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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulkareem Al Olama[edit]

Abdulkareem Al Olama (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 page has been an orphan since 2012 and has had tags for sources to verify content since 2012 (the year it was created). A google search shows no substantive RS coverage in English-language sources. This page does not link to a Wikipedia page in another language, so I doubt there's better sourcing in other languages. There is nothing to indicate notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7. SoWhy 09:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lolfoundation[edit]

Lolfoundation (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 noble cause, but I fail to see them satisfying WP:NGO, after I conducted a before search. The article no doubt is an WP:ADMASQ trying to draw awareness to their services. No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources could be observed & this is so bad, I thought for a while that the article might have been made up had I not narrowed my search parameters. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:A7. No independent sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bouloussou family[edit]

Bouloussou family (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 political family. The patriarch, Bouloussou Soubramanion Sastroulou, might meet notability standards but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. None of the sourcing appears to be about the actual family the sourcing that is not about the previously mentioned Bouloussou Soubramanion Sastroulou are either membership lists, government surveys, or the papers written by the "Fourth Generation" member, who happens to be the person who wrote this article. I had previously tried to draftify the article, but was unsuccessful. GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable, not written well at all, has no proper sourcing. Just another messy and unnecessary India article. Yeah, there's a lot here. Mostly schools and stuff. AdoTang (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While as the nominator I obviously believe that the article should be deleted, the subject being from India is irrelevant. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. We shouldn't write off a sixth of the world's population by prejudice, but judge articles about them by the same standards that we use for articles about British or American subjects. If we ever get to the stage where more than a sixth of our articles are about India then I may believe that they are a particular problem. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 International Friendlies[edit]

2021 International Friendlies (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 needed, very crufty. It's just an indiscriminate list of all (senior, youth, men's, women's, etc.) association football international games played in 2021. I'm not aware of similar lists in association football (or any sport for that matter). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Useless page, unless we're just listing every single sports match for each year now. AdoTang (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as a clear example of WP:NOT, in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: @AdoTang: @Spiderone: I can get rid of all the youth matches and just list the professional men and women... This isn't useless because international friendlies gain a lot of attention and people would like to see the matches. Again I can remove the youth matches because they seem unnecessary. Mohammad (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: My position stands, even if only men's senior games are kept. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: Can you explain to me, thoroughly, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk • contribs) 00:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: I have already offered my explanation above, which is not only limited to the fact that there were youth, women's, men's, etc. games. Also, see the two users above's explanations as well. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: How is this any different than any sports competition article? I'm putting the matches of THAT competition (not every single national team fixture, but the international friendlies which is what I think you misunderstood) so it has a meaning. I'm not just listing all games, I'm listing all games of the competition, which is what every sports article does. What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. (talk • contribs) 00:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: Please, remember to sign your comments. I haven't misunderstood; the difference between 2018 FIFA World Cup and 2021 International Friendlies is that International Friendlies is not a competition, while FIFA World Cup is. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: So I can't mention it because it isn't a competition? Where does it say that in the deletion guidelines? And if you say "because it isn't important" or something, then why is it streamed all around the world, covered by all tv providers, and has a lot of attention to it. Again, I'm talking about the men's senior so it is a big deal. Also, International Friendlies isn't a competition because there is no winner. That's the only reason why.

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: I never said that if it isn't a competition it must be deleted. I was answering your question "How is this any different than any sports competition article?". Please, read Spiderone's guidelines linked above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: So what I'm understanding is, there is nothing wrong with the point of the article (International Friendlies) but the way it is written (a list of matches) is the issue. If correct then I'm not a good writer so I need someone to do that writing. Mohammad (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with both the form and content of the article. A list of hundreds of friendly games is basically just WP:Listcruft. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: It's not going to be just a list, I am adding statistics and all that as we speak.Mohammad (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that it's a list (lists exists on Wikipedia). The problem isn't that it isn't a competition. The problem is that this list is too specific and unnecessary. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 02:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: What do you mean specific? And it isn't really unnecessary because it's listing the international friendlies. Mohammad (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion.: The issue is that it's an unusually specific, practically useless list. We don't have articles listing every single hockey game held in 1946 with scores and teams. We don't have articles listing every single race ever held on Hockenheimring with the names of every racer, their sponsors, and the winner. Your article is just a list of every single soccer match held this year and only this year. Even if these lists were somehow allowed, it'd still become very long by December 2021, and it would require weekly, if not daily maintenance for the entire year (and beyond if you count vandalism, corrections, or inaccurate information fixes). Read what everyone else has to say. We're not saying soccer isn't notable or anything, we're saying this article isn't needed. AdoTang (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although the information is collected together, you can still find the same information in two other separate locations on wikipedia between the two national team season articles on wikipedia. I don't see the need for this. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - further to the other delete comments, I would struggle to see how such a list would ever satisfy WP:LISTN; these matches are not generally discussed as a group or even really referred to as a group. A friendly is just any non-competitive match between two teams and there is otherwise no connection between any of these matches. This is different from a list of matches in one tournament, where there is a clear connection between the matches and where, in some cases, the outcome of one match may have an effect on the outcome for teams not participating in that one match (in group stages or in terms of who to play against next in a knockout stage). There's no real connection between Ethiopia beating Malawi and then Oman having a goalless draw with Jordan 3 days later other than the fact that both games were completely inconsequential, which, in my view, is not enough of a reason to group them together in one list. Furthermore, I am struggling to see how this meets any of the purposes listed at WP:LISTPURP; it is not a valuable information source, it certainly isn't navigational (none of the individual matches are notable) and it does not aid in development of our encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we don't need a separate article for this. The relevant information is (or at least could be) in the team pages for the countries. As they're friendlies and not a tournament like World Cup, Euros/Copa America, there is no link between friendlies, and so as per Spiderone, I cannot see how it would ever be able to satisfy WP:NLIST. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just a list of friendlies, does not merit an article Kante4 (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Dr Salvus 11:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Everyone seems to think this is either useless and/or indiscriminate. I don't think it's either. In fact, if this 2021 version is the first of its kind on Wikipedia, I'm surprised. Assuming (and I may be wrong to do so, but in that case the article could probably be developed in that direction) this means only the official FIFA-sanctioned international friendlies, that's certainly a very clearly defined and finite list of matches, selected to suit the teams' objectives and carefully scheduled to fit within the specified friendly windows and around each team's other commitments; these matches also count towards official player statistics etc. And if you search for 'international friendlies', you get hits from the likes of BBC Sport, ESPN, The Guardian, etc., so clearly the term is used widely to refer to this set of matches. As for the argument that this information can be found elsewhere — sure, but that's true of most list-type articles; the whole point of lists is that they pull together information that is easier accessed as a list: if you know that, say, Luxembourg played a friendly against Israel in 2002, you can find that eg. in the article Luxembourg_national_football_team_results_(2000–2019), but what if you wanted to know who played friendlies against Israel that year, how easy would it be to find that information without a list like this? Finally, I don't think this is WP:CRUFT, as in "important only to a small population of enthusiastic fans": these are national teams we're talking about, not a bunch of mates playing Sunday morning footy in the park, with the matches televised and widely reported in the press. In short, I think this list is useful, the subject is notable, and with some improvements (mostly ensuring that only the official friendlies are included, and that the information is properly sourced) the article should stay. And similar articles should be created for earlier years. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - totally indiscriminate to bundle together all friendlies played by all nations in one year. There literally isn't anything unifying this random selection of matches other than that they were not competitive matches -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop AAPI Hate[edit]

