Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 29

< May 28 May 30 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bcoo

[edit]
Bcoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

reads like advertising not notable person with fake sources Likiacc (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been searching and while it gives me pause that a series of single purpose accounts keep slapping PRODs and AfDs on this article I am unable to find any evidence that anything in this article is true. There is an IMDB entry here but anyone can make one of those which is why IMDB isn't a reliable source. The idea that this person starting composing for film when they were fourteen? Not impossible but unlikely. I grabbed two references at random and ran them through google translate and neither of them actually mention "Javad Safaee". Notfrompedro (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several that do mention Javad - but it is hard to evaluate their reliability. The article in the Tehran Times does mention him [1], as does this Borna News article. I think the Tehran Times may be reliable, the Borna News is much harder to evaluate. The cited Huffington Post article, on the other hand, does not mention him, which is concerning. We probably need some experts in Farsi sources to help us understand which, if any, of the genuine sources, are reliable. Laplorfill (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tehrantimes is not reliable at all everybody give money to have a post there. as low as 50 dollars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdimalikian (talk • contribs)

{yo|Ki arostamicc}} God sake just search "Javad Safaee" in google. All of his photos are fake and photoshopped ridiculously. He has the same head in his photos. He is absolutely fake and also please look at the sources absolutely fake. All of them have been bought. (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Likiacc (talk • contribs) [reply]


I think some of the news is credible and some recent users who have posted comments have their accounts created to post fake comments. Like Mehdimalikian and Likiacc.Also, translating with Google is not enough translation and one should not make vain judgments.5.125.109.187 (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This artist is well known and has been endorsed on social media. Source: Facebook, Spotify, Apple Music Babakbaris (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable sources though. And if you remove the AfD tag from the article again, you'll be blocked from editing. Laplorfill (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • THIS PAGE IS REPRESENTING A FAKE PERSON, THIS PERSON FIRST CAME UP WITH HIS NAME AS YOU CAN SEE HERE

https://simple.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2021/Javad_Safaee THEN HE IS COMING UP WITH FAKE SOURCES TO PROPEL US to BELIVE THAT HE IS NOTABLE, BUT HE IS NOT NOTABLE.Mehdimalikian (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehdimalikian: please do not write your comments in UPPER CASE. This is taken as shouting, and does nothing to produce a collaborative, productive discussion. Thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after careful consideration, and looking in-depth at the evidence presented here and in the article, I believe the article should be deleted. There are no reliable sources available to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. This may even be a full-on hoax. At best it is a non-notable subject whose details cannot be verified. Laplorfill (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this seems to be full of fake citations, some of which (e.g. HuffPost) do not even mention Bcoo/Javad Safaee at all. Borna News does mention Javad Safaee as "the father of the invention of industrial and traditional style in pop music and is a singer and arranger born on January 3rd in Torbat-e Heydarieh" (via Google Translate), and the Maanews article includes his name in a list of actors, but none mention the award nomination which is in the text adjacent to these citations. The page creator Babakbaris (talk · contribs) deserves at least a final warning, if not immediate blocking as not here to build the encyclopedia. – Fayenatic London 10:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My look at existing references and search for references, match existing comments and votes, probable Hoax, if not then clearly fails WP:N Jeepday (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lasantha Abeywickrama

[edit]
Lasantha Abeywickrama (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 found no notability. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Socialist Equality Party (United States). Minimal coverage of her specifically to demonstrate notability, with most sources generally talking about the party. History left intact, so a merge of sourced info is encouraged - if a useful mention of her is put into a specific section, feel free to add an anchor to the redirect. ~ mazca talk 19:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Halyard

[edit]
Helen Halyard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. The only source provided that isn't a passing mention is [2], but even so it doesn't do anything to establish notability for the subject. Curbon7 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Going with the deletes here. If someone wants to draft the article I'm happy to draftify it for you if you think you can find the reliable secondary sources needed to help the subject pass WP:GNG. So far, no one has presented any. Missvain (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunanda Gandhi

[edit]
Sunanda Gandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Furius: There is significant coverage of Arun Manilal Gandhi and of Melinda Gates for spouse-independent activities and honors. If such coverage existed for Sunanda Gandhi, I would not have suggested a redirect. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, her book The Forgotten Woman with her husband has significant coverages and is subject of several scholarly discussions. She as an author passes WP:Author and deserves standalone article, not redirect. Kirtos67 (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom . No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nomination. Clearly fails WP:GNG--Canyouhearmenow 23:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Clement (scientist)

[edit]
James Clement (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a subject with doubtful notability. A couple of the sources look ok, but the article relies too much on sources that are associated with the subject in some way. Bringing here for a consensus view. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Better Humans No Own company Yes
MIT Technology Review Yes Yes Yes
Beer Lover's New York Yes No Passing mention
The Switch No Own book ~ Likely reliable for claims about self, but not about scientific claims
Humanity+ No Own company Yes
NYT Yes Yes Yes
Fight Aging! Yes No Pseudonymous/anonymous blogger Yes
Dave Asprey podcast No Interview Yes
The Rationalist Conspiracy No Interview Yes
Life Extension No Article contributed by Mr. Clement No One of those pseudoscience "transhumanism" "cure aging" supplement-selling hubs (their "scientific" advisory board is littered with NDs and chiropractors) Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
I would say he is 100% not a scientist according to the sources (or by any stretch of the imagination) and should not be called as such by Wikipedia, but he does appear to have SIGCOV in multiple RS. JoelleJay (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The New York Times and MIT Technology Review are solid sources by any measure, regardless of what you think of the guy, or what he's doing, and both pieces were squarely about him and his work, not tangential. I think what may be rubbing people the wrong way is that "scientist" disambiguation label. There are a lot of people who've put a lot of work into getting doctorates in scientific fields, and someone coming late, without that dues-paying, is naturally going to raise some eyebrows. But that doesn't make him, or what he's doing, any less notable. He's just a quarter-century too late for Mondo 2000; he'd have fit right in. Bill Woodcock (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Powerful Karma (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Powerful Karma, Nominator didn't provide conclusive comments in favor of deletion. Please provide the reason in favour of your vote than just saying, per Nom. Kirtos67 (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, thank you I want to say that he is a well known scholar and scientist in the respected field that's why I thought he passes GNG and maybe I opt a wrong title that I can edit as per your suggestions. Here are some work and articles that may help but I am not sure now. [4] [5]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Socialist Equality Party (United States). Missvain (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Winn

