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 07:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time and Space Limited[edit]

Time and Space Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable theatre company. scope_creep^Talk 19:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Created by an editor with many articles deleted/prodded for badly lacking sourcing, this is one of a piece with them. Of the three non-primary sources, all three are about the founders instead. None have anything to do with the subject, except that the third one (an ephemeral and infrequent local arts mag that has about seven pages of advertising to every page of content), in a profile of -- you guessed it -- the founders, namedrops the subject's location in terms of a pitch for a gallery exhibit that month in the space. Fails the GNG by a country mile. Ravenswing 00:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Ravenswing can't find any evidence of notability. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Would seem sensible to include parts of this article as a sub-section in the Linda Mussmann article, she is notable (multiple NYT articles on her work in different years). There doesn't seem to be specific notability guidelines for theatres, but there are some for sports: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Event_Venues/Sports_task_force/Notability: generalising it we find that because this theatre hasn't put on world famous performances and doesn't host a world famous 'team' it is not notable.
• Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Bungstnk (talk) 04:18, 20 June 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 Konjević Polje. Sandstein 07:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konjevići (Bratunac)[edit]

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

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

Duplicate of Konjević Polje. Grawiton (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Grawiton (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I dont think this needs a deletion discussion. Mccapra (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• bs:Konjevići (Bratunac) seems to explain this already, "Konjevići" is a hamlet that is part of the mjesna zajednica ('local community', likely the lowest level administrative division) of "Konjević Polje". I'm not sure if both a village and its hamlets aren't valid gazetteer entries per WP:5, but either way a merge and redirect seems like a much more appropriate solution than deletion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:02, 20 June 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. Opinions split roughly equally between keeping, deleting and redirecting. Suggest a talk page thread to discuss further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following a DRV, the result was changed to redirect to Twenty One Pilots#Regional at Best Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regional at Best (Album)[edit]

Regional at Best (Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The sources are either primary, do not discuss the subject, or are not reliable. This has gone through two previous AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional at Best (album) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional at Best)) and there are two drafts (Draft:Regional at Best and Draft:Regional At Best) that have gone nowhere because of this. Delete and WP:SALT. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an EXTREMELY important album of Twenty One Pilots, and I'll add sources. Mausebru (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its apparent importance is immaterial. Prove it is important by supplying significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject that discuss the album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This album is beloved by so many fans, and I'm pretty sure we all help improve this article if it means that it gets to stay. A Battlefront Gamer (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2021 (EST)
  • A beloved album does not make it notable. Fans have had multiple years to supply sources to the draft articles. If you cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject , we need to delete the article because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of fan favourite topics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This page has more references than their self titled album, just to mention. If admins wanna delete this page, then delete that one too. This page has like 20-30 refs, while the other one has only 11. Just noting Mausebru (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does, but some of those references are actually about that album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it appears that there is a cabal working on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARegional_At_Best_%28album%29&type=revision&diff=1028443362&oldid=1028443305 Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You do not need to delete this page. It's completely valid and deserves a Wikipedia page of it's own. I fully support it's stay on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:51DF:BE23:94A:27F5:2BB:94BD (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Twenty One Pilots discography and protect against reversion. Notwithstanding the bludgeoning of different opinions and unsupported claims of conspiratorial cabals, the nominator is correct about how this album has never been discussed on its own terms in reliable music media. It is only ever mentioned briefly as a precursor to Vessel. The record company calls it "unofficial" [1] and most of the songs were later improved and re-released elsewhere. It was a quickie fanclub release handed out at a few gigs, with 3,000 in sales for a band that sells millions of everything else, and I wonder if it even deserves to be described as one of the band's true albums. The songs became notable in their own ways later, but this album's existence as an entity in its own right is dubious. Its limited release can be (and is) described as a brief item in the band's history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Delete - Agreed with Doomsdayer520's assessment. It doesn't look like its an official album but is mentioned as an item in the band's history. That warrants a redirect at the very most. --ARoseWolf 19:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgot to say that Regional at Best (correct capitalization) and Regional At Best are redirects. This article was moved after the AfD was started. Regional at Best (Album), Regional at Best (album), Regional At Best (album), Regional At Best (Album) are unnecessary DABs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's probably the work of fans who were unaware or, or refused to accept the results of, previous delete/redirect discussions like this one. Hence my recommendation for protection against even more reversions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. While redirects are cheap, do we really want one at every possible location as a likely search term? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should most definitely be protected and we do not need all of those redirects. Even a redirect title should follow Wikipedia's guidelines on style. Walter Görlitz has a point. There is only one correct way to title the redirect. I would suggest that the correct format/style of the album title should be kept. It is already redirected so that would make this article and all the other redirects not needed and should be deleted. I am changing my suggested course of action to delete based upon the discussion above. --ARoseWolf 14:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Twenty One Pilots discography and protect. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Twenty One Pilots discography, per nom. Doesn't warrant an article, regardless of its importance or likeness. If it eventually receives a re-issue, I can see it having its own article. EthanRossie2000 10:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sakeef Ahmed Salam[edit]

Sakeef Ahmed Salam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus fail to satisfy WP:GNG, a WP:BEFORE search turns up a plethora of user generated and self published sources all of which we do not consider to be reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I could find something about him but not very much. Significant coverage is for sure not given - or at least not now.Tec Tom (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for the closing admin: can you please ping me if the result is delete? I came here from the wikidata requests for deletions page, where the associated item was nominated for deletion - the item (d:Q107242387) can't be deleted until the article is deleted. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Murray[edit]

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

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

The highest level of basketball he has played is the Japanese B. League, which is not one of the leagues listed at WP:NHOOPS. He played at two lesser-known colleges and was undrafted in the 2009 NBA draft. The "article" is literally two sentences long (plus an infobox), and includes just two sources, one of which isn't even in English. Murray does not qualify as notable per WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Support deletion'. He doesn't seem to meet any notability guidelines.Tec Tom (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. A quick Google search does not list anything else aside from statistics database listings. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The song has received enough coverage upon its release. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let Them Know[edit]

