the fact that he won those notable awards we cant deny that these aren't at all paid stuff they are Notable.Dtt1^Talk 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian Express is certainly quite reputed media organisation, but the article is not an independent profile of notable persons. It is a 2-liner news about his COVID-19 recovery, and the remaining article quote his twitter and instagram posts. Neurofreak (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes piece that Gnomingstuff refers to is independent in the sense that it does not appear to be commissioned by Chanchlani's PR people, but it is undeniably a primary source as it is an interview – and looking at the raw word count of that text, almost exactly half of it is direct quotes from Chanchlani. This was published because he is on the 30 under 30 list published by the same magazine, so not independent in that sense. (As an aside, the Forbes writer claims that the blogger award Chanchlani won was connected to the Cannes Film Festival, so not exactly a careful fact checker...)

As for the Entrepreneur article, the situation is identical. A piece based in its entirety on an interview with a lot of direct speech, published because Chanchlani was listed in their "35 under 35". To be clear, that kind of source does explicitly not count towards notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Lacks WP:RSP and no in-depth coverage. In my opinion the subject in question does not qualify for a standalone page on Wikipedia.- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 15:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt undisclosed paid-for-spam with no evidence of notability. GSS ^💬 17:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt No indication of notability. The editor must be having a laugh at us. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 18 February 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. Hog Farm _Talk 06:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain Square Tower

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

Project is dead. Not overly notable now that it is simply an unbuilt project that appears dead, as they are planning now to renovate the building it would have replaced.. Would have been notable if built, but it appears it never will be, and I'm not sure it is all that notable as an unbuilt structure. SecretName101 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. It does not pass WP:NBUILD. It received some local coverage as can be expected for any large project in an area, but it seems too thin for a never-build building. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:SIGCOV. We have never included unfished projects, unless they have significant coverage. News stories of "wow, they're going to build a skyscraper in this small city," but then they're not built, are legion. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leisure (band)

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

Searching is difficult due to the commonality of the band's name, but can't find enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and they don't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The first Afd is for a different band though. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GhostDestroyer100, thanks for the note about the 1st AfD, I meant to mention that, but forgot. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is kept there is a talk page issue that needs to be dealt with. There is content at Talk:LEISURE (band) which was the original name of this version of the article before a move request (still at Talk:LEISURE (band) ) was conducted. If the article is not deleted that stuff needs to be located at Talk:Leisure (band).--65.92.160.124 (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This, that, here, there and the article already there are good. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The sourcing exists--albeit not cited--but is somewhat routine. Yet doesn't the fact the band membership is comprised of individual notable artists make this entity notable? ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily due to WP:NOTINHERITED.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have added User:Duffbeerforme's refs and the page looks fine to me, certainly passes GNG. Cabrils (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eldar Eldarov

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

Does not fulfill WP:MMANOT Ticelon (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage does not meet the standards of WP:GNG since they are routine sports reporting of results. Most of the references are about his victory at Brave 46. He has no fights for a top tier MMA organization and does not meet WP:NMMA. I spent time trying to see if he was notable for his combat sambo, but I could find no evidence that he had even competed at a combat sambo world championship event. The article gives no sources or information on the events where he won his sambo medals. Even if true, world cup events are less significant than world championship events. I found nothing to show he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of open-source city-building games

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

This list is really poorly written and is almost totally dependent on Github for citing the existence of entities on this list. This list also feels largely redundant as a broader list, List of city-building video games is already in existence and is much more useful to a reader as it provides higher quality details at a quick glance. Theprussian (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:LISTN. License type and genre are also an odd intersection. IceWelder [✉] 15:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - LISTN problem, and nothing to merge as they're already covered in the main list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Masem (t) 17:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Theprussian and Rhododendron are mistaken, the List of city-building video games does not contain these items. I could see adding other sources such as fossgames or tjfree or freegamer etcetera for review content, but would keep Github as useful links to the games. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does. And to be clear, when I say "already covered" I'm referring to the notable examples with articles about them, not the ones that merely exist (which shouldn't be covered in either article -- very few lists on wikipedia are intended to be exhaustive). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite its name, this is just a classic "list of X in Y" that don't meet the policies for list articles. There's nothing particularly notable about the intersection of city-building games that are also open source. If someone wants to add them to the list of city-building games, then they should do that. But we don't need a separate list just for the licensing status of the games. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 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 Karen Traviss#Other short stories. Daniel (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Slice at a Time

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

I PRODed this with " The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) supplement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.". PROD was endorsed by User:ReaderofthePack who commented "agree with PROD, apart from a sole review for the anthology that printed this in French there's not much out there to establish notability, if it'd won the award it might be a bit different but an HM is a bit weak to really firmly establish notability here". PROD was then removed by User:Andrew Davidson with a copy-paste edit summary that ignored both of us. So here we go again... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge as per Suitable for the Orient. As for the complaints about cut/paste – see WP:POT and WP:SAUCE. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karen Traviss#Other short stories - The lack of available sources shows that this short story pretty clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, however a viable Redirect target exists. Rorshacma (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/delete. I just wasn't able to find enough coverage to justify it having its own article. A redirect isn't a bad idea, but for the time being the coverage just isn't there and I really did try to find anything that could justify inclusion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Innovios

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

The company claims to be a multi-national company with subsidiaries in the US and Spain, which would certainly make it significant. The article is, however, unsourced and searching the Macedonian name comes up with zilch. Despite the massive claim of significance, I can't see any evidence of any coverage that addresses this company directly and in detail, therefore, I believe that it does not meet WP:NCORP. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 20 February 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, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-02 ✍️ create, 2019-10 ✗ A7

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LeaderShape

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:ORGCRIT. Generic leadership training org. scope_creep^Talk 14:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY and article is an orphan Theprussian (talk) 15:32, 20 February 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. Daniel (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rambler Crest