[edit]
Edward Winn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Going with the deletes based on the opinions of experienced editors. If someone wants this drafted, I'm happy to do it. But, so far I'm not being convinced to note this as a "draftify" close. Missvain (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sands Fish

[edit]
Sands Fish (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 enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 16:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 16:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CSD G14. — The Earwig (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mowtowr-e Khodadad

[edit]
Mowtowr-e Khodadad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguates only one extant page. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijeet Shwetchandra

[edit]
Abhijeet Shwetchandra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. The subject appears to fail to meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR — my search did not turn up significant coverage across multiple reliable sources, and he has not had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". DanCherek (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DanCherek (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Whether it should be moved is up to subsequent editing. Geschichte (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kafald

[edit]
Kafald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mike Lindell#Frank. Sandstein 11:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank (website)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Frank (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Web site is a personal project of Mike Lindell without journalistic or social networking features as promised; merge with Lindell's article White 720 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank (social network). The page has since been retitled because none of the social networking features advertised have launched after two attempted launch events (on April 19 and May 10). The site is a de facto personal website of Lindell and his close associates, not a social network site or news site with many contributors. I, as the original creator of the page, don't think Frank is notable on its own. White 720 (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge or Keep, for now Merge with Mike Lindell or Keep, for the moment. Frank does seem to be headed towards the footnotes of history, having contributed very little to the "debate" over the 2020 US Presidential Election, but I think completely loosing the material would be premature. Rklahn (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ive changed my mind. After reviewing Mike Lindell, it covers the topic of Frank in more than enough detail. Rklahn (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Preliminary Keep and reassessment within a year-vote from my side, given that this has got lots of (initial!) media attention we might wait for a while longer. Whenever it makes another big media splash (probably by failing in some way), Wikipedia should be prepared better than with a redirect to the biography of Lindell. --Enyavar (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is another Frank rally planned on June 12, but it is unclear what (if any) announcements will be made about the launch of social features. Absent any of those, Frank would remain a (very expensive) personal web site for Lindell and his inner social circle. White 720 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mike Lindell - nothing substantial has been added since the last nomination, suggesting it was a brief blip in the news. It remains the case that most all of the sources are primarily about Lindell himself, not about the website on its own, meaning that per WP:WEB standards it is non-notable as notability cannot be inherited. The only thing that's changed is that it's more clear now that it's just Lindell's personal website at this point: a place where he posts his "Lindell TV" podcasts and re-posts political commentary from other websites. The biggest notability obstacle remains that Frank as a topic is inseparable from Mike Lindell the person (much unlike other alt-tech websites like Gab and Parler which are notable on their own merits, not because their founders have name recognition), and unless/until this changes, it should be covered at Mike Lindell.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that I think Frank (website) should be redirected, but the less-accurate Frank (social network) (a redirect to this article) should probably be deleted; redirects may be cheap, but there is no such thing as Frank the social network, and if this closes as a consensus to redirect then it'd become a double redirect. This would probably have to be decided in a separate discussion at MfD, though.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Von Doviak

[edit]
Scott Von Doviak (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 found no notability per WP:CREATIVE. Non-notable writer. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I took a look at the sources presented by User:Suonii180 and only one was a reliable secondary source that covered the subject in a significant way. The rest were brief mentions, written by people at Redthread, or primary sources. Nothing has convinced me this subject merits inclusion via GNG. Missvain (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redthread

[edit]
Redthread (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. A small local charity. Before showing social media, refs in the article aren't about the subject. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE Desertarun (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete going with the nom. Fails WP:GNG. Powerful Karma (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Award for Telecommunications Research

[edit]
Canadian Award for Telecommunications Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a scientific research award, not properly referenced for the purposes of establishing its notability as an award. There are just two footnotes here, of which both are primary source content on the websites of directly affiliated organizations, with absolutely no evidence of notability-supporting coverage about it in real media shown at all. As always, every award that exists is not automatically notable just because its own self-published web presence technically verifies that it exists -- the notability test is the reception of coverage in media to establish its significance. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a fair number of web pages mentioning this award when discussing its recipients (e.g. [12] [13]), but these are focused on the recipients and the mention of this award is trivial coverage; while the recipients might be considered notable, the award itself is not. There is no non-primary coverage covering the award itself - certainly not significant coverage needed to pass the GNG. -M.Nelson (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Umayyad campaigns in India. Will semiprotect the redirect as well, as suggested. Hog Farm Talk 02:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rajasthan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Battle of Rajasthan (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 duplicates the topic of Umayyad campaigns in India with a WP:POV title and fictitious content. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whether to create a redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 11:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and Islamophobia

[edit]
Israel and Islamophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article oozes violations of neutrality and NPOV. It's one thing to be documenting things such as violence against Muslims (e.g. in India, for which there is an article), and another to create a page dedicated to what is more or less propaganda. It is also interesting how this article writes about Israel, Myanmar and India backing Islamophobia based off of pure allegations and no real neutral research: "Supporters of Islamophobia have given $11 million to Israel-related causes" among other ridiculous rhetoric. Any Islamophobic incidents in Israel should be covered under the persecution of Muslims article, and this one has seen no constructive contributions. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per OP's rationale, the article could easily be used as a protracted edit battleground as well.AtlasDuane (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT --Shrike (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Racism in Israel, but add a few elements from this article. ---184.148.150.235 (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It seems sources to demonstrate notability do exist for this occurance, and considering the serious damage to the aircraft, and the rather serious nature of the failure that occured, this coverage is more than simply routine coverage of an accident report. Saying this, it would be helpful if these sources were added to the article - currently only cites a single source. (non-admin closure) ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 10:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Air Astana Flight 1388