Let Them Know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pre-release churnalism and press releases to hype an upcoming album, with not enough substance in the sources to fill a thimble. Quite simply WP:TOOSOON by (optmisticially) a few weeks and should be redirected to artist until then, but since that redirect was reverted, here we are. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to correct the nominator, this is a single not an album and it is by a high profile pop artist that will chart highly following its release in 4 days. NME, Official Charts Company and The Line of Best Fit articles are written by staff and are not press releases. There's also articles written in the Daily Star and The Sun which I never included due to them being tabloids. Per WP:NSONG this is independent coverage and the article will grow beyond a stub. It's not WP:TOOSOON with release date only 4 days away and the current details such as writing credits, cover art, release date, song length, inspiration behind the song all being notable and verifiable. The article received nearly 300 views yesterday. Cool Marc ✉ 03:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NME, LOBF and OCC articles are just announcements of the single's release, heavily quoting Mabel's own Instagram post, and release announcements don't make the song notable. The existence of writing credits, cover art and song length don't make the song notable either, and the inspiration is a statement by Mabel taken from a press release, so it's not independent. So yes, this was definitely created too soon and with no in-depth independent or notable coverage. Having said all that, I agree that this is likely to chart in multiple countries next week and independent reviews of the song are likely to appear online very soon, so it's probably not worth deleting now. Richard3120 (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely concur with Richard3120. The single has not been released yet and there is lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent. So the article is currently WP:TOOSOON. But it's not worth deleting immediately since there is a possibility of it charting and being reviewed by reputed sources, so should better be redirected to Mabel discography. --Ashleyyoursmile! 17:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I would recommend against deleting the article one day before the song is out. It is generating decent page views too so deletion would disservice those people looking for information about it.--NØ 15:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RAPID and MaranoFan's comments. It's generally not helpful to nominate a music-related article for deletion when the recording in question is unreleased and thus its notability can not be as easily determined; because of this, doing so is often seen as an act of bad faith. I do wish people would develop articles for unreleased singles in draftspace first in order to avoid these things (no-one wants their work being tossed out pretty much straight away), but oh well. (For the record, it's also out now, at least where I live). Sean Stephens (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is already enough coverage. It's true that it may end up charting, but you cannot assume so per WP:TOOSOON. Lesliechin1 (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Mabel_discography#Singles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are enough reliable sources backing the article as The Line of Best Fit, DIY or Los 40. Plus this is obviously going to chart on the UK next week. Anonpediann (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of classical music in literature[edit]

List of classical music in literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An impossible scope that could include thousands upon thousands of books. I have no idea what this list offers the encyclopedia or what use a reader would ever find in it. Furthermore, I'm not convinced it passes WP:LISTN, as there is no way that it is "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". If this isn't WP:TRIVIA, I don't know what is. Aza24 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is tough. On one hand, I agree with you. On the other, this topic is an interesting one which could potentially be much expanded upon into an article, rather than a bare list. There probably is enough material out there to fashion this into a solid article; something which studies the history of the uses of music in literature, traces its first mentions, how certain writers may have been influenced by a particular work or by classical music in general, etc. Off the top of my head, the life and work of Alejo Carpentier (who was a professional musicologist on top of being a novelist) come to mind. Usually, I'm all for deleting these kind of things, but this particular one is tricky as I can see its potential to be something more. But I agree that it is deficient as it presently exists. --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An intersectional list which adds no genuine information about either of its constituents - as meaningless, arbitrary and and WP:TRIVIAl as lists of 'animals in literature' 'art in literature', 'skyscrapers in literature' or any other '[noun/s] in literature'.--Smerus (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Listing every time X appears in fiction is what TV Tropes does, but it does not make for proper Wikipedia articles (see WP:CARGO). I don't see this filling any WP:LISTPURPOSE. It might be possible to write a prose article about this as CurryTime7-24 suggested; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction for an example of a poor list article being turned into a decent (if short) prose article. Writing such a prose article would however necessitate finding sources discussing the concept, rather than just listing examples. All that being said, this list article contains nothing that would be of any use for such a hypothetical prose article, so there's no point in trying to repurpose the existing one. Better to delete this one and create the other one from scratch (if it can be written at all, that is). TompaDompa (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Smerus et al. It kind of makes me go "ooh lovely, what a great idea" when I see it, because, oddly enough, I am into those two things (duh) ... but when I look at it it's in horrible danger of being just a crufty list, like Smerus's rather good examples to which I am tempted to, but will not, add more. And yes re it perhaps becoming a proper article – that is, as TompaDompa says, potentially an interesting idea but it requires proper stuff and that is not presently here. Mentioning in a literature article where it refers to classical music, in a nontrivial way – yes, good idea, and likewise the inverse ... but this, I just don't think it really flies. And it doesn't look as though the original author is still around to help make something other of it. So, sorry, I think we should probably Let It Go as they say. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 17:50, 20 June 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. Unsigned vote is considered a keep (but could be COI), but argument of the last keep are convincing. (non-admin closure) Peter303x (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kain Rivers[edit]

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

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

A person does not fulfill the criteria from the rules for music performers WP:MUSIC and there are no professional reviews of creativity --Cherbur (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kain Rivers clearly is a singer. Why should the page be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1715:4e35:28a0:4e8:a648:b2c4:a588 (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 13:54, 30 May 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 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : passes criterion number 9 of WP:SINGER for his performance as finalist in Junior Eurovision 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialan (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 June 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Meadows[edit]

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

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

Doesn't really seem to pass GNG - no extensive personal coverage - just blogs and professional bios. Pipsally (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this page should be deleted. Meadows has been the sporting director of Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team since it's enception and has been a prominent part of the team which has won 7 back to back constructors and drivers titles. Therefore I believe he meets the notability guidelines. I think you think I should add more sources, I will do so. https://merseysportlive.co.uk/2021/04/22/ron-meadows-i-was-never-someone-who-aspired-to-be-in-formula-1/ this is some personal coverage btw. Ralphster7 (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2021 (BST)

• Delete Nothing notable in own right. Just a bunch of stuff on the internet mentioning him in passing. A lot of the sourcing and wording here is of the same ilk. Although just appeared on coverage of French GP, again it will be just passing. Games of the world (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral comment - Performing a WP:BEFORE check returns a lot of false positive results, which makes establishing notability difficult. This result which was returned by a Google Books search may be promising, and the large number of passing mentions in news stories may cumulatively amount to something more significant. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, coverage is mostly WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:32, 22 June 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. WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Mather Spelman[edit]

Timothy Mather Spelman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 09:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article does a poor job in presenting why Mr. Spelman was a notable composer, and its sourcing is extremely thin.TH1980 (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator. He warrants an entry in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, reproduced here. I will expand when I have the chance. Also, I would like to note that I am the creator of this article and I was not notified that it was up for deletion, which I believe is proper process. Edited to add: I just checked The New Grove Dictionary of American Music, and he's in there, too. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources indicated by Ser Amantio Di Nicolao, which demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have now expanded the article per the sources listed. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep thanks to WP:HEY. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:29, 22 June 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 Citylink (Taiwanese shopping malls). Less Unless (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citylink Neihu[edit]