Stop AAPI Hate (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 notable NightWolf1223 (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)  Request withdrawn NightWolf1223 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I do not see a consensus to delete or enough doubt to justify a no consensus close, and WP:DINC, and the article does appear to have enough material sourced to independent sources. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAL Combat Air Teaming System[edit]

HAL Combat Air Teaming System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Marketing term for a group of products that does not yet exist. Perhaps redirecting to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited is an option? MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge : Merge with HAL article. -AppuduPappudu (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait : The topic has been quite nicely covered and I actually can turn it into a good article soon. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, since the group of products and rather a part of system which operates these aircrafts, at least "marketing" issues don't exist here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am comfortable with saying that the existing coverage easily passes WP:GNG. The topic is notable on its own. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per significant coverage as an independent subject at [1][2] and others. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a marketing idea or concept to gain funding could be covered in a few lines in the HAL article until something concrete comes out of the ideas. MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Whether it is a fully developed item or not, the article will have to be created anyway. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Acceptable as per. WP:GNG. More of an under development aircraft system, far from being an advertisement at least. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given Hindustan Aeronautics Limited a government undertaking, and this teaming system seems to have sufficient coverage satisfying WP:SIGCOV and considerable material for an Article. Chirota (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalmay Institute of Engineering and Technology[edit]

Mangalmay Institute of Engineering and Technology (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 few paid references with a BEFORE. Advertisement. Does not satisfy NSCHOOL. Creator is an SPA with just 2 edits. Vikram Vincent 05:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vikram Vincent 05:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Accredited, degree-awarding tertiary institution. We have always kept these by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This editor is talking about some nonexistent consensus. Several AFDs where they have !voted keep have been deleted. Unless they come up with proof to support their "consensus" their vote needs to be ignored. Vikram Vincent 10:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just an advertisement with extremely poor capitalization and grammar. But if we're keeping it, well, it needs a LOT of work... AdoTang (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Did a clean up of all the advertising cruft. Sourcing is now limited to the college website only. Fails WP:NSCHOOLS Vikram Vincent 04:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per WP:NSCHOOL. Chirota (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable fails GNG. Setreis (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The keep is a weak one despite the !vote ratio.

Most keep !votes address the weakness of nominator's rationale, which is a reason for not deleting. Not deleting, however, does not imply keeping since AfD outcomes are not binary (i.e. either keep or delete).

If the above !votes are ignored when accounting for keeping, the keep outcome is only supported by two !votes, in which one is a weak keep while the other is from the creator. The lack of discussion on sources makes the keep outcome weak.

The discussion could have been closed as no consensus instead, but the keeping arguments are just strong enough after two relists. Either way, the article is kept.

Should this article be nominated for deletion again, discussion should focused on sources instead. The nominator should give a convincing rationale and respond if needed (though not to the point of badgering). (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 17:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All_the_Fat_Children[edit]

All_the_Fat_Children (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 Band Page Lacks WP:Reliability and is non-notable. Pranhita (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands_and_musicians-related deletion discussions. Pranhita (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as the creator of the article, I agree with nom. Vikram Vincent 18:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pranhita of the ten sources in the reference list of the article, which specific sources are unreliable? Please list them here so that we can discuss. Thanks. Vikram Vincent 10:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator has NOT done even a cursory WP:BEFORE. The sources used are The Hindu, Deccan Herald, Deccan Chronicle, Rolling Stone India(reliable for music info), Bangalore Mirror, DNA India and Times of India. While we do follow WP:TOI for political commentary, this is a music band and hence TOI can be used based on the claims being made. The other sources explicitly mentioned are clearly reliable. Even if the claim that there is no WP:SIGCOV in an individual article, though the TOI article does have it, all the WP:RS put together does satisfy the criteria of notability. Vikram Vincent 07:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of WP:BAND, the page satisfies criteria #1 and #7. Vikram Vincent 07:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The current sourcing is mostly passing mentions, but there is also a pretty long Indian Times article mainly about the band that isn't currently in the article ( https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/the-name-all-the-fat-children-was-our-way-of-fighting-our-body-image-issues/articleshow/60477913.cms), which is just enough to keep it in my opinion. Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. Do Check WP:TOI Pranhita (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but this isn't something where their bias would affect the reporting. I'll stick at weak keep since its not very reliable generally, though. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentSpeedy Keep I think the page needs to be speedy kept since the nom has not engaged in any discussion on the sources they claim to be unreliable. The WP:TOI claim was clearly misplaced. Of the 15 sources on the page that can be considered WP:RS, 10 are dedicated solely to the band, 1 is the Rolling Stones India page and the remaining 4 share article space with other bands. In sum, WP:SIGCOV is available. Vikram Vincent 07:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep RE: Relisting comment "Still needs indepth source discussion". Why? The nom says some of the references are not appropriate, but refuses to say which ones. Jeepday (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes notability Rajuiu (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Denbury. Daniel (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denbury Primary School[edit]

Denbury Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Potentially fails WP:NORG here; in particular, WP:ORGDEPTH. I found a passing BBC mention, the Teignmouth Post had a story about new starters and then the school appears in a list of schools in Devon Live.

No coverage outside of Ofsted and you need more than one source to pass NORG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Denbury per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, most primary schools don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you recommend trimming it down to one or two sentences? I can't see that there is a whole lot of info about this school and most of the contents of the article seem to be OR. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree much content doesn't need moving perhaps just the location and very basic info. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, selectively with Denbury. The only thing I would merge would be a single line description, and 1 or 2 lines about the BBC thing, which is cited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Denbury: per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, 1 or 2 liner is sufficient CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I have sorted the structure, refs and infobox so this is easier to examine and consider. Instinct said 'merge' but it deserves a hearing first. It is of interest architecturally as a typical 1870s school building, it is interesting as an example of a school suffering from rural isolation and lack of funding, one that no academy chain would touch. There is a DYK hook that regional TV had used it when child wrote to PM. We have the GIAS and Ofsted references so it could be expanded. At the moment, nothing has be written about curriculum- KS2 language etc, work needed there. Overall merge to Denbury which in itself is very unloved so work is needed there. The lead editor says he is young and enthusiastic so please try to support and retain him throughout the process.ClemRutter (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge whatever is worth merging like other people have already suggested. Since I'm not sure what's saving here. The article is horribly referenced, written like a trivial add copy advert (no offense to meant to the person who wrote it though), and I'm not sure how that can change without sources that clearly don't exist materializing and I don't see that happening. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ardelt Project[edit]

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

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

Unsourced since creation. Not a hoax; [3] is a reference that a Mr. Ardelt did something with a Waffenträger in World War II. But the term "Ardelt Project" appears to be made up, and I don't see any coverage more substantial than this. (though I assume there is a description at the museum in Russia). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's actually a real thing, but it appears to have been called the "Krupp/Ardelt Waffenträger". It was moved to Patriot Park. Unfortunately, every single source I have for this is unreliable: Reddit, the World of Tanks forum, and the Heroes & Generals forum. AdoTang (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found only one reliable source for this topic. Not notable.Wasraw (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable news sources. Fails GNG criteria. Setreis (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blu-ray 3D releases[edit]