[edit]
Air Astana Flight 1388 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And isn't this one also regardded as too trivial for an article? DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Snow close, there is no other outcome possible here, overwhelming consensus is elected parliamentary politicians are notable. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Patel (politician)

[edit]
Vijay Patel (politician) (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 non notable politician who fails the critiria for WP:POLITICIAN. Pahiy (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 87

[edit]
FedEx Express Flight 87 (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 my field, but isn't this regarded as too trivial for an article. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Being bold and closing this one early. Missvain (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Mishra (Entrepreneur)

[edit]
Abhishek Mishra (Entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible covert upe article on a non notable “entrepreneur” a WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing of substance rather all I observed were links to user generated sources and self published sources. The subject of the article has won no notable awards thus I do not see them satisfying WP:ANYBIO. Needless to say, this article is an WP:ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@usernamekiran, ah! thanks for sharing the information. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The same article has been recreated multiple times often by many sockpuppets see
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 19:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fenn Center

[edit]
Fenn Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local community centre which fails WP:GNG. The article on it is here. The second-best article, not of WP:GNG note, was about how two county commissioners used taxpayer money to have a wedding there. Everything else is just mere mentions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 21:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Passing mentions galore but no significant coverage, even via Newspapers.com. I did find one article about construction at the facility, but nothing that would qualify as WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW/speedy delete. BD2412 T 06:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Neary

[edit]
RJ Neary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local politician that didn't get elected for mayor in May 2021. This was sitting in draft multiple times with declines. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nomination. Pahiy (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom fails GNG. Okaye Agongo (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in mayoral elections, but nothing here demonstrates that he had any preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy. Further, this was rejected at least three times at AFC for that very reason, but then the page creator bypassed the process by moving the page into mainspace himself, which people using the AFC process aren't allowed to do — and for added bonus, the creator has attempted to remove the AFD template from the article twice so far, which people also aren't allowed to do. Nothing stated here is grounds for a Wikipedia article at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails NPOL. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I looked at the sources added and nothing convinces me that this subject meets WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Shares

[edit]
Cinema Shares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article has only one sentence of prose, and I'm not sure how accurate that one sentence is. "Cinema Shares International Distribution was an American company that released localized English versions of films produced outside of the United States, often sanitizing their content to receive a G rating." While IMDb does indicate that this company was a film distributor (see [14]), it also indicates that this company released a lot more R-rated films than G-rated films, and of the three G-rated films listed by IMDb, two of them were originally in English and thus would not have needed to be "localized". Can anyone with access to the cited sources provide quotations from them to indicate what they say about Cinema Shares releasing "localized English versions" and "often sanitizing their content"? Distributing films such as The Killer Is on the Phone and Die Sister, Die! wouldn't have made them known for marketing films toward family audiences. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was a real film distributor, but there's not enough verifiable information here to justify an article. However, if better sourcing and more information are located in the future, I would support the re-creation of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McClure

[edit]
Scott McClure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Perennial candidate fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 18:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Arrows (film)

[edit]
Broken Arrows (film) (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 doesn't appear to be notable. It doesn't even show up on Metacritic or Rotton Tomatoes (as far as I can tell), and I can't find reviews on blu-ray.com. Nor can I find any other significant coverage of the film in my WP:BEFORE search. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Going with the keeps here. Good work User:TheCatalyst31 and User:Firsfron. Missvain (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midway, Woodbury County, Iowa

[edit]
Midway, Woodbury County, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another GNIS rntry from the Iowa Geological Survey, locates to a crossroads with a few farms about. I'm not having any luck finding anything substantive, other than dots on old maps. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parviz Mahmudov

[edit]
Parviz Mahmudov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Parviz Mahmudov

Composer who does not meet general notability or any criterion of musical notability. Created first in draft space, and then in article space when autoconfirmed, thus making draftification impossible; this is sometimes done to game the system. See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; the discography is too long (and misspells Composer). Five references in Azerbaijani do not provide significant coverage.

Reference Comments Independent Significant
1 milli.az Wedding report, in Azerbaijani No
2 kaspi.az Interview, in Azerbaijani No No, interview
3 azadinform.az Interview, in Azerbaijani No No, interview
4 metbuat.az Announcement in Azerbaijani Maybe No
5 metbuat.az Announcement in Azerbaijani Maybe No
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:15, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Shakir

[edit]
Nancy Shakir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed congressional candidate, search doesn't show she's received sufficient coverage to meet GNG or any relevant SNG Eddie891 Talk Work 15:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful candidates in elections, but this neither demonstrates that she had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of her candidacy nor evinces a reason to deem her candidacy as unusually notable in comparison to most other candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Taffel

[edit]
Stan Taffel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non notable individual. Lacks independent coverage about him in reliable sources. Coverage is priamry, PR reproductions, listings, non reliable and minor mentions. Nothing good for gng. No significant roles in notable productions. Emmys won are regional. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santaflow

[edit]
Santaflow (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 Non-Notable musician who Fails WP:GNG & WP:RS , it Fails WP:MUSICBIO . a Non-Notable Musician that has never charted on any national Charts . NOT even a single song of him was on charts , i DONT understand how this musician is Notable , what makes him Notable i dont know .... i DONT understand how this article manage to come into the Mainspace , the topic of this article Fails wikipedia Notability guildlines Samat lib (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salima Saxton

[edit]
Salima Saxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

apparently minor playwright and actor. No major roles in notable productions. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chuchle battle

[edit]
Chuchle battle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and unnotable. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only a few sources in English, but really plenty sources in German and Czech.--Jklamo (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As i have commented to deletion nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse curve, a nomination consisting of "unreferenced and unnotable" is inadequate. It begs the questions of whether wp:BEFORE performed, and why you think it is not notable. And being unreferenced is simply not a valid reason to delete an article; no references at all are required. What matters is whether a topic is substantial and that sources/references exist which could be used to support statements in the article if challenged, or could be used to develop the article further. For this topic, per comments of others above, apparently sources do exist. --Doncram (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no longer unreferenced, and the number of book sources now listed suggests that this is indeed notable. NemesisAT (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is a general consensus that the evidence for overall notability of the subject is sufficient. This AfD clearly endorses the existence of the article, though not necessarily the current state of some of its content, which may require further discussion. ~ mazca talk 19:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Gately