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

Non notable housing development in Hong Kong. De-PROD because it has the "largest swimming pool". Tagged for notability since 2009. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "【地產話當年】藍澄2003年低價開售掀認購潮" [[Real estate back then] Rambler Crest in 2003 launched a low-price sale to start a subscription wave]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2018-10-08. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  From Google Translate: "Rambler Crest, developed by Hutchison Properties, is the largest private housing estate in the area after Villa Esplanade and the Prestige Peninsula. ... The successful opening of the project attracted the attention of the market. Together with the developers’ efforts in payment methods such as mortgage percentage and second mortgage, the project became popular. During the first round of internal public subscription, more than 600 prospective buyers were waiting to subscribe under the rain."
2. "青衣藍澄灣　主打中小型單位自製相連戶　享開揚美景" [Rambler Crest, Tsing Yi: Mainly small and medium-sized units. Homemade connected houses. Enjoy the open view]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2010-08-13. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  From Google Translate: "Rambler Crest, the youngest private housing estate in Tsing Yi, although it has to go in and out by car, it wins because of its environment. [paragraph about the units in the housing estate] ... The 7-year-old Rambler Crest is composed of 5 buildings, mainly with two-bedroom units of more than 600 square feet. ...Rambler Crest has a clubhouse for residents, providing a fitness room, a steam bath, a children’s playroom, and a reading room. Among them, the 200-meter-long outdoor swimming pool is especially advertised. However, the recreational facilities must be shared with long-term tenants of the nearby hotel."
3. "武漢肺炎︱青衣藍澄灣屋苑內酒店明起作等候檢測中心居民貼反對標語抗議" [Wuhan coronavirus︱The hotel in the Rambler Crest Estate in Tsing Yi will be a waiting test center tomorrow. Residents posted opposition slogans to protest]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2020-10-18. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  From Google Translate: "Rambler Plaza Tsing Yi is located in Rambler Crest, and the Rambler Crest Shopping Centre is downstairs. There are Rambler Plaza Hotel, Rambler Garden Hotel and Winland 800 Hotel in the housing estate. It is about 100 meters away from Block 6, and guests must pass through the estate to enter and exit the hotel. In addition, the hotel has used materials to cover the lobby glass today for unknown reasons."
4. 陳霄澤 (2016-09-29). "發展商借灰色地帶出售　藍澄灣中伏住戶：中產是無意義的虛名" [Developers use the grey area to sell. Rambler Crest: middle class is a meaningless name] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  From Google Translate: "Rambler Crest residents feel the same, protesting against the government's use of public housing residents as 'human barriers'".
5. "藍澄灣可任意打通" [Rambler Crest: can be opened at will]. The Sun (in Chinese). 2011-10-12. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  From Google Translate: "Rambler Crest is a second-tier housing estate in the same district. It is small in scale. It provides 5 buildings with a total of 1,585 units. The housing estates are highly flexible."
6. Kwok, Nicole (2003-06-06). "Hutch cuts Tsing Yi units by 30 per cent". Hong Kong iMail. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  The article notes that Rambler Crest is a "joint development" between Hutchison Whampoa Property and Cheung Kong (Holdings).
7. Kong, Ernest (2004-10-27). "Serviced units will be the last offered to individual buyers". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  The article notes that according to SK Pang Surveyors head Pang Shiu-kee, "a typical example was Hutchison Whampoa's Rambler Crest, next to Container Terminal No 9 in Tsing Yi, where there is heavy traffic even at night". The article notes, "Hutchison released the first batch of units at Rambler Crest for sale in June last year at an exceptionally low price of about $1,700 per square foot.Although the price has risen to more than $2,000 per square foot, Rambler Crest is still cheaper than other projects in Tsing Yi."
8. Ko, Kenneth (2003-06-12). "JP Morgan bearish on developers". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  The article notes, "Property analyst Raymond Ngai said Hutchison Whampoa's discount pricing at its Rambler Crest project in Tsing Yi might trigger a price war as urban properties were selling at New Territories prices. ... Projects in the New Territories would be affected most by the discount sale at Rambler Crest due to their weaker pricing power."
9. Eng, Dennis (2003-06-12). "Flat prices tipped to fall 15pc amid fierce competition". Hong Kong iMail. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  The article notes about a JPMorgan report, "Among them, Cheung Kong Holdings had its earnings forecast for 2003 and 2004 revised down by 10.2 per cent and 61.7 per cent, respectively, due to possible lower selling prices for projects such as Rambler Crest on Tsing Yi and Caribbean Coast Phase 2 in Tung Chung. 'Rambler Crest's discount pricing may trigger a new price war as properties in urban areas are selling at New Territories prices,' the report said, pointing out that only two-fifths of the property had been sold so far despite discounts of between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. JPMorgan warned that Rambler Crest could put further downward pressure on selling prices by other developers."
10. "Weekend flat sales best for 7 months". Hong Kong iMail. 2003-06-09. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  The article notes, "At the weekend, Hutchison Whampoa's Rambler Crest at Tsing Yi was in the spotlight, selling 200 units over the two days, and attracting 35,000 show-flat visitors yesterday alone."
11. Thomas, Nick (2003-06-07). "Developers' discounts intensify price war". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  The article notes, "New World Development and Henderson Land Development yesterday cut the price of units at the Tung Chung project, Seaview Crescent, on Lantau by 10 per cent to compete with Hutchison's Rambler Crest sale. ... The price-cut sale came after Hutchison released the first 12 units at Rambler Crest for public sale at $1,688 per square foot, more than 20 per cent below neighbouring projects."
12. Kwok, Nicole (2003-11-13). "Developers raise prices as outlook brightens". Hong Kong iMail. Archived from the original on 2021-02-20. Retrieved 2021-02-20.
  The article notes, "About 1,300 apartments at Rambler Crest have been sold for a total of about HK$2.3 billion. The average price was about HK$2,400 per square foot."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rambler Crest to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This housing property is a notable case in Hong Kong. It is not about the longest swimming pool. The proposer's claim that "Non notable housing development in Hong Kong" is totally wrong and does not following well on the guidelines about AfD. There are some reasons making this property particularly notable in Hong Kong.
1. This residential housing is adjacent to a large container port which violates the city planning.
2. The government only allowed its developer to build hotels.
3. The developer built hotels and resold the individual flats of several blocks to public. Part of hotel project became a residential one.
4. This residential development is hotel in nature and does not follow the regulation on residential housing such as fire regulations.
5. The residential housing shares recreation and amenity facilities with hotels. This is problematic on the government policy enforcement against Covid-19 and residents protests against the enforcement.
6. It is the first case in Hong Kong and some other development projects soon follows.
7. Geographically, it is the home of several thousand inhibitants under legally identifiable area and is naturally considered notable.