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

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

I don't like having to base this on articles I can evaluate only approximately, but it seems clear that the references are mere notices and PR. If there is any actual notability , it would be for the chain, not this branch. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here are the sources Heeheemalu (talk · contribs) included in the article:
  1. "(Chinese)CITYLINK內湖店開幕　啟動垂直型態生活". Mirror Media.
  2. "(Chinese)內湖CITYLINK引進蔦屋書店，潤泰新建案吸引目光". MoneyDJ.
  3. "(Chinese)內湖人注意！全新CITYLINK開幕還有日本最美的蔦屋書店". ET Today.
  4. "(Chinese)睽違多年！　「內湖聯開案」共構商場正式開幕". TVBS Times.
  5. "(Chinese)內湖CITYLINK 蔦屋書店進駐". China Times.
  6. "(Chinese)蔦屋書店與WIRED CHAYA進駐！ CITYLINK內湖店開幕". Yam News.
  These sources provide significant coverage of the shopping mail's origins and its tenants and amenities. In addition, this article from the Liberty Times briefly discusses the performance of the shopping mall. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Citylink Neihu to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Citylink Songshan and Citylink Nangang into a single article on the chain (like on the Chinese Wikipedia: zh:CITYLINK (購物中心)). Or keep until somebody does the merging. —Kusma (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The other two articles (Citylink Songshan and Citylink Nangang) are now redirects to Citylink (Taiwanese shopping malls), and this one should be as well. If anyone has suggestions what to do with infoboxes or xlink templates and what images to choose, please help. —Kusma (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that suggested merge would be a good solution. DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, I can have a go at writing a merge target (translating from the Chinese article) over the next couple days. Do you have a good suggestion for the best disambiguator? Citylink (shopping malls)?? —Kusma (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there is already an article for CityLink Mall, in Singapore. I gather it is unrelated to these; if so you might try Citylink (Taiwan). I think this is a little confusing, since Citylink almost always refers to some sort of transportation service, but the WP rules call for the minimum necessary. See the disambiguation page, Citylink, which illustrates the confusion caused by our current rule. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Citylink here refers to malls that are connected to rapid transit stations, so the name isn't as stupid as I had originally thought (source in English if you care). Will probably go for Citylink (Taiwanese shopping malls) so the article title doesn't look like it's about something else. —Kusma (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard, DGG, see User:Kusma/sandbox/1 for a bare-bones merged version (with a little extra text). Move that to mainspace, add some pictures, redirect all? —Kusma (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fine with me. Glad to see the explanation of the name. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I support a merge/redirect to Citylink (Taiwanese shopping malls)#Neihu branch. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, as per DGG and Cunard. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Earth Market[edit]

Green Earth Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Has some coverage, but doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Currently one dead link and one press-release as refs. According to this [2] is small store with a web presence. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS.
• Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant news coverage. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anandi Gopal[edit]

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

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

DOesn't meet notability guidelines. Possible WP:ATDs are redirect/merge to Anandi Gopal Joshi/Legacy or to Shrikrishna Janardan Joshi, but I don't think either are justified. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It doesn't appear that this play was ever given a major production or even published in a notable way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The play is here but not the playwright. That is weird. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:15, 15 June 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)} 12:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Foster[edit]

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

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

Doesn't have the success or sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. No suitable merge/redirect target. Also seems written as an advert, and has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for now. My first article as a beginning editor. Also unfortunately an editor with an obvious COI came and edited it. I believe the sources within the article demonstrate notability, but also appears on Billboard's charts [3], has long been published by Mel Bay [4], Reviewed by the Christian Herald (Christian Herald - Volume 103 - Page 76), written about in-depth in Frets magazine (Frets - Volume 6 - Page 48, 1984). His period of greatest success was the late 1970s and early 1980s, so most of this is unavailable digitally. Still, I'm not sure how GNG is not met, and I'm not sure how you define "success", as he has been touring the United States for 40 years, supporting himself with his playing. Certainly he isn't a rock star, or the latest internet meme... Warning: most of the newspapers.com results are obviously PR pieces handed to the Religion editor, they duplicate each other nearly word-for-word. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of being notable. A local church guitarist who goes to gigs. It has a notability tag for more than a decade and no attempt has been made to update it with newer sources, because they don't exist. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - The News Journal and Daily Courier sources look to me like they would contribute towards the subject meeting WP:GNG, but not quite to the extent that I'm persuaded to support a keep. The Orlando Sentinel source just mentions that he will be playing a free show, and the types of music that can be expected there. Watchlisting this as I may change my vote if further evidence of notablity is provided. I'd be interested to know more about the coverage in Frets. As for the honest comment that "most of the newspapers.com results are obviously PR pieces handed to the Religion editor, they duplicate each other nearly word-for-word" - I think that recycling of PR materials is very common across many types of newspaper/magazine/web articles; if they appear in a reliable source then I'm personally happy that they are OK. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nominated for a Dove Award and has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as a dedicated Billboard piece and the Orlando Sentinel, passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to Billboard coverage and also keep in mind that lot's of news from that era is not available online. Lesliechin1 (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Regarding WP:MUSICBIO:
• 1: Yes
• 2: Yes, technically (at least #36 on Billboard's Inspirational LPs)
• 3: No
• 4: Not really, coverage on individual concerts of what appears to be a national tour '95 and '96, but no coverage of the tour itself.
• 5: I'm going no. Bread & Honey was a significant, but not major, label in the religious market in the mid 70s to early 90, but I actually don't think I could write an article about it. One of his albums was released on Chapel Records, but only one, so fails.
• 6: No
• 7: Only if you define the genre narrowly enough. The foremost representative of Christian fingerstyle guitar, yes, but that's not a notable topic.
• 8: Yes. The Dove Awards are the highest honor in American Christian music.
• 9: No
• 10: No
• 11: I don't think so. I wrote this article when brand new to wikipedia because I used to work at a Christian radio station. Foster's music received fairly heavy rotation. We were an influential station, and the trade magazine for Christian radio at the time used us to create their charts. It was not Billboard. I was not program director, and I paid little attention at the time, wish I knew what the name of that rag was, and had access to it now. If you listen to a station that plays "conservative" Christian music you are likely to hear Foster's music, but these type of stations almost never announce selections. So he has a nationwide radio audience, but not by a "network" other than possibly American Family Radio and Family Radio, but I can't prove any of this with sources currently available to me.
• 12: No

Regarding WP:GNG, here is an analysis of the sources currently in the article.

• 1. (Paul Baker, Billboard) Casual mention not conferring notability, used to classify genre and label he was with at time (his most successful period, also demonstrates that, unlike Edensong, it is not self-published). This is an indication of likely notability. Independent, reliable, but not SIGCOV so does not count toward GNG. That said, "local church guitarists" do not get casual mentions in Billboard as representatives of a genre, in the same class as Dino Kartsonakis and Roland Lundy, 2015 Gospel Music Hall of Fame inductee.
• 2. (Margaret Davie, Daytona Beach News Journal) Newspaper article about Foster. Independent, reliable, and SIGCOV. Counts toward GNG.
• 3. (Guitar and Lute Magazine, 1982) Review of Foster performance in secular magazine. Independent, reliable, and SIGCOV. Counts toward GNG.
• 4. (Orlando Sentinel, 1996) Casual mention announcing concert, used because it isn't a PR piece, used to support GMA Dove Award nomination claim. Independent
• 5. This is one of many similar pieces, signifying it was sent to the newspaper editor who ran it without a lot of modifications. See next section for further commentary.
• 6. (Frets magazine, 1989) Full album review in secular magazine, 1989. Independent, reliable, and SIGCOV, counts towards GNG.

So as the article currently stands, there are three sources counting towards GNG, and by most estimations that notability standard is met.