List of Blu-ray 3D releases (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:NOTDIR. This is basically a list of movies that have been released on the Blu-ray 3D disc format. Such a list is not very encyclopedic, especially since the format is growing fast and new titles are being released each week. This would be similar to a list article of every movie released on DVD. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Basically, to compare, pages like List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games make sense because, y'know, a new SNES game doesn't come out every five seconds. Plus that page is just a really, really long table list. AdoTang (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too broad in scope, per WP:SALAT. Too ubiquitous to be of encyclopedic value. Not seeing this as different from listing all VHS releases, all DVD releases, etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I don't see a solid reason why it should exist. Kolma8 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per all fails GNG. Setreis (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 02:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dillanm[edit]

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

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

Autobiographical self promotional article on a non notable subject who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them & do not satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with everything the nomination says. Wikipedia is being used here by this person purely to promote himself. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why this article exists is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdoTang (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:AUTO Article, no signs of notability per WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and misses all criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN by a long way. Speedy delete WP:A7 also an option. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:A7. Likely autobiography, not even an assertion of notability per WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, no independent sources provided, none found. --Finngall ^talk 19:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (speedy even) - Good luck to the kid as he gets started. An Internet search reveals that he has put himself into all the usual self-uploaded streaming services and social media accounts. While doing so he put himself into Wikipedia too, but this site requires qualifications. Purely promotional and autobiographical. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Per A7. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lehman (surgeon)[edit]

Richard Lehman (surgeon) (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 surgeon, clear fail of WP:GNG. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this guy's notable enough for a Wikipedia page, then I guess my teacher must be as well. Pah. AdoTang (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass notability criteria. Iflaq ^(talk) 11:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non notable without RS. GNG fail. —Kbabej (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Saunders[edit]

Adam Saunders (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 performer; lacks significant coverage in independently reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. References provided are mostly IMDB or social media references not independent of subject. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I could not find any IRS via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (broader and deeper than Google). Fails WP:GNGACTOR. Cabrils (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple cheesecake[edit]

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

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

Trivial variant of Cheesecake. No information worth merging into main cheesecake page DeputyBeagle (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DeputyBeagle (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't even sound like it'd taste good. Oh, but also, yeah, trivial as hell. Not even a paragraph. AdoTang (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - you know you're in trouble when this is the first search result in Google Books. Seriously, though, I'm not finding anything besides recipes and other forms of trivial coverage. Without anything substantial, this is a clear WP:GNG fail. (I also concur with AdoTang with regards to the lack of culinary merit of this putative delicacy.) I wouldn't object to a redirect to Cheesecake, if only to keep from breaking links. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The proper thing to do is to just follow the merge, which was voted for and make a redirect... even if there is minimal information to merge. UserTwoSix (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure I see the point in redirecting. The page gets very little views, and there does not seem to be any links beyond the categories box. I don't think anything would be lost if there was no redirect DeputyBeagle (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I agree with UserTwoSix (I think) that the technical procedure here should be to "merge" Pineapple cheesecake into Cheesecake by turning the former into a redirect to the latter and adding "all useful information" from the former to the latter—and if you find that there is no useful information during the merge (as the nom did here) then simply redirect without comment. But I don't know how much value the redirect would have—wouldn't be an issue but doesn't seem essential either—so I'll add a technical support delete/redirect/merge, whatever helps to get the job done. — Bilorv (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect to Cheesecake - I don't personally think it would make a particularly useful redirect, but as Redirects are cheap, I wouldn't object to it becoming one. A merge would be inappropriate as there is no actual reliably sourced content to merge - the only references being used currently are just recipes, and I can find no additional coverage outside of more recipes upon searching. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Surely any edible fruit can be used in the production of cheesecake? Is there anything to suggest that pineapple in particular has any cultural distinction anywhere over any other fruit? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I supported the merge but redirecting would be better since there isn't anything reliably sourced that we can merge. New content can be added to directly the cheesecake article. It's a major cultural variation cheesecake all'ananas for Italian ricotta cheesecake like strawberry cheesecake is for New York cheesecake. Spudlace (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the sources are food blogs, and those aren't RSs. I'm not seeing this article serving any purpose than to combine the word pineapple with cheesecake which is OR. I consider myself a major foodie and would 100% eat this, but it's failing all the WP standards. Bon appetit, Estheim (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't you think that this might overdo the sweetness a little? I like cheesecake but if it has fruit on it then I would prefer something a bit more tart than pineapple. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Phil BridgerDepends on the sweetness of the cake and the acidity of the fruit. Fruit preserves are pretty common for dessert making too, and sweetness/tartness can be adjusted accordingly. I don't think I'd say no to any decent cheesecake, even if it were some oddball thing like tomato or dragonfruit. Estheim (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing to be merged. This article was created by someone who was banned for being part of a spam ring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IamKhandelwal Are the websites added by him owned by someone who paid them to do that? Dream Focus 04:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't realize IamKhandelwal had been banned. Can't these then be speedied? Spudlace (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/IamKhandelwal some were tagged as being from an editor who received undisclosed payment for making them. But that doesn't always mean the articles don't deserve to remain, some may still pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 21:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Additionally, a clear, consensus-based redirect target has not come into fruition within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Gilroy[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO; while a member of several notable bands, this musician has not demonstrated individual notability. I can not find any significant coverage of him as an individual. Neither do the Premiere Drum Contest he won as a 14-year old (not a notable contest) and the film he appeared in (as part of a band) establish individual notability. Lennart97 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect At this stage, it fails WP:GNG. After looking at all sources, two were trivial mentions, one doesn't mention him at all, one isn't a reliable source, and one is an article about winning a drumming contest when he was 14. If the author is able to provide sources that prove significant, reliable, independent coverage then I would be all for keeping it. I would like some mention of him somewhere, but at this stage, it shouldn't be its own article. Nexus000 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd suggest providing a biography of him (with the small pieces of information available) on the page of the band he is best associated with. Then turn this page into a redirect to that section and turn any mentions of his name on other articles to links to the Ian Gilroy redirect. Nexus000 (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nexus000: Sorry, I meant to reply earlier. I guess the problem here is determining which band he's actually best associated with, which is not clear to me. But the articles on those bands already mention which different bands Gilroy was also part of, so the only information from Gilroy's article that is not present at any of those pages is him winning that drumming contest, which isn't relevant to any of the bands anyway. So I do think that deletion is the better option here. Lennart97 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it and agree with what you are saying. Nexus000 (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG, or redirect to The_Crocodiles. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PC AGE Career Institute[edit]

PC AGE Career Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It seems to exist, but I could find no third party reference except inclusions on a list. Article present on WP since 2011. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Akon. WP:RfD or WP:RM can be used for further discussion on the redirect itself. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 06:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konnect[edit]

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

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

No release date and/or limited third party coverage. Falls short of WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Would support draftify or redirect. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Akon, because it appears that the album title is either confirmed or widely believed by fans and someone is bound to search for it in WP. When/if the album becomes a reality, the redirect can be transformed into a true album article. For now, per WP:NALBUM there is too much required information that is unconfirmed and unreliable, especially the release date and full track list. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any reason to think that anyone looking for "Konnect" would be looking for Akon rather than, for example, any of the other possibilities found by the Google Books search linked above? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit that I did not think of this, but Wikipedia currently has no articles on anything else called "Konnect" except for Konnect Entertainment which is a longer name. Therefore the Akon album, as soon as it really exists, gets first dibs on the one-word title, or it could be called "Konnect (album)". In any case, additional voters can debate whether the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rule is relevant for this AfD. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as there is no other Wikipedia article with this title, that it should be the title of this article if it is kept, but I'm not sure that if it is not kept the word should redirect to Akon. It appears that this is a commonly used name for products and services. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Akon per DOOMSDAYER520. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CGP Grey[edit]