— HenryLi (Talk) 00:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article needs some cleanup, but the subject looks notable. SportingFlyer T·C 02:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, more aware of what's considered a reliable source now. Will start working on rewriting the page. (non-admin closure) pinktoebeans ^(talk) 17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Defenders Puzzle

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE, only reference is Metacritic which doesn't link to any reliable sources. Previously PRODed but no improvements have been made since. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't exactly follow the "Metacritic which doesn't link to any reliable sources" part of this AFD nomination, because it already links to several WP:VG/RS reliable sources, like Digital Spy [12], Slide to Play [13], Touch Arcade [14], Eurogamer [15] and Pocket Gamer [16]. Beyond that, there is some coverage in The Times and The Guardian [17] [18]. Should be enough to meet WP:GNG, which requires multiple reliable sources with a significant coverage of the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jovanmilic97. Article needs a rewrite regardless. IceWelder [✉] 15:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jovanmilic97, but also in favor of rewriting the article per IceWelder. Mario Jump 83! 01:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as described in this discussion the game has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:04, 21 February 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 Karen Traviss#Other short stories. Daniel (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable for the Orient

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) supplement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you." The PROD was endorsed by User:ReaderofthePack who concurred that besides a short mention here there seem to be no significant coverage of this story. Shortly thereafter, it was dePRODed by User:Andrew Davidson with the usual copy-paste meaningless rationale, ignoring my request for a more informative prod rationale and ReaderofthePack prod endorsement, so - here we go again. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Andrew Liptak certainly likes the story – see here, for example. And I expect there will be something about it in Locus which used to have regular reviews of the monthly magazine stories. And there's an obvious alternative to deletion – merger into the page about the author, who is certainly notable.

But the main thing I notice is that this material is being packaged and sold as a book: The Essential Writer's Guide: Spotlight on Karen Traviss (ISBN 9781286373279 and a snip at $28.99), "Read about her education, genres, analysis of her most popular books such as Omega Squad: Targets, Boba Fett: A Practical Man, and Suitable for the Orient, awards, other interests, and much more." That work is credited to Gaby Alez and so seems to be snubbing our good faith contributors such as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. If our edit history here is deleted, as the nomination proposes, then our contributors will be deprived of their due moral and legal rights, contrary to the attribution requirements of the CC licence which governs Wikipedia work. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? If deleting any article means that anyone who contributed to it, possibly including well-meaning and conscientious editors, is "deprived of their moral rights", would this not mean that no article, however terrible, could ever be deleted? Can you expound on this theory a little? Imaginatorium (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karen Traviss#Other short stories - The short story does not appear to pass the WP:GNG as there does not seem to have been any kind of substantial coverage of it in reliable sources. The only sources that appear to be available are the one mentioned in the nomination as being found by ReaderofthePack, and the one mentioned by Andrew above, both of which consist of exactly one sentence of coverage. A suitable redirect target exists, however, so keeping this as a viable search term for the author's work would make sense, and preserve the article's history. Rorshacma (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete. I wasn't able to find enough to justify this having its own article on Wikipedia and believe me, I really did try to find sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested to the author. This short story, by itself, has gotten minimal coverage, but a redirect is cheap when our core readership might be looking for the story and its author. Bearian (talk) 15:09, 26 February 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) 20:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Crew

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

Fails WP:NBAND Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — possible covert UPE on a non notable band that do not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The founder of this band is tagged for notability, so I cannot wholeheartedly recommend a redirect, as most likely the article will go to Afd. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed. Yet another case of trying to use WP to build up notability, rather than reflecting it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've just blocked the creator for brazen spamming and sockpuppetry. Deb (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The originating editor has been blocked by user:Deb for spam and sockpuppets - shall I go ahead and nominate it for deletion via G5? BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 05:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion; this fails WP:NBAND and appears to be another attempt at using Wikipedia to increase notability rather than having the notability to justify an article in the first place Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yaa Jackson

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

non-notable artist, or at least I can't seem to determine notability after wading through countless pages of stellar ~~reporting~~ gossip such as "Wet Yaa Jackson drops racy bathroom photo to send message to doom prophets" and "Yaa Jackson tapes her nipples, shows off cleavage in new X-rated video"

I also removed the discography which was sourced to a generic google search, I can find no evidence she meets WP:NMUSIC either. CUPIDICAE💕 12:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources currently in the article are the usual African paid promotion sites, and beyond those she is only present in typical self-created social media and streaming sites. She has not yet graduated from self-promotion in gossip rags. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some gossip, but nothing substantial about her career. Was a child actor, and supposedly still an actress and also a singer, but I have no idea if any of her songs or movies are prominent based on the sourcing available. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG so there is no possible policy-based reason for keeping the article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesper Weinkouff

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

Does not pass NFOOTY as he has not made any appearances in a fully professional league. Bocanegra (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bocanegra (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bocanegra (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Bocanegra (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have checked multiple football databases and can't find any professional appearances recorded. The only article I can find on him is this, which is not enough for WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The best arguments in this debate, as supported by policy and guidelines, fell on the 'delete' side of the debate. Daniel (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Nankinese

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

Has only two references.

The primary one is the Github-hosted outline of the romanization created by the WP page-creator+probable romanization-creator (else why is this one of 2 references and the only one describing the romanization? User:柳漫, and see https://github.com/uliloewi/lang2jin1/commit/2fdc822739d4dca0f00291a79646671669c94263). Hence it is WP:ORIGINAL research and WP:COI.
The second reference is an online pronunciation dictionary presented as an example of adoption of this romanization (http://cn.voicedic.com/) that appears to be crowdsourced, with no visible "About us" page apart from a Weibo page (and hence I believe it is fully plausible that 柳漫 themselves is responsible for usage of this romanization on the website).