There are several available sources that are not in the article. As mentioned, there are several appearing as news articles in reliable sources, but which are clearly based upon material provided by Foster or his agent. They do not count toward GNG, but clearly refute the notion he is a "local church guitarist who goes to gigs". They include Santa Maria, California (Mar 1983); Santa Cruz, California (Jan 1987); Albany, Oregon (Jan 1987); Salem, Oregon (Jan 1990); Albany, Oregon (Mar 1991); Coos Bay, Oregon (Dec 1991); Ukiah, California (Jan 1992); Arroyo Grand, California (Jan 1992); Santa Clara, California (Feb 1992); Longview, Washington (Feb 1995); Arroyo Grand, California (Mar 1995); Lompoc, California (Mar 1995); Provo, UT (Mar 1995); San Pedro, California (Jan 1996); Jackson, Mississippi (Mar 1996); Lincoln, Nebraska (April 1996), and I quit looking through Newspapers.com after this, although there are more results. (and I am not counting the numerous concert announcements which expand the timeline and geographic scope of his touring career)

However, the following contain significant, independent, reliable coverage of Rick Foster:

• Christian Herald - Volume 104 - Page 12 (1981) - album review
• Grace Like a River by Christopher Parkening, page 91, talks about Foster's arrangement of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" Parkening popularized.
• [5]
• [6]

this Billboard advertisement, while in and of itself not independent nor in-depth, indicates with almost certainty the existence of at least nine independent, in-depth, reliable sources which are not available online.

The following are of interest, but don't count towards establishing notability:

• [7]
• [8] - featured columnist at Fingerstyle Guitar magazine.

In any case, GNG is met, and therefore MUSICBIO as well. QED. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Bungstnk (talk) 04:24, 20 June 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Five Crowns (game)[edit]

Five Crowns (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Please see original discussion, which was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy re-nomination (very few contributors).

This doesn't have the coverage for a standalone article. I would favour deletion, but an ATD could be merge/redirect to Set Enterprises#Games. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The company's page could well be deleted so a merge may not be the best idea. There are a few reviews in German, but nothing that stands out as reliably reliable enough to contribute to an encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unreferenced claims of niche awards (not major board game awards I recognize at least). Reviews: [9] (minor website/blog), [10] (blog?), Not seeing enough for this to meet GNG. BGG page: [11] (RANK: OVERALL 4,158 - FAMILY 1,235) plus some forum reviews (and youtube, of course). The game does not seem to have generated enough media buzz, critical reception or higher visibility reviews to merit a page here. My rule of thumb is that games in Top 200 BGG "overall" ranking (or Top 100 "specialized") are often notable, while anything ranked above Top 1000 is very rarely worth an article, and this rule seems to be met here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Lots of reviews in German. Even a mini-review (5 paragraphs) by Orson Scott Card, not worth much, but worth noting. https://www.spielkultisten.de/ is, I think, generally considered reliable (though I'm having problems finding anything on their site). (same !vote as last time). Hobit (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No major coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG. Peter303x (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks coverage to establish notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ali Khan[edit]

Amir Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article seems to not meet Wikipedia's notability standard. It cites one source, and does not even contain a birth & death date. Card Carrying Parrot (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Currently there is no reliable source cited, raising the question of WP:HOAX. If we find a verifiable source, then arguably the article would meet WP:NPOL by virtue of the claimed office. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Raja is a Hindu title and Amir Ali Khan is a Muslim name. Padalpur is in Maharashtra not Chennai, and Chennai was under direct British rule, not princely states. Mccapra (talk) 04:42, 20 June 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. Sandstein 07:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Performance (textiles)[edit]

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

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

Per last time raj created this. Tis a pure marketing term. -Roxy . wooF 19:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per WP:HEY, This article is about attributes of various textiles. Yes, I agree that initially, it lacked clarity. I am working on it. Admin please check the corrections. RV (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article explains the textile's performance under various conditions, moderate to extreme, that is not similar. The ability for basic functions and requirements of textiles (comfort and protection) are informed, not the way the nominator understands and projected. RV (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Performance fabrics was about "a segmented class of technical textiles"; the article was redirected to Technical textile. The first sentence of Performance (textiles): "Performance in textiles is the ability of textiles to respond against certain conditions and environments" - similar title but not the same thing. Also the nominator suggested in an edit summary[12] "try an article about fabric testing" - this article is not specifically about testing, but it is about something that can be tested, not just a marketing term. Peter James (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it’s about “attributes of various textiles”, and “explains the textile's performance under various conditions”, might it be more appropriate to include the information as part of the articles about those various textiles rather than a standalone article? Brunton (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conservation and restoration of textiles and Textile manufacturing could be included in the articles about the various textiles for the same reason; similar to this article, there are aspects that don't relate to specific textiles. Peter James (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But nominator has different reason [[13]] to delete it. RV (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the topic is notable. There are numerous publications related to this topic. Perhaps it should be renamed to high-performance textiles, or performance-based textiles. Publications include academic articles and books eg [14] [15]. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• User:RAJIVVASUDEV left a note on my talk page asking me to look at this subject, I would guess because I have previously edited Textile. I would propose to condense this content somewhat and merge to textile, perhaps with some sourced note about manufacturers referring to "performance" in their promotion of their materials. Clearly the term is used in such a way that readers might expect to find content about it, and I see no reason to exclude discussion of the materials science of textiles from the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 06:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not a marketing term. The subject deserves to be an independent article as per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG. RV (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the topic is notable. Lawrence, Carl, Editor (July 5, 2014). High Performance Textiles and Their Applications (Hardcover, eBook). Woodhead Publishing Series in Textiles (1st ed.). Woodhead Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84569-180-6. ISBN 978-0-85709-907-5. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). While this term is used in marketing, it is a separate classification of fabrics. No reason to delete. No reason to merge. WP:HEY WP:Preserve. And some of the arguments above seem to be Ad hominem fallacy against the article's creator, which is no reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Marketing people use terms, but terms don't always belong solely to marketing. For Wiki purposes, would need to demonstrate the term is primarily a term of marketing without other substantial usage. We are seeing good quality sources about the performance of textiles. Other materials, such as road surfaces, have a similar area of specialty where they observe and test wear of the material. Textiles would have this also, and if it's not called "performance", what is it called? -- GreenC 15:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Despite what our sockpuppeteer says, this is a marketing term. the article, if kept, needs major surgery, and a name change to something like "Fabric Buying Specifications". -Roxy . wooF 16:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has moved on considerably from the few garbled sentences I tagged as {{Confusing}} on 13 June, but I'm not sure that we need both this article and Technical textile. They seem to overlap substantially. The book "Agro Textile" which is the source for the oddly-worded classification scheme used in that article has an introduction (page 1) saying "Technical textiles are textile material and products manufactured primarily for their performance and functional properties rather than aesthetic or decorative purpose", and I would think "performance" as described here is an attribute (or a whole set of attributes) of those technical textiles. (Although as a consumer of garments and household textiles I would think "performance" of fabrics would include washability, durability, crease-resistance, etc). But it's not an area in which I have any expertise - I only came across a whole lot of stub articles on different textiles lately while stub-sorting, which perhaps led me to look at other contributions by the same editor, leading me to template this one. "Performance in textiles is the ability of fabrics with that a material responds..." suggests either someone who cannot write clear English or someone who cannot be bothered to do so. PamD 17:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is nothing on the talk page to show that the article has been previously created and deleted ... if this is the case, it would be useful to see that history. PamD 17:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, have now found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance fabrics from 2018. PamD 17:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• this is pertinant, in my sandbox. I copied it from the Talk page of the original article. "... cannot write clear english ..." is accurate, and all I wish to say. -Roxy . wooF 20:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't take the bait. Hey! Are you really withdrawing? [[16]]. RV (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per n-grams, it appears to be a topic that's widely discussed in books for many decades. I'm sure it's a term used in testing, specification, buying, marketing, etc., but not just one of those. The deleted Performance fabrics was a narrower fuzzy marketing concept; this article is about the performance of all textiles, not just those promoted as "performance". Dicklyon (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• An accurate assessment. The performance of a fabric is how it is defined, and applies to all fabrics, rather than just the usain bolt tight shorts taken in isolation, or the firefighters special proofed fabric. Harold Wilsons overcoat had a "special fabric" and we've most of us heard of Gore-tex which is just Gannex but a bit more developed. Every fabric has performance requirements ; Turtles all the way down. -Roxy . wooF 20:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What an assessment. We see you are the only one who thinks like that and there is a pattern . See Bolt (cloth)[[17]], Ninon[[18]], slopseller [[19]] and Khes and Kesh is similar for them [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], Their views for Automotive textiles[[23]] and so on . RV (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems to be a term used in the industry, and the article does a great job listing all the things something is tested for. Dream Focus 22:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Like Dicklyon, I consider this article a great improvement over the eaerlier one. Certainly the term can be used in a promotional sense, but almost anything can==this has a real meaning. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment@DGG, WP:VANDALISM. Even after warning on the talk page and revert, the nominator is deliberately harming the page [24] in question. Refs for the statement.^[1][2] RV (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verwaltung[edit]