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

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

WP:SOAP, notability not evident from sourcing provided, huge number of primary sources all WP:RSPYT, checked many others and they are clearly not RS for a BLP, have been tagged since 2018 about primary sourcing issues, simplest solution to delete unless viable WP:SECONDARY provided. Acousmana (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* – This was originally going to be a "Delete", but this channel's content has just been given too much attention from a variety of reliable, independent sources that I believe this meets WP:CREATIVE, insofar as he has "3) created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and furthermore because his work has "4(c) won significant critical attention."** This isn't just limited to the coverage in our citations, however; as an example, The Daily Dot – known to be a reliable source for Internet culture – has nine articles which exclusively cover Grey's works. The case for criterion 3) is compounded by the fact that Hello Internet has been a popular podcast, topping out as the number 1 iTunes podcast in five large countries. As we have a main article for it, the section "Hello Internet" should be reduced substantially and material possibly merged over to that article. That this article has been tagged for being too reliant on primary sources is not an ultimatum to delete it handed down by god; it just means that, according to one editor who placed it there (and I agree with this editor), the article needs to be trimmed back as to be less reliant overall on primary sources (as an example, "Videos are released on the channel and via RSS" really isn't relevant to our article unless this fact is somehow covered in reliable, independent sources) or for the content to be sourced to reliable, independent sources where possible.

* Disclosure: I watch the channel casually, but I spent a fair amount of time performing WP:BEFORE and remaining as neutral as I can.
** As a a YouTube channel like this serves a dual function of being the creative behind the work and the body of work itself, I sort of just treat it as a superposition between the two. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• whatever way you look at it, the sourcing on this is horrible, dependency on primary citations throughout is an issue for a BLP, with the bulk of content sourced to videos. Per WP:ABOUTSELF "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves...as long as: [5] the article is not based primarily on such sources." We could add "[1] the material is ...unduly self-serving" and we could argue that "[4] reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" exists. Acousmana (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm struggling to see how content like Grey decided to become a physics teacher in the UK; he went through a one-year course to earn a physics PGCE and graduated being qualified to teach physics in England and Wales is "unduly self-serving" or has "reasonable doubt" when supported by a podcast of the person describing themselves as such (I suppose timestamps would be nice in the ref but that's about it). It all seems appropriate to me. — Bilorv (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

self-serving in overall tone of soapy article, but hey, i'm not a fan of this obsessive cataloging of YouTube "personalities" that goes on here, and some random YT dude saying stuff on a some random podcast, he could literally say anything, and we are citing it as "fact." But again, wtf do I know? I literally never heard of this nobody before yesterday. Acousmana (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The last two paragraphs of CGP Grey#CGPGrey Channel clearly establish his notability. —Dexxor (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the primary coverage is fine—it just doesn't contribute towards notability. If you think it's a bit too much then the "simplest solution" is to fix it yourself, not to delete (which is neither the simplest action nor a solution at all). Notability is established through coverage cumulatively across, by descending significance: nine Daily Dot articles, four Gizmodo articles, two CBS articles ([4][5]), Washington Post, HuffPost, Mashable, Yahoo and The Guardian (about Hello Internet). Each source in this list except maybe the last two is (just about) long enough for significance (and reliable, independent and secondary) and the aggregate meets WP:GNG as they are about a diversity of videos across a wide time range. — Bilorv (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Furthermore, during WP:BEFORE, I found: Boing Boing (twice, thrice, another, and another, and a sixth, seventh, eigth), The Verge, The Washington Post (again, albeit this time in part of a listicle), Vox (twice), Popular Mechanics (twice, thrice), Business Insider (again, albeit same day; same author), Business Insider again, ScienceAlert, Quartz, the Staten Island Advance, WLS-TV (ABC Chicago), NPR, Slate, and this wasn't even an exhaustive search; this took me like five minutes. Hence, I changed my mind before voting. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AfD is not cleanup. If there is an overreliance on primary sourcing that doesn't fall under something like WP:ABOUTSELF, then it should be fixed or removed. Not really an argument relevant to whether sufficient secondary sourcing exists to write an article. GMG^talk 13:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As already mentioned above, the copious amounts of primary sources used in the article do not contribute to notability, but it ultimately doesn't matter because there are plenty of secondary sources discussing the channel as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly a notable person. By all means remove any accumulated fancruft from the article, and tag anything poorly referenced, but the subject itself is fine. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In an episode of Hello Internet (forgot which one) Brady and Grey talked about how Grey and his wife had a debate over whether tennis balls are green or yellow. This went viral and was mentioned in dozens of news articles. While not many cited Grey he was the root cause. HiTheLegend 18:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I voted keep, and while this did appear to originate with Grey and was subsequently discussed in that article from The Atlantic, the debate thereafter from sources such as CNN, SB Nation, USA Today Sports, The Daily Telegraph, etc., did not include Grey as the progenator of this question whatsoever, making this, in my opinion, a very weak argument to keep the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment so clearly this guy is much better known than that heavily primary sourced soapy article appeared to indicate, with more eyes on it, any chance we can strip the weak stuff out and leave/add stronger WP:SECONDARY? Acousmana (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crakmedia[edit]

Crakmedia (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 organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The awards they claim to have one are all non notable and the ref bombing is a mirage to create he illusion of notability. A WP:BEFORE search shows hits in unreliable sources such as this & this. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep but TNT. They are web specialists, so they know how to generate paid/sponsored coverage, which is what has happened with several of the sources. However there is also decent French coverage that appears genuine:

• "Crakmedia craint les impacts de la pénurie de main-d’œuvre",
• "Crakmedia offre un voyage au Mexique à ses 100 employés",
• "Pokemon Go : Beenox 1 - Crakmedia 0",
• "Leaders 2015: Crakmedia",
• "Le secret des employés heureux",
• Crakmedia veut recruter les «trumpophobes»,
• "Mercuriades: Crakmedia, PME de l’année",
• Crakmedia choisie PME de l’année.