There is also no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The input software base on Nankinese Pinyin is on GIT. It is downloaded and uesed by thousands of people in the world. A software or project on GIT is convincing enough for wiki. This is the reason why there is Vue.js on wiki. User:Suzukaze-c is active on Chinese wiki. He seems to be a supporter of CPC, whose policy is wiping out all languages and dialects except Putonghua in the territory. See the case of Tibet and Inner Mongolia--柳漫 (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have as yet no opinion on whether this article should be deleted or not, but must point out that Github is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Anyone can create an entry there. And whether the article Vue.js should exist, after being deleted in this discussion, is completely irrelevant to the article under consideration here. I am not a supporter of the Communist Party of China, but whether User:Suzukaze-c is or not is also irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existing refrences do NOT support WP:GNG I did a search and did not find anything. The two other language articles lan 1 & lan 2 are essential the same as the English, the lan 2 article has a single additional reference that is not enough to make this article subject pass notability Jeepday (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeepday: FYI, all three pages are created by the same editor, and the Chinese Wikipedia page includes extra information about a second (first?) pre-modern romanization used in a 1902 publication (which is itself the additional reference). Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My institute studies different Chinese romanization systems including Nankinese. The input software based on this romanization is published on GIT, which proves it exists. And GIT shows it is based on a published dictionary. On zh.wiki there is another romanization of Nankinese. This article should be extended instead of deleting. The references on zh.wiki show sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG.--NeujorK (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(No one else has mentioned it, so I will: strong suspicions of a WP:BADSOCK. Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Suzukaze-c: I agree with Phil Bridger, whether you are a supporter of any group is irrelevant. But your phantasy is really ...--NeujorK (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are no usable sources to be found in English and no one has pointed out usable sources in other languages. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a sufficient reason for deleting. A lot of articles show no usable source in English, but show in other language. This article describes a romanization of a language, which has already received attention from academy.--NeujorK (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NeujorK: Can you elaborate (what "academy"?) and provide evidence? Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, my institute studies different Chinese romanization systems including Nankinese.--NeujorK (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merely existing is not sufficient for inclusion. Reliable sources are necessary to establish notability. At present there are no secondary sources and only two primary sources cited. zh:南京話拉丁化方案 cites one additional source (which is in English, and is available on archive.org), but it seems to be a book about the Nanking topolect, not about this romanization system. Cnilep (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st page and the preface of Nanking Kuanhua show it is a doctoral thesis in Leipzig University. This means the romanization of Nankinese has got attention from academy since more than 100 years. Why should it be deleted? --柳漫 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lastiwka

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

WP:BLP of a composer, whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced. The basis for notability here is that he's composed music for television (NMUSIC #10) — but notability doesn't fall into place just because you assert passage of a notability criterion, it requires you to use real media coverage to support passage of the notability criterion. The sources here are not reliable or notability-supporting media, however, but his own self-published website about himself, Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person on blogs and podcasts, and a glancing namecheck of his existence in the internal newsletter of a professional trade organization. None of these are notability-supporting reliable sources, however, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of any independent third-party coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: One new source has been added to the article since the time of nomination — and while it is actually a real media source this time, it's not a substantive piece about Adam Lastiwka or his work, but just a glancing mention of Adam Lastiwka's existence in an overall review of a series. We're looking for sources that are specifically about him and his work, not sources that happen to mention his name in the process of being about something else. Bearcat (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ He has some third party coverage, mostly in industry media where he's done interviews and had some profiles written. 1 2 3 4. I'm not saying these are the strongest sources, but they do point to him being notable as a composer for film, TV and video games and I think they meet NMUSIC #10. The Paste story that mentions him, though only in passing, also clearly passes NMUSIC #10. If the interviews or profiles were in higher tier media I would be a strong keep all day but as it stands I can see either arguement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Face the Current is a blog, The Portfolio Composer is a podcast, and Hypable is a fandom app — so none of them are reliable or notability-clinching media outlets. SOCAN's Words and Music is fine — I've used it myself — but it isn't enough all by itself if it's the only decent source that can be found. Our notability standards aren't passed by just any web content you can find that happens to have the subject's name in it: firstly, it requires the sources to meet certain standards of journalistic quality and reputation, and doesn't just accept every website that exists. And secondly, it also requires the sources to do a lot more than just briefly mention his name, which is why I discounted the Paste source: we need sources that are substantively about him, not just sources that briefly mention his existence in the process of being about other things. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Color me convinced. Delete. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 20 February 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. Support redirecting where notability is a concern, although in this case I don't think this is a realistic search term due to the disambig with Bulgaria. That being said, if anyone feels strongly that there should be a redirect, please go ahead and create one :) Daniel (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makedonski Glas (Bulgaria)