[edit]
Katie Gately (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

may or may not be notable as a musician, but this article is essentially over-personal PR- DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
for my information, which of the references in the current article do you consider RSs. ? DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that it's a primary source, but including whatever the person wants to say about themselves is the key characteristic of a promotional interview. As I said in my nomimination, I can't judge the notability in this field -- the reason for my nomination waa the promotionalism, and restoring it after I tried to remove it confirms that as the basic intent of the article. promotionalism doesnt only mean by the subject as in paid editing--it can also mean by fans or supporters. The place for her to say what she claims to influence her is her own web site. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But if you review the sources, (Quietus, Guardian), there is more in them than those quotes, including commentary by the interviewer and biographical information, so I think the content could be reworked without simply deleting the sources. I just don't have the time at the moment to focus on it, and it does not seem helpful to delete reliable sources that include other content in the midst of a deletion discussion. You can tag the section with your concerns in the meantime if you wish, but it does not seem helpful to the AfD discussion to remove sources that include support for Gately's notability. Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them because I thought they weakened the article. But I recognize that WP articles on performers often contain a considerably greater degree of promotionalism and self-quotation that is accepted in most other biographies, and I'm not likely to try to chance practices in af ield which is of very peripherial interest to me. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I accidentally closed this before I realized I was the first person to comment. Oops! I reopened it to let a non-associated reviewer to close. Sorry folks. Missvain (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator also blocked for sockpuppetry Canley (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karayilekku Oru Kadal Dooram

[edit]
Karayilekku Oru Kadal Dooram (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 non-notable film. No reliable sources found on a WP:BEFORE. Thus fails WP:NFILM Powerful Karma (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Beccaynr (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such good references to prove it's notability. Powerful Karma (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Beccaynr (talk) 06:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Missvain (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Goldberg

[edit]
Jonathan Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG ItsKesha (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ItsKesha (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:TOOSOON Missvain (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carl E. Fields

[edit]
Carl E. Fields (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 yet notable--still a postdoctoral fellow; the awards are student awards.

The only 2 publication seem to be

Fryer CL, Lloyd-Ronning N, Wollaeger R, Wiggins B, Miller J, Dolence J, Ryan B, Fields CE. Understanding the engines and progenitors of gamma-ray bursts. The European Physical Journal A. 2019 Aug;55(8):1-3., [19] has been cited 7 times only according to Google Scholar


and Fields CE, Couch SM. On the Development of Multidimensional Progenitor Models for Core-collapse Supernovae. The Astrophysical Journal. 2020 Sep 18;901(1):33. [20] has been cited 3 times only.

The various references are all entirely PR or announcements. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Postdocs are usually WP:TOOSOON for academic notability, and his junior-researcher awards and two 100+ citation articles, both in middle position among many non-alphabetical authors [21], are not enough to stand above that in this field. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Scopus shows 298 citations and an h-index of 7, far below that of his coauthors in what is a high-citation field. He does not meet any other NPROF criteria either. JoelleJay (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above, fails WP:NPROF and is just TOOSOON. --hroest 15:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I note the article says "Forbes top 30 under 30", but digging deeper shows that it was "Forbes top 30 under 30, for science, within North America". There's a top 30-for-30 for Asia too and other places too, and there's one for business and things other than science too. Still, top 30 under 30 for science in NA is a very exclusive list with only 30 awarded out of millions that qualify. It seems more selective than, for example, the Guggenheim Fellowship. Is this not enough for general or academic notability? I'd like to point out that "lack of citations" alone shouldn't be used to delete an article about someone. Dr. Universe (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Guggenheim fellowships are grants of substantial money, given by a non profit organization with expertise in the field, advised by those who can judge academic and artistic notability, to those who ""who have demonstrated exceptional capacity for productive scholarship or exceptional creative ability in the arts.",," not open to students, only to "advanced professionals in mid-career"; the Forbes "awards" are awarded by editors working for a business enterpris to people who are not mid career, but mostly just beginners. They correspondingly away 40 under 40, and so forth. It's an elaborate publicity gimmick, originally for their social media network. (There are other Forbes list, such as for richest people, that are awarded on the basis of what business journalists do have expertise) DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's normally only permitted for 6 months. If the person ever does become notable , it's more likely to be 5 years. DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Outline of canoeing and kayaking. As the discussion has progressed a clear consensus for redirecting to this outline article has developed, which dodges most of the issues raised in the earlier arguments between keep and delete. ~ mazca talk 15:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canoeing and kayaking

[edit]
Canoeing and kayaking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary disambiguation page; disambiguates solely to the two water sports named in the title. Has more than one disambiguation, and so doesn't appear to qualify for Speedy Delete G14? BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Green Construction

[edit]
Baltimore Green Construction (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 WP:RS in article. Unresolved WP:V tag present on article for last eight years. A WP:BEFORE finds a single, incidental mention [22]. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Florida Gators women's gymnastics. Going with a redirect as an WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Florida Gators women's gymnastics season

[edit]
2019 Florida Gators women's gymnastics season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately fails WP:GNG - the prose is all about the previous season, and none of the references are either reliable (blogs)/independent (the university.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hanan

[edit]
Muhammad Hanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Junior athlete, unsubstantiated claims based on 'World Athletics' but no notability in media or substantiation of timing/status by any recognised world athletics body. Article wholly unsourced, subject fails WP:GNG; WP:NCOLLATH; WP:YOUNGATH; WP:NSPORT. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Good work by Canley in sourcing and improving the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cha Cha

[edit]
Blue Cha Cha (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. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Peoria County Board election

[edit]
2008 Peoria County Board election (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 election SecretName101 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYTJ

[edit]
DYTJ (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 enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 13:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Basit Syed

[edit]
Abdul Basit Syed (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 independent coverage. Just interview and profile links. Fails WP:GNG 1друг (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus both that GNG is met but also that NEVENT does not prevent a biographical article due to duration of coverage Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Sultan