"PME de l’année" = "Small or medium-sized business of the year" Together, I think that is probably enough for NCORP.--- Possibly (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete undisclosed padi-for spam with no evidence of notability. GSS ^💬 07:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: what about all the sources I listed above? Also, the creator seems to be good faith, and they have said on their talk page that that have no COI. --- Possibly (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: None of these sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, they read like paid pr and are mostly announcements. Also, please see my comment below regarding their paid editing racket. Thank you, GSS ^💬 08:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to read French?--- Possibly (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject passes the notability and has been beautifully presented by Possibly. As far as spamming is concerned, there is nothing like spamming, every company lists their history, revenue, accomplishments etc. By this logic, every page on Wikipedia is spam. Should we delete all those pages? Regarding the links, the more the length of the content, the more there will be references. If anyone has objection on the number of links, I am willing to remove some of them. But I have provided the references to make the page more reliable. BelardEME (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BelardEME: we decide what to delete based on the number and quality of published sources. See WP:NCORP. --- Possibly (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 14:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please note, as per off-wiki evidence user BelardEME was hired to create this page through Freelancer.com and were paid $450 by David Hamel. Also, as per their profile, they are a sock of Apifara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I have shared the details with paid-en, @MER-C, GeneralNotability, Praxidicae, and Berean Hunter:. @Berean Hunter Please see my last email that I sent you back in December 2018 regarding the same freelancer. Thank you, GSS ^💬 08:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 15:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. TNT is needed here, and it would have been eligible for G11 anyway. MarioGom (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with MarioGom that WP:TNT is called for. It may be that the subject is weakly notable, in which case the article will eventually be recreated, but as it is the page is promotional in nature and not up to Wikipedia's standards in any way. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MIXR[edit]

MIXR (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 cannot find sufficient coverage in secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The only sources provided are to the github project page and the project website. Other sources available appear to be primary journal articles, but nothing in the way of secondary coverage as far as I can tell. Polyamorph (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My search does not find anything that meets WP:GNG, there are some minor mentions, but nothing significant. No claims in the article that the subject is notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Can’t find anything that suggests notability. Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 15:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Box Critters[edit]

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

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

nominating again after the last discussion resulted, inexplicably and against policy as draftify. Non-notable game, mostly just fan cruft sourced to the game itself. It's never received any meaningful coverage and there's no reason to think anything changed in the month since the last AFD. And as a note, I very much oppose draftifying this again as draftspace is not an indefinite holding area for non-notable topics and given the tendentious editing here, it should be deleted and an be reassessed in time if it becomes notable and sources can be provided. VAXIDICAE💉 19:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Lots of people have tried and failed justifying notability. — Smuckola(talk) 19:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, therefore the topic fails WP:GNG. Despite some very vehement arguments in the previous AfD, there is still no guideline-based reason for keeping this article and not even one decent, independent source has been presented. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have found a repayable source. This website it is made by the people who made the game and it is not Fancraft. Also you may think the Twitter is underelayble but it is literaly run by the people listed in the credits. IF you look on there every time they tease something it get's added in the game. Just cause they don't have a Verified Tick doesn't make them un reliable. Also my idea about making this a article is maybe people will see it and try to help me fix it. Ik there is problems if there weren't then we wouldn't be talking right now but nothing will change if I can't get more people to help. The only person who tried to help me is Doggyboy (which I am really happy about tnxs Doggyboy) but I wish more people had faith in this and didn't nominate it the second I try to make it a article. I've tried to take off all the fan cruft and I think I did a pretty good job but I want to do better but not much people are helping me besides shutting me down. I've seen articles that are unfinished or stubs yet those aren't nominated while I have gathered research and put a article together only for it to get deleted. It is so sad seeing something I made, that I took time to make only for it to get noiminated 0.00001 seconds after realseing it for everyone to see. It is very sad to see it. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMAHER1 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been explained to you repeatedly, that, among the others isn't a reliable source much less an independent one. Perhaps you should've taken advice from the dozens of editors who tried to repeatedly help you and not tendentiously move this into mainspace when you couldn't provide a single RS. VAXIDICAE💉 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources do not count towards notability. IceWelder [✉] 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleMAHER1: I know it can be a bit disheartening to see your article nominated for deletion twice, but you need to understand that all the editors who are critiquing the article are doing it from a place of tough love, myself included. I can speak for every single editor here that we all want Wikipedia to grow. But, we do recognize that, sometimes, quality is better than quantity. We also recognize that there are guidelines put in place by the Wikipedia community as a whole after extensive discussions, and that we should not only follow these guidelines ourselves, but also make sure that every user/every page follows them as well, as that is what will ultimately make Wikipedia better. Stubs are a great representation of something that, despite being short, is an article that passes guidelines. I come across stubs all the time, and I always check them using the notability criteria, and nine times out of ten, they’re notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. Box Critters, while bigger than a stub, does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, as the article is built off of three types of unacceptable sources: social media (while reliable per SOCIALMEDIA, the Twitter account isn’t verified, and therefore is unreliable), fandom-wiki (which is unreliable per USERG as it is a wiki), and the official Box Critters website (which, when used sparingly, is reliable per PRIMARY, but an article shouldn’t be entirely built off of these). I appreciate your patience and understanding throughout this process, and I also appreciate that you will act according to Wikipedia guidelines when the outcome of this draft is decided. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the same reasons I mentioned last time. I asked for it to be draftified back then but it was unilaterally moved back with no discernible improvements regarding sourcing. Even the various content violations that were removed by myself and another editor were simply restored or changed by a table. It appears that deleting is now the best option. Pinging @BD2412, PascalsCalculatingHamster, and Doggy54321, who participated in the last AfD as well. IceWelder [✉] 20:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The consensus at the first AfD was to draftify the article, but the creator of the page demonstrated that they can’t find any reliable sources backing up the subject. At this point, it would be pointless to draftify it again as the creator would just move it back to mainspace, while also continuing to add fancruft with unreliable sources. I don’t think we need to look into topic bans just yet, but it’s getting really annoying that they are persevering this hard when every single editor who has interacted with them has told them to stop doing this. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: Pinging the admin who closed the first AfD to request an early close as Delete per WP:SNOW. LittleMAHER1 (page creator) has said and demonstrated that they cannot find any reliable sources whatsoever backing this subject up, and I see no reason why this snowball needs to spend a week in hell before it melts when it’s already melting at a fast rate. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no sources expect [sic] for its twitter and/or Fandom Wiki, from [6]. This was said on February 9, around two months ago. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources.-- Whpq (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry. After reading everything I guess there is nothing I can do to fix it. I really wanted to try and fix it but I guess there is nothing I can fix. You guys gave your points and I have no right to try and justify this especially with my track record. I don't want to get banned and Ik it will hurt seeing my project get deleted forever but at least now I won't be able to annoy you guys again. Also if Box Critter's does get popular and a wiki is made I will be able to help edit it. For now I think I will stick to editing articles and not making them. Maybe when I get more experience on editing I can try again and this time find better articles or make a actually notable article, I guess I am a little clingy and it hurts when people are saying how my article isn't up to standerd but I guess it is just tough love and I need to deal with that. I'm once again sorry about this and please don't topic ban me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleMAHER1 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin or anything but I don't feel any sanction is necessary. You won't be the first editor to create an article on a non-notable subject and you won't be the last. I created many articles on completely non-notable topics back in my early days (when you didn't even need an account to create them) and they were correctly deleted. Wikipedia is often a learning experience not just for its readers but for its editors and page creators too. I hope that you can continue to channel your energy and enthusiasm towards improving the project. Working on existing articles is probably not a bad idea for now. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Unless you created a bunch of non-notable articles and showed no intention to stop, you wouldn’t get blocked. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Man. This may be a little unrelated but dang, Wikipedia is a lot more strict with polices then I thought. Before joining all I thought was Wikipedia was just a place full of articles however it could be un reliable because anyone can edit it. But after deciding to try it, the mods make sure that only the best is displaced here but they still take care of little articles as well. And that is something I can respect. LittleMAHER1 (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ranch[edit]