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

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

The content in the article is covered in other Nazi Germany articles in less general terms, using more appropriate terminology, such as Gleichschaltung and the various articles for branches and agencies of the Nazi government. There would be no point in re-directing the search term elsewhere, since the title is very odd - simply the German word for 'administration' which doesn't even have specific Nazi connotations as far as I am aware. As can be seen in the edit history, this has caused some readers confusion. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not only is the article at an inappropriate title (the Nazis do not have a monopoly on the word "administration"), it also does not really tell us enough about the Nazi administration to exist separately from Government of Nazi Germany and Gleichschaltung etc. Of the incoming links, only Glossary of Nazi Germany is appropriate, while the one in History of Austria is about something else. —Kusma (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree on the page title; it's poorly chosen and assigns a wrong connotation to the regular German word for any form of administration. I was somewhat on the fence on whether this could be kept under a different name (e.g. Administration of Nazi Germany) but I don't think it adds much that substantially improves Government of Nazi Germany. The incoming links could be a real source of confusion. So, overall, I'd say delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:36, 17 June 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) 22:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Rojahn[edit]

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

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

Career never rose to the level of meeting the SNG (WP:NFOOTBALL) and I could only find one single source that was more than a passing mention; this was a Q&A in TWG which, by itself, is not enough to pass WP:GNG, which generally requires multiple sources addressing the subject in depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Non notable player. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Shailo, PhD[edit]

Iqbal Shailo, PhD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Creator is edit warring over the BLP PROD and also over the article name with me and with User:Joseywales1961. I can't find any WP:RS about Shailo in a WP:BEFORE search. The sources cited are an article written by him and his own personal LinkedIn page, none of which confer notability. Creator claims to be a close friend of the subject of the article which explains their uncooperative behaviour. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Promotional piece for non-notable person. --John B123 (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I wish people would perform obvious page moves (such as removing the "PhD") before nominating articles for deletion, as there are always objections to doing so after they have been nominated, so we are left with discussing an obviously incorrect article title. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil Bridger, It has been moved, but the author moves it back - looks determined to keep the PhD bit! JW 1961 ^Talk 19:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional, non-notable JW 1961 ^Talk 19:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - worth noting that the creator of the article has admitted to being the son of the article's subject, hence the promotional nature of the article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable fails WP:Prof and GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as per nom and everyone else. - Hatchens (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails PROF and GNG.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This page is clearly only meant to promote this man… and he’s not even notable. Helen (let’s talk) 21:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a blatant copy-and-paste of [25]. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable person; fails via the many things everyone else has stated. Kind of absurdly funny. TheAnayalator (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per XOR'easter. With extreme prejudice, I might add. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only hope of notability would seem to be WP:AUTHOR through the claim of writing multiple books. But writing books isn't enough; we need demonstrated impact (usually through multiple published reviews). In this case I couldn't even verify their existence, let alone find any reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjwal Chaurasia[edit]

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

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

Promotional piece of a non notable YouTuber sourced to press releases. Having x number of subscribers on YouTube doesn't make anyone notable by default. The article was previously declined by JavaHurricane at AfC due to lack of independent coverage and was later deleted as WP:G7. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete puff piece Dexxtrall (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello there respected editors thanks for your concern about an article written by me it's about very famous YouTuber and Media Personality Techno Gamerz, and I have gone through all the instructions mentioned by you and have cited many references and I think this page should not be deleted because it's about one of the biggest Indian Gamer and YouTuber and I think he is very notable and I humbly request you to please remove this tag also I want to tell you that last time when this page was created by someone else it lacked information but this time I have gone through all the instructions thoroughly, And about reliable sources, so I just want to tell you that many reliable newspapers and websites have published many articles about Techno Gamerz for example-The Indian Express, The Economic Times, and India.com etc. Thank you very much for your time. Yours Sincerely Pranay Dongre 27 (talk) 2:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom and A7. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 06:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear delete: no evidence of notability. A mystery how this was moved from AfC... PK650 (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete No indication of nobility. Just promotional. Should have been CSD. 'News' articles are just sponsored content. RationalPuff (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete: As per directed by Umakant Bhalerao I have provided 3 Citations/references which should meet the criteria for notablity the three of them are-Republic World, India.com and The Indian Express. Pranay Dongre 27 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It passes the WP:GNG and is covered by reliable sources. I didn't look at some of the sources properly, which are promotional posts. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 09:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC) –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 05:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt, promoted for months on Wikipedia by multiple sockpuppets of at least one, possibly two paid editing outfits. As for how it was moved from AfC – it never went through an AfC review, and if it had, it definitely wouldn't have passed. --bonadea contributions talk 20:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt per Bonadea.4meter4 (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete for all of the above reasons, which generally seem right on the mark to me. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt: promotional article, notability not established. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:43, 24 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SunniPath[edit]

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

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

None of the links work. Perhaps it no longer exists. No real evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The link may or may not work but is/was indeed popular source of Islamic knowledge run by notable teachers. If it is found that it does not exist, article may be edited. ScholarM (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ScholarM, I see this says that Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari was also associated with that. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 03:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally unreferenced article. Doesn't seem like notability can even be established. Mansheimer (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary link was to a parked GoDaddy domain. The other one is a fake link (not only dead as a link, but the site may never have existed). This appears to be a spam article and should be marked for speedy deletion. Mansheimer (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Based on the latest archived copy (https://web.archive.org/web/20180722110602/https://qibla.com/) it can be concluded that they have stopped operations in 2017 and the site is down since 2018. However, they were mentioned in 2 books at least:
  • https://books.google.com.co/books?id=KXNGAAAAQBAJ
  • https://books.google.com.co/books?id=0FP1AgAAQBAJ