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

Not able to find any reliable sources that prove that this newspaper is reputable enough to have a wiki page. MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE C.1. I found references suggesting this is both a newspaper and movement going back more then 100 years. ref 1 & ref 2 there are two other language papers that focus on the most current incarnation Lan 1 & lan 2 "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Jeepday (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Jeepday, unfortunately this is not the same newspaper, this page is about a newspaper founded in 2004. The newspaper that you are referring to was published from 1913 to 1918 by Macedonians and Bulgarians in Russia. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also the problem with the other two language pages is that the only source they have is of the newspaper's website which no longer exists. --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure any of the newspapers are notable on their own. See also Makedonski_Glas, but my search for references implies the subject of "Makedonski Glas" as a concept or movement is notable. Possibly they should all be combined under Makedonski_Glas, with the newspapers as minor mentions. Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also a third newspaper of the same name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makedonski_Glas but in the United States althought it also no longer exist. What the word 'Makedonski Glas' means in Macedonian is 'Macedonian Voice'. I don't agree that it is a movement more like a name inspired by the more famous newspaper published in 1913 to 1918. It is like the naming scheme of Times used by a lot of newspapers around the world. But I respect your input nonetheless.--MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haved added a mention around this matter on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_Voice_(1913%E2%80%931914), if you would like to take a look and share your opinion on my edit. There is around 11 newspapers of the same name, all of which no longer exist.MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe they should all redirect to Macedonian Voice (1913–1914) that looks like a notable article, and seems like what the references I was finding was talking about. Jeepday (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree --MacedonianGuy97 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. An unimportant short-lived low circulation newspaper. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 20 February 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. Piotrus, feel free to redirect if so desired. Daniel (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most sources either insignificant or affiliated with the architectural firm in some way. The exception is the source "The Work of MacKay-Lyons Sweetapple Architects - Economy as Ethic. ", seemingly impressive but in actuality is a very long coffee table book comprised mostly of promotional photographs of this architectural firms' work. Primary source. The awards, while impressive sounding, are generally minor industry awards whose institutions that award them are barely notable. The most important award would be the RAIC gold medal awarded to Brian Mackay Lyons and not to his firm as a whole. Would be better suited for his article. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/redirect. Press releases and worse. Canadian Architect reads like a low-reliability trade journal that obviously republished press releases - this is not 'reliable journalism'. The only thing going for them is the book Work of Mackay Lyons Sweetapple Architects: Economy as Ethic. The author seems reliable and I see no COI ([19]), and the publisher is reliable too (Thames & Hudson). It may be an album, but I see no reason to discount it or qualify it as a primary (not independent) source; at the same time, I can't provide any evidence the book contains in-depth discussion - it may be just an album with next to no text, hard to say. The book certainly hadn't made any waves, I can't find a single review. Ping me if more is found, or there is proof the book includes some analysis. IF it could be shown that the book does contain some analysis, I might be changing my vote to weak keep. PS. Ironically, if they decided to make the book open access, instead of treating it as the usual for-profit work (i.e. if we could see what's inside), it could help save this. But it seems they as usual prefer such old school methods of promotion, and thus can't get a Wikipedia entry... their choice. PPS. While unreliable as a source, the book has a good (lengthy) but negative review by an expert in Amazon comments: [20]. The review also notes that there are older books about works of Brian MacKay-Lyons (and here it is worth noting that the company is not notable, but their lead architect is - and hence, a redirect might be a valid outcome here). His biography already mentions his (less notable?) partner Talbot Sweetapple, whose name is the other half of the company's. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:42, 20 February 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. Sandstein 12:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of composers who studied law

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

This list was created as the result of a CFD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 5#Category:Composers who studied law) where users said it was "interesting" enough to warrant a list. I disagree, and would argue that such a trait is not defining nor meaningful. It seems an unhelpful collection of trivia, and I have trouble understanding how readers would benefit from such information. The user that created this list initially even said "I don't think the creation of this list is a particularly good idea..." This article is essentially an orphan article as well...! Aza24 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect people will disagree but I'm struggling to see how this is anything other than a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spiderone: @Aza24: @Piotrus: @Rhino131: Please see the article again, I've added several sources from academic literature which demonstrate there is a noticeable connection between the practice of law and music. This isn't just something found in random law blogs online.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prisencolin, I appreciate you work here, but the sources you added are almost all independent of each other—they're separate accounts of composers studying law and seem to still be WP:SYNTH (regardless of more than half of them being incomplete citations). This whole situation continues to stand out to me as blatant Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, unfortunately. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the feedback, I will complete those references at some point when I have time. As far as the SYNTH issues goes, I believe there is a longstanding precedent on WP to allow for large categorizations of people who fit WP:LISTPEOPLE criteria which otherwise don't exist in outside sources. For instance we have lists and categories such as Lists of people from London which have existed for years and I can't imagine anyone outside of the government or big tech is compiling this information elsewhere. This is perhaps indicative of a larger problem of standalone lists systematically violating SYNTH principles... Seeing the precedent that is established, I don't see an issue with this list of lawyer/composers in particular.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Prisencolin, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I quckly found Maurice Gorham (1951). Londoners. Percival Marshall.... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are readers who appreciate this. A quick browse soon finds some coverage and so it seems likely that there's more to be found: Legal Writing and Music: It’s Called Composition for a Reason; A Curious Synchronicity – Lawyers and Musicians. WP:NEXIST; WP:LISTN and WP:ATD therefore apply: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of the articles you've linked are high-quality sources, and it doesn't look like either of them have the authority to speak on the subject... I will also gently note that the "readers who appreciate this" is an average of 3 a day per page views so I'm not following your logic here. Aza24 (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TRIVIA. Not suitable for encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The intersection is less trivial than it sounds at first glance -- as Andrew says, it's a confluence people comment on outside of Wikipedia. It's very niche, which raises the question of just how worthwhile a niche it is, but overall "subject is of interest to a small circle of people" is hardline not a deletion criteria and this seems in the end to justify its existence. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly a non notable cross categorisation and lack of sourcing to provide any sense of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree this is trivia. Rhino131 (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources will be added soon. This is a phenomenon that has been described in literature.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An 100 year old newspaper article from a small town in California—Lompoc Record—how is this "literature"? The other sources are from individual articles or entries on composers, clear WP:SYNTH. Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it's not the best source... there should be more. However it's a testament to the WP:LASTING notability of this subject. --Prisencolin (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's this paper written by a law school publication.[21]--Prisencolin (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When someone is listed just because "he almost certainly attended lectures" I struggle to see how this isn't SYNTH. The sources note a coincidence that a small fraction of composers studied law in some way or another, but I can't see how this is anything more than an unencyclopedic cross-categorization from a contrieved analysis. It's in no way surprising that the wealthy and connected people of centuries past who "registered for law school" but "withdrew after one semester" could overlap to some unquantified extent with the wealthy and connected people who composed music, not to to mention also studied philosophy, political science, and mathematics. Reywas92^Talk 23:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay that particular example will be removed pending review.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prisen, your work is now expanding the list far beyond its scope. This is specifically a list of composers who've studied law, discusses the connection between music and law in general is far beyond the list. Aza24 (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article I cite does include a list of at least 7 people...--Prisencolin (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - If I were to copy the prose portion of the article to a new article and then have a small “List” section with those seven individuals in bullet points, what’s to stop it from just being deleted for WP:G4.—Prisencolin (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utter nonsense, elitist crap, nobody gives a shit. Acousmana (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Acousmana: Judging by your flippant use of profanity I’m assuming that you are unfamiliar with WP:ARGUMENTSTOAVOID in deletion discussion...—Prisencolin (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - i see no evidence of notability for this particular cross-categorization, there also appears to be general scarcity of scholarly sources with respect to evidencing that the observed correlation is noteworthy, and thus far, the argument for inclusion fails to provide a convincing rationale. Is that better? Acousmana (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - See the footnotes on page 38 of this article a from a BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School professor. It lists a dozen or so other other papers on this particular subject. I tried copying that list to this article but it got removed for copyvio, in the process of getting it restored.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - the individual postulating notes: "Perhaps it is more than a coincidence that a striking number of musicologists, composers, and theorists have also been lawyers,including Handel, Schumann, Tchaikovsky,Stravinsky, Bartok, Sibelius, and Schenker." Relative to the number of "musicologists, composers, and theorists" there have been throughout history, "striking number" seems like a bold claim? No? He also states: "This article is a tentative attempt to examine some of the similarities between musical and legal composition, and to reflect upon the paradoxes that arise in each field." I still don't see how any of this supports the inclusion of a "List of composers who studied law." The connection remains tenuous. I get it, some lawyers want to be viewed as "creatives," so drawing parallels with musical composition probably seems appealing.Meh.Acousmana (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand your concerns, as well as the fact that the authors themselves realize that their own writing is rather speculative, but the encyclopedia is not in a position to judge the merits of arguments, just to present them in a neutral perspective. This subject has been written about in reliable sources, and as such the information presented in said sources are WP:VERIFIABLE and suited for inclusion.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, we know, Händel studied law; etc... Anyway, this was never a defining characteristic for any of them (hence this was indeed rightly removed as a category even 11 years ago), and the list as it stands does not show WP:LISTN, thin air mentions by two high-minded law school elitists far off on their cloud notwithstanding. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Sharma