Thomas Ranch (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 incorporated ranching operation should meet WP:NCORP to merit inclusion. No indication that this one does. BD2412 T 19:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:G11 and WP:G12 – Almost exclusively promotional for its entire existence and has shown no sign of improvement after 16 years. Furthermore, almost the entire article is plagiarized directly from the subject's own website – the article possibly having been created by the subject's owners or somebody related thereto during the Wild West that was 2005 Wikipedia. WP:BEFORE turned up nothing, though I'll concede I wasn't able to check historic newspaper sources where one would be most likely to find reliable, independent coverage about this subject should it actually exist. This one really slipped through the cracks. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: per G11 (Advertising), G12 is not opportune at a 2 sentence article. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MB 19:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's old? Don't care. AdoTang (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely no claim to notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 00:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The fact that this has existed on WP for so long is disappointing. Good on nominator for catching. No notability. —Kbabej (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In addition to the consensus, WP:HEY seems to apply here. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney "Strix" Beltrán[edit]

Whitney "Strix" Beltrán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject categorically fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:CREATIVE. The most compelling reliable, independent sources I could find regarding this subject are as follows:

• An excerpt of a Polygon article: "Whitney “Strix” Beltràn, a high-profile indie developer responsible for the award-winning tabletop game Bluebeard’s Bride, is the project’s narrative director. [...] Beltràn also worked on Holovista, an ambitious mobile augmented-reality game that explored fantastical architecture and the culture of social media influencers. [...] Also on Twitter, Beltràn said she’s been working on the new D&D video game for some time."

Not quite plainly trivial and could maybe be construed as marginally advancing notability if presented alongside multiple other instances of much more significant coverage from other reliable, independent sources, but clearly nothing to hang one's hat on.

• An excerpt of a PC Gamer article: "This was backed up by its project narrative director Whitney Beltrán, who has written for games like State of Decay 2 and Beyond Blue. [...] "Both Baldur's Gate 3 and Dark Alliance are set in the Forgotten Realms, but Whitney Beltrán has a writing credit on Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, a forthcoming supplement for the actual tabletop version of D&D describing D&D's underused gothic horror world, which would make a killer backdrop for a videogame."

Borderline trivial discussion of Beltrán. Akin to the first as far as establishing "Hey, this person exists and was credited in these three pieces of media", but coverage too insignificant to advance notability.

For those wondering about possible book sources, she does have a bio within the book Role-Playing Game Studies published by Taylor & Francis, but as best I can surmise, this is self-authored, as Beltràn is a co-author of Chapter 27 of this book and the biographies for other chapter co-authors read exactly as though they were self-authored, for example: "Edward Castronova wonders why vanilla ice cream is even produced in a world that knows chocolate. At Indiana University, he is Professor of Media, Director of the BS degree program in Game Design, and Chair of the Department of Media Arts and Production [...]". The second-most significant mention I could find of Beltrán in literature is in the self-published book "Analog Game Studies" Vol. II, and even this is trivial: "In this extreme example of prolonged immersion, [Patrick] Stewart was likely experiencing what Whitney "Strix" Beltrán terms ego-bleed, where personality contents of the character bleed-out into the player and vice versa."

There really is just no reliable, independent literature upon which to create an article about this subject, and the article in its current state reflects that. Every citation but one is primary, and the other one (which only contains a plainly trivial mention of Beltrán) is WP:FORBESCON, which per RSP should be treated as self-published. Half the lead is puffery based on a self-description published on the subject's website (there was even more obvious puffery before IceWelder removed it), and the already-short 'Career' section can be broken down as follows:

• ~30 words (~25%) about Beltrán's actual credited role in creating these games.
• 16 words (~14%) about a quotation of Beltrán's own description of the house in HoloVista.
• 72 words (61%) about what the game Bluebeard's Bride is, which in a longer article would function as good background information for the reader, but which in an article this short and bereft of detail about Beltrán herself functions as padding.

The only reason I appraised this as worthy of any discussion at AfD instead of just a PROD is because I sympathize with student editors who are thrust into the deep end of Wikipedia, and I therefore want to give this article the most fair shake I can. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep The sources I have found so far indicate she has received a prestigious honor (2021 member of the The Game Awards Future Class), what appears to be a notable award (2018 Game of the Year and Best Art from the Indie Developer Game Network), has been recently announced as a notable part of a team for an upcoming D&D game 1, 2, and has engaged in public commentary about innovations in the gaming industry. It is looking like per WP:CREATIVE, she has "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Beccaynr (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Also in The Verge: "The pair set about building a formidable development team, including [...] award-winning narrative designer Whitney “Strix” Beltran, [...]" Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I'm aware of the list, as I saw it in a press release published through Gamasutra. However, while I'm aware that The Game Awards are in and of themselves a notable awards ceremony, being one of fifty names with no further description in a brand new category of award that has received scant reliable, independent coverage at best marginally contributes to notability and frankly in my opinion does basically nothing toward notability. That somebody writes articles for the Internet ("engages in public commentary", if we want to euphemize it) has an impact of "literally nothing" on notability if said articles aren't actually covered in significant detail by reliable, independent sources. As far as notability for her role in the D&D game is concerned, I'm aware of the game, but once again, scarce little mention of her role is made, and furthermore, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" doesn't exactly fly when referring to an early development game that would likely be removed for being WP:TOOSOON if an article were created about it here. Obviously the wording in WP:CREATIVE criterion 3) is a bit subjective, but not so subjective as to seriously consider this as a reason to create an article. I reviewed the article again, and there's nothing new here that can even be construed as pushing the subject over the notability threshold. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am still working on it, and adding reviews and coverage of her work that are not referenced in the nom, biographical information, and additional honors and awards. The first source cited in the nom, referring to her as "high-profile", seemed like a clue that additional sources supporting notability could exist, and the way that she is similarly referred to in other sources further seems helpful for establishing WP:CREATIVE notability. And it is taking awhile to compile and review all of it, e.g. Vice interview with commentary, Dread Central review, report that she created an advocacy organization, Gaming as Other (VoiceAmerica) etc. Beccaynr (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I appreciate that it's still a WiP, but the Vice article is both far more about Bluebeard's Bride than Beltrán, gives little actual information about the subject herself, and as an interview is a primary source. While Dread Central may or may not be a reliable source, their article is solely a review of Bluebeard's Bride and doesn't mention the subject even one time. "VoiceAmerica" sounds impressive until you realize it isn't actually Voice of America and is instead some obscure Internet podcast. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is a writer and designer of the significant work(s) that have won a variety of awards and acclaim, so when there is commentary offered about the writing, e.g. by the Vice article, or the several reviews, it does seem to be about her, i.e. per WP:NAUTHOR. Nevertheless, even with the sources offered in the nom, there also appears to be sourcing available about her past career, and I've been continuing to develop the article. She operates in a somewhat niche industry, and appears to be quite well-known within it due to her accomplishments, and background information about her and her career appears to be available, so an article is looking justified. Beccaynr (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I changed my first comment above to a keep !vote per WP:CREATIVE/WP:AUTHOR, because Beltran "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" i.e. BlueBeard's Bride and the related titles as a writer and designer, as documented by the awards, including the 2018 IGDN Best Game of the Year (also reported by Geek & Sundry with a brief review), the 2018 IndieCade Grand Jury Award, "the best of IndieCade’s best" (also with a review), and a 2019 ENnie Awards nomination for Best RPG Related product, and per WP:CREATIVE/WP:AUTHOR, these works have "been the primary subject... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," including Dread Central, noted above (and apparently "founded in 2006" and "dedicated to horror news, interviews, and reviews," Dicebreaker (a Gamer Network editorial website - their flagship website is Eurogamer) (part of a larger review) , and Vice, as noted above, which includes commentary in addition to the interview. Also, per WP:CREATIVE/WP:AUTHOR, Beltran "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers," e.g. in the Polygon article above, noting she is "a high-profile indie developer," and a similar description published by GameRiv, i.e. "part of the new D&D game team is Whitney “Strix” Beltràn. popular indie developer responsible for the award-winning tabletop horror RPG, Bluebeard’s Bride," and she was selected by the prestigious Game Awards for inclusion in what is described as "50 talented individuals around the world who represent the bright, bold and inclusive future of video games," and she was chosen as a presenter for the 55th Annual Nebula Awards.