Dr.KBAHT (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the single ref added by The Aafi is the briefest of passing mentions. This looks like fairly substantial coverage but this just looks like a printed directory of links to fatwas collected on the site rather than any in depth discussion of the site itself. It certainly existed but there are any number of such sites and nothing tells me this one was particularly authoritative, widely cited or discussed in depth on a sustained basis. Mccapra (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite looking notable site to me after seeing various available sources on internet, but it needs to be rewritten on the current status of the website. Although this site is not functioning but just looked at its status on godaddy which is "Parked free" which means the owner of the domain had parked it for the future use, there are chances of it being functional. Youbat (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:SIGCOV from the sources presented here and in the article. It does need copyediting and updating, but AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet WP:GNG. There is not a significant coverage. The Washington Post is a passing mention. Peter303x (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks significant coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there is now just about enough evidence that the organisation is notable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. BD2412 T 00:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kiaraakitty[edit]

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

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

Twitch streamer that doen't seem notable, except due to controversy surrounding her banning from Twitch, which has been removed since -- Luk ^talk 14:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Luk ^talk 14:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep easily passes WP:GNG considering the breadth of sources (online and offline) in both English and Chinese. Please consider the sources presented in the article prior to its vandalism (which occurs in exactly the diff you cite). ps would not be surprised if this editor/2401:7400:4006:A24:A555:6B8F:6EB8:D1C4, whose only edits have been to whitewash the page, were the subject herself. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree there, she seems notable only because of this one event, and besides that she does not seem to meet other notability criterion. Most coverage I found (in English) was only related to the harrassment charges/denials, and not from very reputable sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and I don't think covering this while the controversy is ongoing is useful. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event. -- Luk ^talk 16:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple Chinese-language biographies of her dating back to years ago, including one cited in the article from Shin Min Daily News. I could email you the pdfs if you'd like. ps "don't think covering this while the controversy is ongoing is useful" certainly isn't a valid ground for deletion.... Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind WP:BIAS, I urge future commenters to please consider both offline and foreign-language sources. Dexerto is pretty authoritative also for streamer-related news. Cheers, Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even considering the removed text. The article looked more like a collection of news and allegations rather than a biography. – robertsky (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky Cleanup (the article looked more like a collection of allegations) is not a reason for deletion. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kingoflettuce, without the collection of allegations and news, there is nothing to sustain the notability of the subject. – robertsky (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree but of course you're entitled to your !vote though I urge you to reconsider. I'll also note that some subjects can become notable just based on a "collection of allegations and news", notwithstanding BLP1E of course. Also I've been editing for close to 10 years (both on ip and this account) so there's no need to hyperlink GNG and whatevs... It's rather condescending imo Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's a raging edit war currently but, at this stage, the article is approaching a speedy delete candidate under G10 as a wholly attack page. From her origins at her father's "failed" business, to the comments that she is a game streamer who does not stream games, it seems like just one disparaging BLP. I endorse User:Robertsky's opinion that the article would fail notability without all the allegations of fraud, which would then lead the article to fail WP:BIO1E as well. Ifnord (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A failed business is a failed business, I don't see how that's subjective. I tried to find some positive reception to counterbalance the seemingly disparaging comments, but couldn't find any. Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple foreign-language sources some of which date back to 2017 and have been cited here, including an in-depth report on her streaming career in Shin Min Daily News. It's unfortunate that her alleged misdeeds have received more attention in the media, but I can only write based on what I have, it is not my intention to create a "wholly attack page" -- I'm just reflecting the state of the sources. Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt: The notabilty tag has been on the page twice, once by another reviewer and then, this reviewer. Each time, the page author has removed the tag. Upon examination of ALL references - yes, watching all the videos - a self-published tag was added to the page, and a link to WP:USERGENERATED was given. To wit, the page author removed, and wrote, Majority of sources are NOT user-generated. Prove it. You may examine the page author's talk page, wherein it is stated - inter alia - No, especially not "i.e., by the subject". I think I've written enuf to know what passes muster and what doesn't. . WP:BLP1E applies. On NPP, I translate everything, Persian, Albanian, Chinese. I was told so what over translation I could not access. There has been edit-warring (possibly the subject) so recommend delete and salting. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's circle back to your original statement "Reference 2 goes to the Wikipedia article for Shin Min Daily News and not to the article in Chinese. Reference 11 (in Chinese) will not translate. Marjority [sic] of the sources are user generated (i.e., by the subject) or primary sources. We need totally independent assessments of this Twitch Streamer / Youtuber and her works. Thank you." Ref 2 is offline (I can email you the PDF if you want). Ref 11--SO WHAT? (Are foreign-language sources only admissible if they can be translated??! Anyhow I'm pretty sure you could just Google Translate it if you really wanted, but c'mon, to demand translation as a criterion of admissibility really reeks of systemic bias. The majority of the sources are NOT user-generated, I don't know why you keep asserting that, unless the Dexerto articles aren't totally independent assessments to you?! They surely weren't written by the subject herself. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 15 sources, perhaps 3 are User-generated. That's not a "majority" Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the arguments above. I don't think a few minor controversies is enough for notability. Hydrogenation (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too many trivial sources, but nothing conferring WP:N. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just too many non-reliable and insignificant sources which doesn't translate to notability, and not enough reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G4. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mizanur Rahman Azhari[edit]

Mizanur Rahman Azhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was deleted 5 times (even one day ago). Now it was created by a sock again. Anyway echoing what User:S. M. Nazmus Sakib says in the previous nomination: The article is full of references from unreliable sources, youtube link of his waz (religious lecture) and very few routine coverage from reliable sources. The article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.

If i compare last afd version with current version, i see almost identical (even inferion) content and references. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Again same material. No additional reliable sources to reconsider the article on new merits. Also make the page inaccessible for recreation except with explicit prior administration approval. werldwayd (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - definitely fails WP:GNG. It is frustrating that this page keeps being recreated. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acquisition of St. Jude Medical by Abbott Laboratories[edit]

Acquisition of St. Jude Medical by Abbott Laboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The user is creating redundant pages, from individual articles. -- DaxServer (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: Article doesn't expand upon existing St. Jude Medical article. The Aftermath section contains events that have happened, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the acquisition of St. Jude Medical by Abbott Laboratories. – NJD-DE (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a redundant content fork. I've removed a large swath of the article that appears to have been copied from an unrelated article about a different merger. firefly ( t · c ) 14:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Weird stuff. JBchrch talk 15:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - What? Redundant fork. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 15:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete — are we to provide a running commentary of corporate M&A? Or if this is somehow especially notable... then what makes it so? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Kablammo (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant/unnecessary fork--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mod Dam 1199 R[edit]