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

Fails WP:GNG or any relevant criteria. Sources cited in the article discuss the subject specifically in the context of his death and there is no coverage outside that. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NBIO. -Cupper52^Discuss! 10:25, 20 February 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. Passes WP:GNG after improvements made by contributors during the discussion. (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 17:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of Death Road

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

Fails GNG. Sourced almost entirely to the tabloid-like publication "Weird NJ", Shades of Death Road has received very little coverage in high-quality reliable sources. There is no indication that this legend carries any history or significance beyond its promotion by Weird NJ. –dlthewave ☎ 06:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added additional sources that weren't available years ago when I first created the article: a book, a newspaper article, and an episode of a nationally telecast TV series. That disproves your claim in the nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has WP:SIGCOV as per Daniel. Jumpytoo Talk 01:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The scope and breadth of reliable and verifiable sources, particularly as added, meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG thanks to the improvements by Daniel Case. Netherzone (talk) 22:12, 21 February 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. P Street Bridge is already mentioned in P Street, so I don't see a reason for a hatnote unless there's an indication the bridge is referred to as just "P Street". Likewise for Philip Whistler Street and Picabo Street. — The Earwig (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P Street (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Natg 19 (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: disambiguates the primary topic and one other article, so a hatnote should suffice and even that is probably unnecessary since the bridge is discussed within the main article. Also, does anyone really refer to the P Street Bridge simply as P Street? Lithopsian (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unnecessary, since it doesn't really disambiguate anything. Mangoe (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R Street (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. Natg 19 (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obviously providing a disambiguation purpose. The question of whether hatnotes could work here is reasonable, but (as someone who's written them myself) this is rubbing up against the length where those get unwieldy, and so a page is justified as the best way to present this information. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for deletion is that R Street (Washington, D.C.) is just a redirect to a general page about D.C. streets, and I don't think Richard Street was known as "R Street". Therefore, the only topic actually known as "R Street" is R Street Institute, the current primary topic. Natg 19 (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also question whether R Street should require disambiguation to Richard Street, this would be quite unusual in Wikipedia. The policy is to include such cases only where the person is commonly known by the term being disambiguated. I also wonder if the institute is really a primary topic despite there being no separate article for the street itself. It is hardly a household name. Lithopsian (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This builds too much on a redirect. I am also not convined that Richard Street was called R Street enough to justify having him as a possible connection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not much to usefully disambiguate here. R Street Institute seems to be the primary topic. There is no article covering an "R Street" in D.C. (Streets and highways of Washington, D.C. doesn't mention it specifically, only talking of the naming in general), but a hatnote can serve this function just as well. Does anyone call Richard Street "R Street"? No, I don't think so. — The Earwig (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Excluding either one of the two secondary topics would make this eligible for WP:ONEOTHER, and it looks like there are valid reasons to exclude at least one of those secondary topics. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 13:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as withdrawn (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time's Arrow (short story)