In addition, background on her video game writing career has been highlighted in e.g. PC Gamer, noted above, including State of Decay 2, Beyond Blue, and Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft. In addition, further biographical information going back to her childhood and including her education is emerging from interviews with BoardGameGeek 1, and RPGG 2, as well as her published academic writing, noted above and now included in the article's Works section, along with two publications from Wyrd Con that she contributed to in 2012 and 2013. And her WP:CREATIVE notability does not appear to be WP:BLP1E, because not only is she recently receiving coverage about her role as narrative director in the upcoming D&D game, she has not otherwise remained WP:LOWPROFILE, due to her founding the initiative Gaming as Other, which has included a variety of outreach activities, such as her participation in panel discussions and videos, and her written commentary published at the online science fiction and fantasy magazine Tor.com. Beccaynr (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Beccaynr makes a convincing argument. I wasn't convinced before, but seeing this reasoning, I agree she meets the requirement for the subject specific guideline for creative professionals. Dream Focus 16:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreed, it seems like a valid argument. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Albert Prohl[edit]

Melvin Albert Prohl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Certainly accomplished, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, Before did not show up coverage which could establish notability, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Prohl's notability is based on his recognized accomplishments and contributions over 43 years of professional activity. First recognized as one of the original MIT students to work in the cooperative program with General Electric Company, he had a sustained publication record from 1945 to 1977 which is more usually a trait of a career in academia than industry.

His notability was also recognized in 1999 when he was awarded the N. O. Myklestad Award by ASME, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Founded in the United States in 1880, ASME is now an international organization with more than 110,000 members in 150 countries world wide. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Mechanical_Engineers. Established in 1991, N. O. Myklestad Award is given approximately every two years in recognition of a major innovative contribution to vibration engineering. (https://www.asme.org/about-asme/honors-awards/unit-awards/no-myklestad-award). Only thirteen other professionals have received this award. Kllwiki (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Kllwiki (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)kllwiki[reply]

• Delete: Kllwiki's list is all very well and good, but satisfy no notability criteria, however important he finds Mr. Prohl. Ravenswing 01:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - longevity of 43 years of work does not equate to notability. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Teacher[edit]

I am a Teacher (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 can't find any reviews nor any indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NFILM in searches relating to this film. It does not appear to meet any of the 8 inclusion criteria listed at WP:NFO. It has no independent sources at the moment and I can't see that any suitable replacement sources are available.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places? Happy to withdraw if suitable sources are located. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unable to find independent sources myself. Also to note that all sources so far can be considered as primary source. – robertsky (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Salmeen[edit]

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

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

As far as I can tell, there is no in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. He appears to occasionally have off-hand mentions in press release-style news stories, as well as occasional quotes from him in news stories. The article is also blatantly written by COI accounts. It's basically a CV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah bin Mohammed Al Thani[edit]

Abdullah bin Mohammed Al Thani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no RS coverage of this person. I could find nothing on Google. The content on the page is, as far as I can tell, exclusively sourced to archived press releases. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a search in Arabic produces nothing. Mccapra (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Philanthropy does not automatically get someone an article on Wikipedia, unless it is covergered significantly in reliable secondary sources, rather than the unreliable sources herein. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Micozzi[edit]

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

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

Completely non-notable businessperson. All references are self published or just standard press releases. Created by a pretty much SPA, possible self-promotion or at least connected. Can't find reliable third party references or mentions that aren't basically press releases. Second nomination, was previously deleted but appears to have been recreated from the original draft and nothing has changed since then. Non-notable Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for everything you said. Is that what "per nom" means, actually? AdoTang (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Given this was recreated without anything changing, can't it be speedied? --Kbabej (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Majid Bin Thaniah[edit]

Jamal Majid Bin Thaniah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no RS coverage on which to write an article on the subject. As it stands, the content is just self-sourced puffery. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a search in Arabic brings up nothing. Mccapra (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very clearly a non-notable businessman. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Al Sayegh[edit]

Waleed Al Sayegh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is virtually no RS coverage of the subject. The subject does not meet notability requirements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa AlJaziri[edit]

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

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

There is virtually no RS coverage of the subject. The page was written like an advertisement by a likely COI account in 2010 and there has been nothing in the last 10 years that has substantiated that this person meets the notability requirements. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not seem to pass GNG. MarioGom (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete References just touch on his involvement in the company. Not notable.Lesscynical (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Perhaps the company has more notability than this subject? Nevertheless, the subject of this AfD does not meet GNG requirements. --Kbabej (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This AfD was started after the article had already been redirected to Concentration of media ownership, which would arguably make RfD the right forum. But Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 27#Corporate media was closed in favor of this discussion. In this discussion, there is consensus to not retain this as an article, and no consensus as to whether a redirect is appropriate. Accordingly, the AfD is closed as delete (because almost nobody seems to think that retaining the history is in any way useful). All editors are now free to recreate the redirect and to re-contest it at RfD. Sandstein 07:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate media[edit]

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

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

Extremely McBad. WP:NPOV, WP:Weasel, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYNTH issues. Originally requested a merge/redirect/whatever as suggested by Neutrality, who went ahead with the redirect anyways. Then this RfD discussion opened up, where most people suggested the article be deleted instead. So here we are. Also, wow, this article's 16 years old? Damn. We're chipping into the artifacts to remove the dirt, huh? AdoTang (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a buzzword-type phrase rather than a specific concept that has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of topics already covered in other articles, such as media ownership. I would also be OK with a redirect to concentration of media ownership (which is where media ownership currently redirects). Neutrality^talk 14:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was one who first noticed that the unilateral redirect of this long-standing dumpster fire was inappropriate, and that the target was poorly chosen. The usage in most contexts, media owned by corporations, is too broad for the redirect to Concentration of media ownership. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per above, fails GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/merge It's easy to find other redirect targets such as media conglomerate, aka Big media. But why don't we see whether there are books on the subject:

1. The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest
2. Media Corporate Entrepreneurship: Theories and Cases
3. News Incorporated: Corporate Media Ownership and Its Threat
4. The Globalization of Corporate Media Hegemony
5. Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy
6. Journalism in Crisis: Corporate Media and Financialization
7. The Political Economy of Media
8. Who Owns the Media: Global Trends and Local Resistances
9. Megamedia: How Giant Corporations Dominate Mass Media
10. Big Media, Big Money