[edit]
Asif Sultan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the coverage is about one event. Just getting in controversy doesn't make him notable. Fails WP:GNG 1друг (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting multiple journalist articles prior to perhaps the key one after which he was arrested: [24]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there was only news items about this person's arrest, asserting failure of EVENT would be more plausible, but this is an issue of an ongoing detention, inter alia. There's multiyear, international RS on the subject, plus the award. Clearly meets the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network). Consensus that notability is not met Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balitang Balita

[edit]
Balitang Balita (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 fails WP:GNG. ----Rdp060707|talk 13:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ----Rdp060707|talk 13:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network) - Fail WP:TVSHOW. Abrilando232 (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus that notability can be met. Discussions for merging into a more suitable broader topic can be held in the normal fashion. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse curve

[edit]
Reverse curve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose that the article "Reverse curve" be deleted for the following two reasons: 1. The subject is not notable; and 2. Inadequate referencing. The only reference on the page only tangentially mentions the subject of the article. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 13:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG as there are plenty of sources that cover this topic. I've updated the citations in the article. It would probably be better if there was an article on Railway curves or Curve (transportation) that this topic could be merged into though. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, already two sources added since the nomination. Though per above I'd also support a merge into a suitable article provided that article isn't too crowded already. NemesisAT (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:JJK2000, your deletion nomination is inadequate without wp:BEFORE being addressed. "Inadequate referencing" is simply not a valid deletion reason. If you find referencing poor, tag the article, or add references. There is no requirement that an article have any references at all; it is enough that references exist somewhere. "The subject is not notable" begs the question: why do you think the subject is not notable? Have you looked into the topic? Or do you just not like the current state of the article? These criticisms apply to other nominations by this editor, which should perhaps all be closed speedy keep with admonition to the editor. --Doncram (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Doncram: According to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Since it is not possible to write much more than a definition of a reverse curve, the page reverse curve should be deleted. And no, all of my deletion nominations should be looked at on their own merits, instead of dismissing them based on the user who nominated them. You may even notice that quite a few people agree with my nominations. Kind regards, JJK2000 (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed JJK2000's comment here to start with "Comment" rather than "Delete"; your !vote to "Delete" is implicit in your nomination of the article for deletion, and in a minor way it can seem confusing to other AFD participants that another "Delete" voter has shown up. Also, in a minor way it gums up the usefulness of wp:AFDSTATS reporting (so AFDSTATS report on JJK2000 fails to show this AFD as one that you nominated). So please accept this minor edit to what you wrote.
According to that report, your entire AFD participation history is 8 articles that you have nominated, and none of which has yielded a "delete" decision yet (there was one "Keep" and no others are closed yet). Perhaps you have other experience under a different username or not logged in. But, User:JJK2000, sure, I agree that not all of a person's contributions should be dismissed blithely; specific review is necessary. I had seen and was referring to your AFD nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over-track train station (2nd nomination), where your reasons are " reasons: 1. The subject is not notable; and 2. Inadequate referencing. The only reference on the page is not about the subject at all", which rubbed me the wrong way as here. If you don't like the referencing, tag the article or add referencing; that is not a reason to delete an article. And now I also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuchle battle, where your nomination in its entirety is "Unreferenced and unnotable. Kind regards, JJK2000" and where response from an AFD participant is "Nom seems not to have troubled with a BEFORE. Rotten little stub but AFD =/= cleanup." I don't see where "quite a few people agree with my nominations". I do think, based on sample of 3 nominations reviewed, that you need to support your statements, and you need to perform wp:BEFORE and explain how you have done so. Sorry to AFD participants that I have gone off-track with respect to this AFD; for anything further along these lines i may comment at User talk:JJK2000 or would welcome discussion at my Talk page.
About this specific Reverse curve article, I disagree that "it is not possible to write much more than a definition of a reverse curve". My consulting the first sources suggested by Google (https://mathalino.com/reviewer/surveying-and-transportation-engineering/compound-and-reversed-simple-curves, https://engineer-educators.com/lessons/reverse-curves/, https://www.iowadot.gov/design/dmanual/02d-01.pdf and maybe another one or two), leads me to understand that a reverse curve is kind of simplistic. It is strictly defined as a horizontal double curve comprised of two sections of circles. And while specifications/instructions are given in how an Iowa department of transportation engineer or other road or railroad designer can make calculations to implement a reverse curve in a given setting, it is conveyed that reverse curves "don't work well" for drivers/persons/vehicles moving at decent speed. Because it involves a jarring-like switch of momentum: consider a motorcycle leaning one way around a circular curve, then instantaneously having to switch to lean the opposite way as the reverse curve tangent is hit and a different circular curve proceeds forward. So in railroad design there will be an issue of undue force applied to the tracks. In road design and otherwise, it is better to use sections of non-circular curve to avoid the too-abrupt change. However it is noted that in park pathway design and other slow-speed applications, that reverse curves can be pleasing to the eye and worth implementing.
The article can/should be developed more to cover the issues with strict application of reverse curves in various settings, and alternatives. It could possibly be expanded and have its title changed to be about the multiple alternatives, not just reverse curves, and/or it could possibly be merged into such a design/engineering type article if one is already existing. But such developments are not for this AFD. I believe "Keep", with encouragement to editors to continue developing the article, because there is in fact lots to say about the topic, is the right decision. --Doncram (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further on design considerations, there are vertical as well as horizontal reverse curves, and vertical ones in road design settings can have a "sight-hidden dip" issue where a car coming towards you is hidden temporarily as you come over the crest of a hill... I am familiar with one specific avenue in a U.S. city where that is a surprising and alarming possibility. The article "Design Considerations for Highway Reverse Curves" (1991? or later) in journal Transportation Research Record goes into that and other sight distance-related calculations and design issues. --Doncram (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marton Robinson