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

I am afraid that's another short story by a famous author that nonetheless seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NBOOK. I tried looking for references (and I expanded this tiny stub a bit) but the best I found was a passing mention in one book that this story could be seen as an early exampls of criticism of the time travel concept in fiction. But it's a passing mention that has problems with WP:SIGCOV, and I am not seeing anything better. The story doesn't seem to have won any awards; it is mentioned here and there in the context of being included in the first issue of of the magazine Science Fantasy (and perhaps the current article could be merged there, into a section about noteworthy stories that debuted there)? Other than that, it was included in an anthology The Best Time Travel Stories of the 20th Century, so reading between the lines, the notable editors of that anthology (which right now fails NBOOK itself) made a judgement to call it "one of the best..." but they don't explicitly say so, and referencing the title of the anthology as a claim of significance is rather far fetched. Inside the anthology there is another one-two sentence (so, SIGCOV-failing) discussion of the story ([22]), so sadly, it doesn't appear the editors had anything to say about the story that would help. Likewise, I found a similar one/two-liner about the story in another anthology here. It doesn't help that both of those tiny descriptions are anonymous (the first could be attributed ot the book editors, but I wasn't even able to determine who is the editor of the second anthology). And there is so little analysis in those two snippets anyway I wasn't even able to figure out how to add them to the current article as references. Closing, I'll note that the story has been included in a number of other anthologies (ex. [23]) but I none that I found seem to be digitized to allow checking if there is any analysis in them. Anyway, Clarke is famous but it doesn't appear that this story of his warrants a stand-alone article. But I am open to being proven wrong, and I am looking forward to see if anyone can dig up something more about this story. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far I'm not seeing much. This link goes to a thesis, but I'm unable to access it, possibly because it's geoblocked to only come up for people in Australia. If it's a doctoral thesis and it discusses the work, it could be usable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to find more, but I'm mildly hampered by lack of access to books that aren't completely available on the internet. I'm leaning more towards a keep with this one, but I want to keep searching. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack ignore that thesis, I downloaded it and Time arrow is not mentioned, it talks about Dick's "A Little Something for us Tempunants" and mentions "The Minority Report" and "Paycheck" in a footnote which relate to a book by Arthur Neal.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, boo. I was hoping for something good. Oh well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was wrong - I missed a small footnote " Later tales such as ‘Time Trap’ (1948) by Charles L.

Harness, Fredric Brown’s ‘Letter to a Phoenix’ (1949), Asimov’s ‘Day of the Hunters’ (1950), and Arthur C. Clarke’s ‘Time’s Arrow’ (1950) evoked the same themes of cyclical or ‘looping’ destruction, death, or conflict. This theme was also evident in SF fandom’s self-penned stories, such as ‘Paradox of the Time Circle’ (1947) by Rex E. Ward in his self-published fanzine Time Travel Tales21."Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found some coverage and added it to the article. From what I've seen, it looks like this was more discussed back in the pre-Internet age and coverage just sort of dropped off since then. It looks like it was discussed favorably in other sci-fi mags, per this and this in Amazing Science-Fiction and Amazing Stories. I can't get beyond a snippet view to see who is saying it and to what length, but the general language gives off the reasonable impression that there's almost certainly more coverage out there that's not online. Enough for my end, anyway. It's not Clarke's most lauded work, but I think that there's enough. I also expanded the article, so it's not a stub anymore. (Admittedly I did that more for the practice, before I found the coverage I had.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ReaderofthePack, I am impressed again, the article looks much better. Alas, as I cannot access any of the snippets (even to see a few lines), I remain concerned about whether WP:SIGCOV is met. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Something I recommend with Google Books is to try re-typing the content in parentheses. For some reason recently, Google Books has had issues with bringing up content with any sort of punctuation. I've had to re-type the search query (ie, "query") to get it to process properly. Dunno if that's the issue, but it's a big one I've run into lately so passing the info along. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. While I am still somewhat concerned about the letter of SIGCOV, WP:IAR comes to mind. This is borderline, maybe a bit on the wrong side of GNG, but I no longer have the heart to see this deleted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-withdrawal keep for confidence. An important short story, as they go. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per good work done by ReaderofthePack. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly another reference John Hollow, Against the Night, the Stars: The Science Fiction of Arthur C. Clarke. There is a whole chapter named Time's Arrow (Science Fiction Studies

33 = Volume 11, Part 2 = July 1984, BOOKS IN Review, Cockeyed Optimist, John Hollow. Against the Night, the Stars: The Science Fiction of Arthur C. Clarke. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1983. 197pp.)Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:34, 20 February 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. Although there was some interest in a redirect, consensus is to keep the article which was improved during the course of the AfD. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contaminated (song)

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

With the song only drawing coverage from ~~one source~~ a few sources: Rolling Stone, [2], and only making one sub-chart, I'm not sure it passes WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. More than a year after its release, it is still unlikely to ever be improved out of its stub status. N Ø 03:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage in Billboard and Paper Magazine not used in article, but I'm not sure it will expand beyond a stub even with them. Heartfox (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding these. The first source provides just one sentence of coverage, "On Wednesday (July 10), she unveiled 'Contaminated,' a heavy synth-based melody juxtaposed by the songstress' signature airy vocals to detail the draining and heartbreaking process of being with someone not healthy for you", and the Paper one seems to have been a website-exclusive premiere (thus not really a secondary source). With III (Banks album) also being a relatively short article, I still think this could be comfortably accommodated there.--N Ø 05:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Redirect to III (Banks album). Heartfox (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even after the expansion I still think it could just be converted into three or four sentences in the album article, which is quite underdeveloped. Heartfox (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I added the mentioned sources above and several others I found. I believe the article now demonstrates notability. Carbrera (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to III (Banks album). --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does have sources, but I am uncertain whether the sources satisfy this requirement of NSONGS: The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single. So far I am only seeing skimming-through mentions of the song. HĐ (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To note, I am completely okay with such sources as long as the article is reasonably detailed beyond stub-class, but without being overtly detailed. HĐ (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a charted single, so it passes WP:NSONG. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I've moved the links to Hard clam; would appreciate another pair of eyes to make a decision about trimming the text a bit if possible. Not leaving a redirect as it would be unnecessary and fall under CSD G14. — The Earwig (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quahog (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER, there really should be at least 3 topics for a db page and this doesn't to have a good reason for an exception. I would also note that the first entry, Arctica islandica, *resembles* the hard clam (quohog) but isn't the same thing at all. The only reason for the db page seems to be that Hard clam already has plenty of hat notes, and Family Guy uses the name as a setting for the show. I'm not sure that is enough to ignore all rules and leave the db page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I am to support deletion, I think Arctica islandica and Quahog, Rhode Island should be incorporated into the hat note on hard clam. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 08:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quahog: It looks like about the same situation as the Cherrystone hat note on hard clam, so supporting delete/redirect. I prefer redirecting because wp:redirects are cheap. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 09:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I created this disambiguation page in 2008 and was unaware of WP:ONEOTHER at the time (though CSD:G7 would not apply since there is a somewhat large list of editors). Arctica islandica and Quahog, Rhode Island can simply be added as a hatnote on Quahog. A redirect is unnecessary because it is very unlikely a reader would search for "Quahog (disambiguation)" Frank Anchor^Talk 03:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On one hand, redirect to Hard clam is no good, because titles including (disambiguation) should really go to a disambiguation page. On the other hand, while Arctica islandica does start with the words, "The ocean quahog", it's at best a partial-title match, so ONEOTHER would seem to rule the day. Both the clam and the fictional town can go in a hatnote, similar to the current one for cherrystone. Cnilep (talk) 07:51, 26 February 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) 20:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warsame Ali