The broad topic in these is the control of mass media by large media empires which are mostly interested in making money. The phrase "corporate media" also appears in the title of numerous books about corporate media management – how non-media businesses can and should use the media to support their business. There's clearly lots to say here and that seems to be the main trouble – it's hard to make a simple article out of such a cacophony. And, of course, while we're working hard to figure that out, we read in our own media that the WMF is creating a corporation to market the results to Big Tech – the 21st-century version of Big Media. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Big Media is a redirect to concentration of media ownership, which was the proposed redirect target. The book titles you reference are a mishmash: as you point out, the first two are textbooks on media management, an aspect of business administration, while most others are specifically about media ownership or concentration of media ownership (in fact, at least of those books, by McChesney, is already cited at the latter article). It seems to the extent that any of the other books are useful sources, they would be most useful at one of the existing pages. I don't think it makes sense to have a gigantic article conflating two potential topics, each with very different focus (and it raises synthesis issues too). Maybe we should put a disambiguation page here, pointing to those two articles. Neutrality^talk 18:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's Big media that redirects to media conglomerate. Like I said, it's a cacophony. The issue is explained at WP:BROAD: "a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts." But, as we're an encyclopedia, we should not be ducking difficult topics, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 18:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, but we should be careful about how we cover topics, and should avoid redundancy. (Also: It's rather confusing that Big media (small 'm') and Big Media (big 'm') redirect to two different articles!) Neutrality^talk 19:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to concentration of media ownership. It is a short hand/politicized term, popularized by media critics like FAIR.org, John Nichols, Robert McChesney and Noam Chomsky etc..See https://fair.org/about-fair/whats-wrong-with-the-news/ which mentions corporate media. There are probably other redirects/topics we could make like Corporated owned media, but that's not the scope of this AFD. Shushugah (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems kind of pointless, it's either corporate or public-owned/not-for-profit, like the BBC, CBC, PBS. Someone has to pay the bills to run the thing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine as a personal opinion. I personally consume corporate media, state media, indy media etc.. but their characteristic differences and how their funding models influence their editorial coverage/independence is a subject of scholarly interest, as well as encyclopedic coverage. See State media for a relevant other article. Shushugah (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump and His Magic Wand[edit]

Trump and His Magic Wand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Noncompliant with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, and it fails WP:GNG and WP:10YT. The bulk of the cited sources have trivial mention, if any mention at all about the fiberglass creation. The image has been nominated for AfD at Commons. Footnote #1, The Hill, was published in 2016 before the statue was created; Footnote #7 has no mention at all, and most of the other cited sources are not RS, and so on. The cited interview with Zegan was about the rally, not the fiberglass statue. There are thousands of political paraphernalia during political conventions and rallies - this is just one of many. Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, fails WP:GNG and non compliant with WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPOV, WP:RS CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete News coverage fails GNG and there is no availability of WP:RS. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a one-time publicity stunt.--- Possibly (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two major news outlets coverage: NY Post CNN Dswitz10734 (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  NY Post is classified as not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources - but beside this you need by far more significant coverage to establish Wikipedia:Notability, your argument points more towards Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with nomination; Does not meet notability criteria for GNG; also it is a COI creation, so it's likely that the article was created for promotional purposes. Netherzone (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Silly, end-of-the-news-cycle man bites dog story. If this is the same statue thing that was at CPAC 2021 (I honestly don't care enough to Google and see), then it may be worth a mention there. Zaathras (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gustavo Díaz-Jerez. Hog Farm _Talk 02:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FractMus[edit]

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

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

After ten years this article still contains no references, let alone reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Hardly edited would also be an indicator of lack of notability.

23 revisions since 2009-07-04 (+650 days), 12 editors, 62 pageviews (30 days), created by: Suphysis (167) — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Plenty of spam "download here" links and non-RS found during a Google search (and a non sigcov), but ultimately nothing that can be used to establish notability. Fails GNG. Pahunkat (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the pianist himself. I got exactly two hits in Google News, one to a press release and another to just a website in Spanish, which I don't hablo. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per above. However, the target article has issues of its own (inline external links, few sources). Pavlor (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Righeira discography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vamos a la playa (Righeira album)[edit]

Vamos a la playa (Righeira 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)

Another non-notable album by this group, which continues to get recreated from a redirect. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Righeira discography as is standard procedure in case anyone searches for the album title. Protect against reversion of the redirect too. This compilation contained two notable hit songs, but the album itself received no significant coverage in the music media, at least as can be found in online sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect with protection since it keeps getting re-created. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Tawfiq[edit]

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

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

Previously deleted as non-notable. The reliable sourcing I can find amounts to an interview in the Irish Times (here), and a BBC report on a talk he gave in Cambridge once. He doesn't appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG; I've looked to see whether his writing might pass WP:NAUTHOR, but I can't find any reviews of either of his books, so it doesn't look like he does. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Appears to be a combination of WP:BIO1E/WP:NOTNEWS. There are a few more mentions of the subject by other sources in relation to his conversion, but not enough for demonstrating WP:GNG/WP:BIO notability. Nothing appears to indicate notability on any other grounds such as WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Nsk92 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ASAP and block from recreation. Simply converting to a religion and in and of itself is not wiki worthy. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Conversion by itself is NN and two books about the process does not make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass NAUTHOR. Leaning towards a salting as well, considering we're on the third AfD for this subject and there's not indication of notability. --Kbabej (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Damron[edit]

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

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

Had been deproded, seems to be a typical WP:BIO1E, some coverage about the shoebox action but no sigcov about herself at all CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Possibly merge a sentence or two to Samaritan's Purse to which Operation Christmas Child redirects. She was clearly a successful local organiser, but that is not enough to make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Peterkingiron; absence of significant coverage about the person sans the event in question. PK650 (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no where near enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Dief[edit]

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

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

Individual who doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ’’’Delete’’’. This article is a resume about an everyday person, which is not an appropriate subject for inclusion as a standalone entry in an encyclopedia.
• Delete Non notable individual. I agree that this person does not meet WP:GNG and the sources included don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Redoryxx (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kari Berg[edit]

Kari Berg (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 has been created by the subject 'Kari Berg' herself user:MissDeVine as a means of self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diastinaut (talk • contribs) 12:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the majority of the sources in the article are not independent of the subject. Does not pass WP:NBIO. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - At this point there are not enough notability for this singer. No good sourcing or charting songs etc.BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have not been able to find sufficient sources to support notability per WP:BASIC, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL or WP:AUTHOR. Beccaynr (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources found, one article in Swedish, others are unrelated with only a hit on the Berg name. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the above reasons, plus because she made a page about herself and didn't even bother to follow proper styling. A quote in italics without quotations? Christ, dude! AdoTang (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the above reasons, and principally for violating Wikipedia's policy against self promotion. The article has only gone this long without deletion due to virtually no one searching or viewing it, except by accident. Diastinaut (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Yoo[edit]

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

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

Content is supported by 2 blog source and 1 reliable source (3rd one) however it failed verification and doesn't match up with what was stated. In addition, no point having an dedicated article supporting with self-published source and failed verification source when it can just be included in the television series article Empress Ki (TV series) as description under the cast name.

Sidenote Was told to AFD this instead of CSD, see the article history log instead hence don't blame me for WP:SNOWBALL. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless I didn't get the message and we're doing pages for random main characters in assorted fictional media. In which case, I call dibs on Michael De Santa! Nah, but seriously, this character isn't notable. AdoTang (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We can have pages for fictional characters, but they need to meet WP:NFICTION/GNG and this doesn't seem to be the case here. That said, maybe there is more quality coverage in Korean? Ping me if better sources are found - but I won't hold my breath. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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