Mod Dam 1199 R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prototype of a motorcycle (main feature being that it has the engine from a different motorcycle installed) does not meet WP:PRODUCT. Most sources do not mention this specific vehicle, the few that do are WP:ROUTINE following its announcement and do not have a WP:SUSTAINED impact. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep easily meets WP:GNG. --John B123 (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above and reading this source, it appears there was only one built and I don't think it was ever for sale so I don't think this can be considered a WP:PRODUCT. NemesisAT (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (originally posted at the article talk page): I'm not at all familiar with custom motorcycle enthusiast circles, but I'm finding hard to believe that this one motorcycle customised by one person would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Only a couple of the cited sources are about the vehicle in question, and they appear to be blogs basing their reporting on the creator's Facebook posts. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the subject has been covered by several websites, all of them are either enthusiast blogs or "content curator" websites writing about things found online without contributing any significant original reporting. All of them feature nearly the same information, presumably copied from its creator's Facebook posts. The nature of the subject, a single custom motorcycle created as a hobby project by one person, which has already been destroyed, makes it extremely unlikely that it will ever be the subject of WP:SUSTAINED coverage going forward. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep think this is an interesting story and can be improved, but should not be deleted, meets WP:GNG. First news article appeared in 2016, followed by a series in various languages through 2020. The story seems to be of public interest. Article cannot be considered WP:NOTPROMOTION Meow2021 (talk) Meow2021 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meow2021, thank you for improving the article by removing some copyright violations. However, WP:CANVASSING your friends (EurekaLott, Sagotreespirit and John B123) to vote here is not so good. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting editors who edited the article is difficult to declare as "friends". There is no evidence of WP:CANVASSING. No evidence of "copyright violation" in the article. Regards Meow2021 (talk) Meow2021 (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing and note the difference between WP:CANVASS and WP:APPNOTE. If find your insinuation that my keep !vote was not honest and objective insulting and unacceptable. Any previous copyright problems are irrelevant to AfD, but since you brought it up: EranBot hasn't flagged any copvios, nor is there anything in the page history to suggest problems. Given that you have already unsuccessfully tried to get to the article deleted by prod and G11, I would have thought there would also have been a WP:G12 nomination if there were copyvios. If there is a copyvio that nobody else has spotted, then I wonder why you did not flag it as such and haven't requested a {{Copyvio-revdel}} now that the problem has been resolved. --John B123 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Paul_012. Almost the entire article is dedicated to either its specifications or its base model, the Honda Grom. While a vast majority of the citations are from valid sources, none of the valid sources actually refer to the Mod Dam 1199, with many instead either focusing on the Honda Grom or the engine that the text is discussing, not the actual motorcycle that the article is supposedly about. Basically, a vast majority of this article is fluff, and this entire thing is worth maybe a paragraph tops. This is just an engine swap, and we don't make articles on every single car that's had an engine swap. The motorcycle is already destroyed, anyways. AdoTang (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable motorcycle designed by Mario Kleff that meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 06:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is sufficient coverage of sources. Rondolinda (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sufficient coverage in independent sources. Lilporchy (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG thanks to significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:04, 20 June 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 Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Junior Fed Cup Final[edit]

2014 Junior Fed Cup Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Despite these junior matches falling comfortably within the internet era, I could not find any coverage of them in independent sources. No indication of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. Even most senior finals don't warrant articles of their own so I don't see why this series of junior matches would. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable as per other similar discussions. See 2016 Junior Fed Cup Final. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 05:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Merging really cant happen as many other articles of this type were already deleted. It would make the mergeto article lopsided. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fyunck here. Redirect or delete are both fine but merge would give undue weight. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect would seem the best option. Peter303x (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above.4meter4 (talk) 22:27, 22 June 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 SNOW keep. No delete !votes, consensus that the page is valid (non-admin closure) dudhhr_Contribs 16:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhonsle (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

This disambiguation page has only three entries out of which two are individuals with "Bhonsle" surname. When someone wants to reach articles like Anubha Bhonsle or Nagesh Bhonsle, I don't think he will type "Bhonsle" in the searchbox. Its an unnecessary disambiguation page which is creating a mess at Bhonsle article. Shinjoya (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't understand how it creates a mess of the Bhonsle article. Listing of names is a legitimate page in Wikipedia for those who want to search for individual names. It has been done tens of thousands of time. Nothing unique or extraordinary. And yes, you may be searching for Anubha Bhonsle, but only the Bhonsle part stuck in your mind. So you do search just for Bhonsle and then browse to reach to the Bhonsle you are searching for. Definitly for keep. werldwayd (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It creates a mess in Bhonsle because as many as three similar disambiguation pages have been created. The other two are Bhosle (disambiguation) and Bhosale (disambiguation). All these three disambiguation links have been put in the lead of Bhonsle. When someone opens Bhonsle, he finds that half of the screen is occupied by these disambiguation links. This makes the article look messy. Shinjoya (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Messy" is not a valid reason for deletion. Three entries and a couple of See also links are quite enough for a dab page. I've simplied one of the hatnotes. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Normal DAB page, no valid reason for deletion provided. Sam Sailor 14:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: valid dab/surname page. Yes, we provide access from surname to person, via redirect if unique, or dab or surname page if not. PamD 15:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it seems to be an Indian surname article and similar list article exists. The nomination is frivolous. Heba Aisha (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Faustina School of Quezon City[edit]

St. Faustina School of Quezon City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I can find no significant coverage, and no possible redirect target is apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Bernadette College of Alabang[edit]

Saint Bernadette College of Alabang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete The sourcing for this is almost nonexistent. So I'm sure it can be deleted on lack of notability grounds. That said, it does offer college programs. So, the nominator treating this purely as a secondary school notability thing doesn't quit hold water. Given that, I think maybe a keep argument could be made if someone can found sources discussing their college program. Especially if it turns out to be a non-profit college that grants degrees. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything that said one way or another if it was though. Therefore, I'm still on the delete side until (or if) such sources materialize. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete coverage lacks the depth needed to become significant coverageDiamondchandelier (talk) 12:39, 18 June 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 00:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Brotherhood Montessori Center[edit]

Operation Brotherhood Montessori Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that meets general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete From what I can tell the sources that's available is extremely poor. Plus, there's clearly some major WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION that would be hard to remedy without sources to write a nonpromotional article with. So I can't really see a good, guideline based reason to keep the article. More so because it's about a private school. Which means it has to pass the higher notability standards of WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inadequate source and lacks quality in coverage Diamondchandelier (talk) 12:38, 18 June 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 16:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame of Greater Manila[edit]

Notre Dame of Greater Manila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The article violates WP:OR and WP:PROMOTION. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a private high school. So it has to pass WP:NORG. Which it clearly doesn't. Since all the sources out there on it are either primary, trivial name drops, or otherwise not usable for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Not enough citations. Peter303x (talk) 07:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 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 Train station. Content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over-track train station[edit]

Over-track train station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I propose that the article "Over-track train station" be deleted for the following two reasons: 1. The subject is not notable; and 2. Inadequate referencing. The only reference on the page is not about the subject at all. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete We keep getting articles on the various arrangements for station facilities, but this is worth no more than a sentence in train station. It's not encyclopedic to blather on at length about things that don't need a lot of explanation. Mangoe (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to train station and, if desirable, selectively merge anything worth covering there. Per Shellwood. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to train station, this is all a bit vague and I think the various station configurations can easily be covered briefly in the train station article with less waffle. NemesisAT (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over-track train station first AFD by myself and User:Bearian (and where User:Mangoe disagreed), this is a significant design option and there are sources (see the sources given there and more are available too) and it should not just be redirected.