AfDs for this article:

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

The 2009 AfD strangely closed as no consensus. There is no significant coverage and one of the keeps was based on his supposed major "role in the higher educational system of his country", but he is an assistant professor and it was stated in the first AfD that he co-founded a virtual university. The University of Gedo's website doesn't exist anymore and I doubt its notability as well. The two minor awards are unreferenced and they wouldn't show notability anyway. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it was bizarre that this BLP was not deleted last time. Lack of enough citations to pass WP:Prof or anything else. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - assistant professors are generally not notable under WP:NACADEMIC, and there's no indication that he's had the sort of substantial impact on his field that might qualify for notability under those criteria or the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By now he appears to be associate, not assistant. But tenure is not a WP:PROF criterion and he doesn't appear to pass any of the actual criteria. In particular his citation record [24], while respectable, isn't enough to convince me of #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 20 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Bullock

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

Known for a single event; all coverage is a result of a viral TikTok video. Possibly (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is true that all coverage is the result of a viral TikTok video, but the coverage does not solely focus on the video. Most of the articles (and there are a lot; see also the list on Talk:Morgan Bullock) include a decent amount of information about her history and who she is in general in addition to the information about the video and subsequent attention. (Should I note that I created this article?) Aerin17 (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article does not meet WP:BLP1E. The events caused by the event of going viral should be treated as separate events from the event of going viral. Apart from that, the subject is unlikely to be a WP:LOWPROFILE individual. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 08:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the subject is not a a low-profile individual as outlined in WP:BLP1E, as she has happily engaged in high-profile interviews with multiple programs and news agencies – BBC News and Good Morning America included – and published an article about her experience in The Guardian. From what I found while searching for sources last night, she furthermore will be performing at relatively high-profile venues this year such as New York City's St. Patrick's Day parade and the St. Brigid's Day Concert in Pittsburgh. In short, I seriously doubt the subject "has not sought or desired the attention" associated with the event, though I think Aseleste's argument above about separating the event that went viral and going viral itself is a massive stretch, and one that's not necessary to establish that BLP1E does not apply here. As far as notability is concerned, so long as we've determined BLP1E doesn't apply, I believe the citations both used in the article and gathered on the article's talk page easily clear the WP:GNG. Potential biases in favor of my vote include: 1) I was asked to participate in this discussion by the article's creator. However, I found this discussion organically before I saw their request, and moreover, the request very clearly met WP:APPNOTE. 2) I contributed substantially to the article, in large part to help establish the subject's notability and remove the notability issue tag. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 14:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What it boils down to is that if she had not posted a video to TikTok, we would not have this page. The subsequent coverage is all over the period of five months, as far as I can see. So ask yourself, is posting the video an important event? No. Is the dance itself an important event? No. Does the coverage talk about anything notable about her beyond the fact she uploaded a popular video? No. The story here can be abbreviated as "girl posted a video of herself dancing. Video went viral." See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. Possibly (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you just activated my trap card. Nah, just kidding, of course. All joking aside, I decided to do a bit more research today since my late-night editing usually contains oversights, and I realized I'd completely skipped over two articles about Bullock's involvement in Ireland's new diaspora strategy. Not only do I still believe WP:BLP1E's second criteria is not met (which in itself is one of three conditions that must each be met to exclude the article per the standard set forth), but I now believe its first criteria isn't met either, as we now have two reliable sources covering Bullock in the context of another, less dominant event. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of those articles mentions the dispora strategy for a single sentence. See WP:BIO1E, not WP:BLP1E. I never suggested she meets the latter. Possibly (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went and read WP:BIO1E. It says, "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." She became famous because of the viral video, but she's also notable for the diaspora strategy, even if that event isn't as significant; and it will only continue to become more significant as it goes into effect. Aerin17 (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes lots of things could happen to make her become notable... in the future. This diaspora strategy coverage is just hot air. Possibly (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Reason #1: Nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one else has recommended the page to be deleted or redirected. (non-admin closure) ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 05:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of Study for Girls

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

Very short article, notability not established.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PatGallacher (talk • contribs)

Keep An early study plan for women, and article declares it's a stub; the latter isn't a good reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This particular text was written 498 years ago. Several authors have discussed it in books, and I have included two more sources for the article. If it is still a topic in academic literature 498 years after its first publication, it is a safe bet to say it is notable. Possibly (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update:I have added three more, bringing the sources to six in number. The subject here is widely mentioned as part of the history of education. Possibly (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I recognise notability has now been established. PatGallacher (talk) 05:40, 20 February 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 01:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teuta Kurti

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

Singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 20 February 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fortesa Hoti (singer)

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

Singer doesn't appear to be notable enough to have a own article. The article has multiple issues, lacks of good references and fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Lorik17 (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contestants in Idol shows do not automatically get a pass. We usually keep the winners, and sometimes the show and place, but there's no indication this person got even into the Top Ten. Sources are two local news reports, her autobiography, and an interview. Ping me if you find better coverage or her actual ranking (in English, please). Bearian (talk) 15:13, 26 February 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.

^ https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2021-02-04&end=2021-02-24&pages=First_woman_on_the_Moon
^ "NASA: Human Research Goals". Retrieved 27 February 2021.

[1] ttps://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2021-02-04&end=2021-02-24&pages=First_woman_on_the_Moon

[2] "NASA: Human Research Goals". Retrieved 27 February 2021.