[edit]
Marton Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of an artist which I don’t think meets WP:ARTIST. Many of the refs are passing mentions. Notability is borderline at best. Mccapra (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found very little in terms of in-depth coverage of his work in a search. It may be possible that it's out there, but I did not find it. The mentions I did find are:
I am going to go with delete, based on the above. It is rare that an artist three years out of graduate school has a significant profile. It's not a policy, but WP:TOOSOON.--- Possibly (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G7 deleted. Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sedevacantist fasting practices

[edit]
Sedevacantist fasting practices (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 a notable topic, not deserving of its own article. Moreover, the topic is not supported by any secondary source which tackles the topic. The only secondary source of the whole article does not mention Sedevacantists at all. Veverve (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My, but WP can be an educational experience at times. This article adds nothing to Sedevacantism and shouldn't be a standalone. Also WP:OR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sedevacantism. Or Delete. I'm frankly indifferent, and I don't think I can find sufficient additional sources unless we tentatively accept the Catholic blogosphere. I'm also the only editor who has edited the page substantially, so feel free to speedy close this if you would like. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This strikes me as actually about the strict application of traditional Catholic practice on fasting, adding nothing that is specific to this Catholic traditionalist splinter. Possibly repurpose as "traditional Catholic practice on fasting", but I expect we have an article on that somewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think that any consistent fasting practice exists among sedevacantists, just as many other other traditions are not consistent. It is a catch-all term for people who believe that the papacy is vacant, but there is no general agreement among them about how long it has been vacant. Fasting practices are usually those that existed in the wider Roman Catholic church before whatever date it is believed it became vacant. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of military engineer nomenclatures

[edit]
List of military engineer nomenclatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's content is already covered by military engineering. Aside from that, the article's title says it is a list of nomenclature, but the article does not provide any nomenclature and is barely a list at all. This article has no sources and the subject is too broad/vague. The article is simply not useful to anyone. Pythagimedes (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pythagimedes (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Pythagimedes (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Pythagimedes (talk) 10:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Also eligible for G5 speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valaleilo. MER-C 16:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Montik

[edit]
Ivan Montik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo piece on a non-notable businessperson. Sources look plentiful, but consist of a few interviews and some articles at best indirectly associated with the person (many of which don't even mention him), nothing even close to sigcov. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with concerns on sources and that, when parsed and balanced, they amount to a fail of WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is also a draft, Draft:Ivan Montik, which appears to be word-for-word the same as this article, although it was nominally created by different editors. Creating two copies of a page in draft space and article space is often done to game the system by preventing draftification of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article: Hey! I've been working on the same article for a month, as I see someone have added a picture and few more relible sources to SBCnews and Eurogames and push it to a mainspace - now i have received notification and join the discussion. Thank you all for expressing your opinions on the article that have been created. In defense of the article: Searching by name yields multiple results from different sources. There are many interviews, but there are also product and company reviews that are secondary sources. It is worth noting the presence of quotes related not only to the developers industry. The person has played a major role in co-creating a well-known technik which has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Vlavluck (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for joining the discussion. Now that you're here, can you shed any light on how you and another editor came to create two identical copies of this article? Also, when you say you "received notification", what do you mean by that, given that you're not the creator of this article (or rather, this particular copy)? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi DoubleGrazing! As I see there are few more contributors who added an image and two more sources and publish the article bypassing my draft. By "received notification" I mean that when I've been checking status of my draft's resubmission, I've found notice that the article already exist. When I've checked it I realise that is my draft. But since I have no copyright for it from the moment it was posted on the site, I have no complaints about it. The main question we are faced here is whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia and how it can be improved in order to save it Vlavluck (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands - crypto-related puffery, dubious sourcing unsuitable for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Atlas Portland Cement Company. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. F. Affleck

[edit]
B. F. Affleck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman. Notable information is that he was president of Atlas Portland Cement Company; his name and the years of his presidency could be merged into that article. Much of the current article is his family's history, with sources including unpublished family autobiographies and newsletters, and links to death notices. Other sources are from local newspapers in the 1910s and 20s about how he had recently become a sales manager and president of a men's club. Popeye191 (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Luke Rose

[edit]
John Luke Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Griffiths

[edit]
Herbert Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And that doesn't include what I think could qualify under WP:BASIC. I think with a bit of due diligence and focus, he could have a robust article built around offline sources. Missvain (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 08:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvian region name etymologies

[edit]
Peruvian region name etymologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pointless unreferenced table of etymologies of a dozen or so of Regions of Peru. Whatever is reasonable must be moved into the corresponding artcles Lembit Staan (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Andrew Tan. Ultimately I find myself persuaded by the arguments that the sources are not reliable/independent, primarily by DGG as well as Extraordinary Writ's switch to delete. To prevent recreation, I will redirect to Andrew Tan and protect (rather than a straight SALT). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin L. Tan

[edit]
Kevin L. Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Covert UPE article on a Non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus a major GNG fail. A before search shows hits in unreliable sources which were majorly just press releases. Even in the sources used in the article, they predominantly only discuss his father stepping down for him to be the next CEO. Furthermore notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Caña, Paul John (2017-04-29). "The Next Tycoon: Kevin Tan Goes From Handing out Flyers to Expanding Beyond Real Estate". Esquire. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

      The article is an extensive profile of Kevin Tan. The article notes: "Many stories have been written about Tan, the eldest son of billionaire Andrew Tan, who Forbes Philippines magazine listed as the 10th richest man in the country last year. Good-natured, well-spoken, and a familiar presence in Manila’s social scene, the younger Tan has been exposed to the workings of the empire his father built since he was born. ... Besides being executive director of Alliance Global, the conglomerate’s holding company, Tan is also senior vice president and head Megaworld Lifestyle Malls, which basically means he handles the leasing, marketing and operations of the company’s slate of “lifestyle malls,” including [list of malls]. Tan also oversees the commercial aspect of the company’s expansion into township developments outside Metro Manila ...

    2. Gonzales, Iris (2019-05-05). "The Emperador's Son". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

      The article notes: "The young Tan no doubt juggles his time between his duties as chief executive officer of Alliance Global Group Inc., the conglomerate his father founded, and as husband to Michelle and a doting dad to their two children. He has taken on practically all public duties related to the group, as his father has chosen to steer clear of the spotlight."