I commented at ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse curve where the same deletion nominator made flat statements without support about supposed non-notability and inadequate referencing. Again, inadequate referencing is justification for tagging an article or for adding references, but is simply not a reason to delete an article. No references are required in a Wikipedia article, at all; it is enough that a topic is significant and references out there exist which can be used to develop the topic. wp:BEFORE apparently not performed here or at other AFDs opened by this nominator (as I explain in the Reverse curve AFD). --Doncram (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons that Mangoe listed. Comment. I see that the person who created the article went through an orgy of creating articles about Japanese railway stations over a few weeks in 2012, silent since then. I'm not sure that any of those articles are notable. There are, of course, stations in Japan that are notable, such as those of Tokyo and Kyoto, but those articles were created earlier by others. Athel cb (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding a bit on my comment. I have never been to most of the Japanese railway stations for which articles were created in August–September 2012. However, I have been to Kamakura Station: it is a place where trains stop, passengers get out, others get in and others stay in the train. That's about all there is to say about it. If the article were deleted hardly anyone would notice. I suspect that the same is true of nearly all the other articles about Japanese stations created in August–September 2012. Having said that, I emphasize that Kamakura itself is most definitely notable, being one of the few places in the Tokyo-Yokohama area that escaped obliteration in the Second World War. Athel cb (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment and correction. On checking further I see that I was I was mistaken in thinking that most of the articles for Japanese railway stations were created in August–September 2012. The one for Kamakura Station already existed, for example. However, I continue to think that it is not notable. Athel cb (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over-track train station. I would kike to fix it, but don't have time right now. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over-track train station.4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to train station and merge any relevant information. Yes, it's a significant design option, and yes, there may well be sources, but no one has added them since the last AfD discussion which was 4 years ago. There are lots of significant considerations in designing a station, and this is just one. There is already a section on Station Configurations in Train station, which could do the job, or if there's too much, you could break out into a new section on station designs. The text of this stand-alone article seems to be blatantly obvious things, artificially stretched out ("It is also necessary to move vertically to get between the station building and any platform." Doh, who'd have thought it??) Elemimele (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to train station. Lilporchy (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear that the article meets WP:DISCOGS. However, issues indicated below should be addressed. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danko Jones discography[edit]

Danko Jones discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Much of the page has been unreferenced for over 5 years, and if it is deleted, it would leave a short discography page. I tried to redirect the discography page to the artist page, but was reverted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Improve - The article has reliable sources for American and Canadian chart positions, but they are not used consistently throughout the article. The current robust state of the "Singles" table should be replicated for the "Albums" table, which currently has no citations or chart positions. The other sections, especially "Compilations" and "Videography" border on fan trivia and could possibly be cut down to verifiable entries, or simply removed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Established artist that if added to their main page would make that page too large. Separate discography pages are perfectly acceptable, and many of the titles on this page have references on the pages for each album, etc. However, this page can be greatly improved. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep this is Billboard charting artist and meets WP:MUSICBIO. I will attempt to add additional sources. Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of sounding like a bureaucrat, note that WP:MUSICBIO would apply to Jones's main biographical article. The Discography article falls under the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies and there is no problem there either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The page is now just over 9 kB. If the Compilations and Videography are removed, the page will be just above 7 kB, and if added to Danko Jones, will make it only about 30 kB in all. We should improve the sections first, and separate the discography second. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afrin Sultana Laboni[edit]

Afrin Sultana Laboni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I think that the person is not notable enough to pass WP:N, as the person only got coverage due to playing in some films. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's enough coverage about the actress in online websites to pass WP:NACTOR. Not only routine coverage, there is in depth coverage about the individual in multiple articles. Not just about participation in films, there's also coverage about her interview, marriage and qualifying to Miss Bangladesh final as per sources. Reaching at this position is not easy, she might have notably contributed indeed. I think the sources are reliable, as they are one of the oldest and most reputable news portals in Bangladesh. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 13:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify, I am agree with nom. Most of sources are either interview (primary source) or passing mention. No secondary significant coverage. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  What? They are using wikipedia as a career boosting/ promotional site. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the facts given in the article do not support notability. The Miss Bangladesh auxiliary award is not one which would confer notability on its own, and of the two films she is said to have acted in, one does not appear to exist, and the other was filmed in 1980, 14 years before she was born (unless there was a more recent remake which I have not found). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although she was a Top 10 Miss Bangladesh finalist, I do not think that is significant enough to meet WP:ENT.Peter303x (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage. Delete as per rule. Trakinwiki (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trakinwiki, you joined three days ago and have contributed to only deletion directly. It takes you 2-3 minutes to decide whether the article should be kept or not. What are you? The best Wikipedian ever? Most of your comments are copied/pasted and very reliable on previous comments. Do you even bother to check about the subject in-depth before commenting? Or you have some other things in mind? And apparently, I am a day old and this being my first suggested article, I am learning about the rules, and you KNOW ALL THE RULES as you comment clearly in 2-3 minutes (that also using mobile~)? I am posting this on other comments of yours as well. HeyitsmeFellen (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There's WP:REFBOMB all over but no significant coverage. Also based on messages left at User talk:A.A Prinon, definitely WP:PAID and WP:COI. Clog Wolf _Howl 03:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant media coverage, no major roles in any major films. Could be a case of paid editing and COI. Tame (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Noranda[edit]

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

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

WP:AB: page creator is obviously the subject itself, as proven by this personal blog (https://fosil73.wordpress.com/) having the same name as the page creator. dwadieff ✉ 07:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. dwadieff ✉ 07:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Although there are about 30+ references in the article, it was a blatant autobiography. Additionally, the article is also the promotion for him outside of WordPress. BengkelBerkah05 (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject is not worthy. Rahmatdenas (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:18, 17 June 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. czar 06:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Torres[edit]

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

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

Not seeing notability here, a before search only found a brief piece in Entomology Today, which lacks depth and doesn't really show him to be notable. Doesn't appear to pass PROF either. Not to be confused with the (also not notable) philosopher who dominates scholar results. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am leaning towards delete, as the general coverage about him is very scarce and of poor quality. He undoubtedly fails WP:PROF. PK650 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable YouTuber. Clear failure of WP:SIGCOV. 193.116.232.210 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only claim of notability is for published research in biology, but with only two publications in Google Scholar with 11 and 3 citations respectively he falls far short of WP:PROF#C1. Instead, notability as a YouTuber would require WP:GNG-type in-depth independent coverage of his YouTube career, which we do not have. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel P. Biebuyck[edit]

Daniel P. Biebuyck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The only sources I'm finding on this person have been released by the University of Deleware, where they worked. Thus, the article (which is promotional in fashion) fails WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC) Please withdraw due to reasons stated below. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With many published reviews of his books (which can be used to source his intellectual contributions, if not his preference in breakfast cereals) he passes WP:AUTHOR. Here are the first five that I found searching for his name in JSTOR: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. Several of these also have significant citations in Google Scholar in what I think is a low-citation field, making a case for WP:PROF#C1. The article needs work but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment David Eppstein all of these except [31] are books where the subject is the editor and not the author, so they would not count per WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 18:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to take more time effort and go through the nearly-300 jstor reviews matching "Biebuyck" and pick out the authored ones, go ahead. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS Also note published obituary and employer memorial, from which we learn that he had a named chair, passing WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]