    3. San Juan, Thelma Sioson (2012-11-18). "Kevin Tan: 'Dad knows how to motivate, to spot what you want'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

      The article profiles Kevin Tan. The article notes: "When Kevin Tan was eight years old, he was sent by his parents Andrew and Katherine to Hong Kong to spend his grade school there at the Chinese International School."

    4. Flores, Mikhail (2018-06-05). "Philippine tycoon Andrew Tan steps aside for son. Alliance Global's new leader becomes youngest among country's conglomerates". The Nikkei. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

      The article notes: "Kevin Tan, 38, was appointed CEO effective Monday, while his 68-year-old father remains as Alliance Global's chairman. The son becomes the youngest chief executive among major Philippine conglomerates."

    5. Mauricio-Arriola, Tessa (2021-02-21). "On the perfect balance of leadership at a most challenging time". The Manila Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

      This is an interview of Kevin Tan. The article provides analysis about Kevin Tan, noting, "To be sure, his billionaire father, Andrew Tan, trained him with love and by whip and example, as he rose up the ranks from a mere sales agent to the top executive posts across the family’s diverse investments; but it is all the more certain the senior Tan couldn’t have seen a pandemic bringing the world to a stop in this lifetime, nor prepare his son to steer his life’s work through such catastrophe. Nonetheless, all but 40 years old, the business scion did not disappoint his legendary father nor their family and the many hundreds of AGI employees who depend on the Tans’ success and subsistence of their own."

    6. Millet, Manaquil M. (2021-02-14). "Kevin Tan: Fast action on the road to recovery". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

      The article discusses Kevin Tan's work on Megaworld's homegrown delivery app, Pick.A.Roo.

    7. Kingsu-Cheng, Jane (2020-08-07). "Kevin Tan on how to make living in this crisis easier. His new baby, the newest on-demand delivery app, Pick.a.roo, is designed to make contactless shopping faster and easier for Filipino families". Manila Bulletin. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

      The article discusses Kevin Tan's co-founding of the app Pick.a.roo. The article notes that he is a father and has a daughter, Kathleena.

    8. Kevin Tan's wedding and children:
      1. Mananquil, Millet M. (2013-07-21). "Kevin Tan and Michelle See fill their wedding with love, laughter, songs and 24 kisses". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

        The article is a detailed profile of Kevin Tan's wedding.

      2. Flores, Wilson Lee (2013-05-29). "Kevin Tan & Michelle See: An auspicious date". The Philippine Star. Retrieved 2021-05-16 – via PressReader.

        The article notes: "The 300 luncheon reception guests of Kevin Andrew Tan and Michelle Lorraine See Ñ led by President Noynoy Aquino ... Ñ his sisters, TV/movie star Kris Aquino and Ballsy Aquino-Cruz, Senator Manny Villar, PAGCOR chairman Bong Naguiat, Secretary Rene Almendras, Robina Gokongwei-Pe, Nedy Tan-toco and Anton Tantoco Huang ..."

      3. San Juan, Thelma Sioson (2013-07-21). "'What you need you already have'". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

        The article notes: "Megaworld scion Kevin Tan, 33, is never afraid of the spotlight, not even with media watching. He is a people’s guy. ... His parents, Andrew and Katherine, made sure he would get used to the company of people other than his family or clan. They sent him—the eldest in a brood of four—to study and live in Hong Kong at eight years old, an age when Filipino boys, in general, aren’t even weaned from their yaya."

      4. Jambora, Anne A. (2013-05-26). "Kevin Tan takes a bride". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.

        The article notes: "Tan has always been the marrying kind—and very religious. A devout Catholic, he has never missed a Sunday Mass for six years now. He had been praying for years for the right girl to come along. He once got engaged, at 30, a mistake he didn’t want to repeat."

      5. "Real-estate scion Kevin Tan weds in Singapore". Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2017-04-24. Archived from the original on 2021-05-16. Retrieved 2021-05-16.
      6. "Afternoon of childhood memories. A carnival make-believe for Andrew Tan II". Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2019-05-22. Retrieved 2021-05-16 – via PressReader.

        The article notes that Andrew Tan II (nicknamed "Drew"), the son of Kevin Tan and wife Michelle See-Tan, turned one year old in May 2019.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kevin Tan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I rewrote the article with completely new content after finding copyright violations in the existing text.

    Cunard (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom, clearly UPE article, non notable businessman CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm satisfied that the sources identified by Cunard are sufficient to pass the GNG. The coverage is certainly substantial, and it appears to come from leading national newspapers. While being the child of a notable person certainly does not make one notable, it also doesn't prevent one from being notable if there's coverage in reliable sources. Paid editing, etc. can be dealt with via the appropriate processes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC) !vote changed; see below. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more vanity spam, no independent notability from the company and what littel coverage there is of him is akin to gossip columns. YODADICAE👽 00:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The subject was extensively covered in the reputable major Philippine newspapers The Philippine Star and the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Philippine edition of Esquire. There is substantial biographical coverage about him, which I included in my complete rewrite of the article. Kevin Tan passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    The coverage spans nearly a decade: 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. Extraordinary Writ is correct in noting that Kevin L. Tan's association with his notable father and with Alliance Global do not prevent him from becoming notable when there are multiple articles from reputable national newspapers written about his early life, business career, and personal life.

    The original creator may be an undisclosed paid editor and sockpuppet (I created a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zaid Zayd). But that should have no effect on this article. I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject, and I completely rewrote the article without using any of the prior content because it contained copyright violations. No content from the creator, who is a single-purpose account, remains.

    Pinging Spiderone (talk · contribs), who participated in this AfD and who wrote in the previous AfD, "Speedy delete - per WP:G5, if he is actually notable, someone that isn't a banned sock can write an article on him". I am not a banned sock, and I wrote an article about him because I think he is notable. Would you take review the rewritten article and the sources? Thanks,

    Cunard (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment — @Cunard, please start by learning to WP:SIGN properly. honestly none of the sources you provided are cogent nor do they satisfy WP:RS. I suggest you brush up your grasp on both what counts as RS and also our notability criteria for inclusion before rushing to make a comment in an AFD, im going to be frank with you because I’m afraid all your entries in this AFD have been disruptive and yes I do believe a COI exits between yourself and the subject of our discussion. Thanks. Celestina007 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh good grief. Cunard? A well-regarded editor who has participated in north of 4000 AfDs? I respect your work combating UPE/spam, Celestina, but accusing Cunard of a COI is a bridge too far. I probably lean deletionist, but I recognize that having numerous articles in leading national newspapers is more than adequate to establish notability. I would urge you to take a closer look at the details here: they aren't what they seem to be at first glance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs).

          Celestina007, the sources I provided are all from reputable publications and are strong reliable sources. I do not understand your comment about signing properly as I have signed all my comments in this AfD properly. I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject and disagree that "all your entries in this AFD have been disruptive". AfD is not the proper venue to discuss conduct issues. If you have a conduct complaint against me regarding COI or disruptive AfD contributions, please report me to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for the community to review and sanction me if appropriate. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          • You said to Cunard please start by learning to WP:SIGN and accusing Cunard of a COI! What the hell ugh ? He is a highly respected editor who has participated in north of 4000 AfDs. I suggest you please start by learning who Cunard is and then go on!! LOL What a big joke? 🤣 VocalIndia (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has been significantly improved with additional reliable sources references by Cunard. So that WP:BASIC is passed. Btw, for other, see WP:IDONTLIKE! Why people are using AfD as a weapon ? VocalIndia (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — @VocalIndia, please let’s be mature and tone down the sarcasm. Now, if you claim the article has been improved then please point me to three reliable sources that discuss the “Businessman” with in-depth significant coverage. Furthermore please you are also welcome to read WP:ATA. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1 2 3 is good enough for me. Perhaps he shouldn't be notable, but that's not our call. Reliable sources have seen fit to discuss him in detail, so he's notable, full stop. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment — Not quite, the first source you used has all the tale marks of a covert sponsored piece and only discusses the subject of our discussion within the confines of him succeeding his father as the next ceo. The second source is basically an extended announcement that yet again discusses the subject of our discussion predominantly within the confines of him becoming the next ceo of his fathers organization which leads us to the third and last source you provided which states that the piece is an “advertisement” in the body of the article and furthermore appears to be an interview with the subject of our discussion which makes It immaterial as the source isn’t independent of the subject and GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. You are welcome to go through WP:RS in your spare time. Furthermore notability is earned by merit and not my proximity to a notable entity or individual. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Celestina007 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose we're just going around in circles here, but I feel obligated to offer a few brief responses. 1) Nikkei Asian Review is not a purveyor of covert paid pieces: it is instead considered a reliable source for Asian financial news. 2) The third source nowhere says that it is an advertisement; I'm somewhat mystified at how you reached that conclusion. 3) Frankly, it's irrelevant that these pieces only discuss "the subject of our discussion within the confines of him succeeding his father". The point is that they discuss him, and it's immaterial why. In any event, the sources presented by Cunard provide a wide variety of unrelated coverage, including of his wedding and his other business endeavors. 4) The third source contains analysis by an independent journalist; the fact that an interview is included is irrelevant. 5) Suggesting that editors haven't gone through WP:RS is incivil, to say the least. 6) Notability is not "earned by merit": it is earned by coverage in reliable sources. If sources cover him (as they clearly do), we are not qualified to opine on a perceived lack of "merit". This is, of course, what WP:IDONTLIKEIT was written for. See, e.g., the perspectives offered in this AfD. In sum, I don't see this as a close call, and I'm no inclusionist. I hope other editors will take a close look at the sources and the guidelines in assessing this AfD, for initial impressions can be deceiving. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Semantics! notability is earned by “merit” and by “merit” I mean, the subject of the article satisfies our general notability criteria for inclusion or the relative SNG. You have made some inaccuracies in your analysis above, whilst I might not get into all, I’d address a few. You implied that multiple sources only discussing one aspect of the individual is irrelevant but WP:1E invalidates that. You implied that an interview can count towards notability, again, not quite, WP:GNG expressly states for it to be satisfied the source should be independent of the subject. Finally, You have referenced WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I’m not sure why, thus far my arguments have been solely policy based I’m unsure how that applies here. Finally, a reliable source and a reliable piece aren’t one and the same, every now and again reliable sources publish unreliable piece(s) and discernment is left for us.Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article as written prevents any possible claim of WP:BLP1E; as this essay cogently explains, any coverage of more than one event is sufficient to prevent invocation of BLP1E. In this case, there's far more than that: there's information about all sorts of additional biographical events, including previous work, his wedding, and his post-2018 actions. I could perhaps go either way on the interview, but, as this essay notes, interviews that contain the interviewer's "own thoughts" are indeed secondary. You've provided no evidence that the first source was paid for; the fact that it was written by a paid employee of a reliable news outlet would tend to dispel any such suggestion. And even if you don't like the three sources I've selected, there's a large reserve of additional stories in reliable press outlets above that I haven't even discussed. While I appreciate your zeal, I'd respectfully suggest that it would be better directed at real spam, not good-faith articles by good-faith contributors citing hosts of reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I read most of the coverage as a combination of fake interviews, covert influenced journalism, and non-critical adulation. There is no news source in the world that does not publish articles written or instigated by PR--the very job of a good press agent is to find what people will consider reliable sources to put their material in. This isn't exactly paid journalism, but it has the same effect. 15 years ago I was much less able to detect the more a sophisticated versions of it, but experience at WP has provided a thorough education. I've been opposed to Cunard on many similar AfDs, and sometimes, I am indeed convinced, when that happens, I admit it. But often at least some of the sources are not quite as significant or free from influence as they at first appear, and I think this will prove to be the case here. What I'm skeptical about is not that an article is impossible, but that an article based on the sources cited above and used in the present revision of the article [25] will not be NPOV. It will take a while for me to check them all, but looking at one quotation in the present version " According to The Manila Times, Tan's father 'trained him with love and by whip and example, as he rose up the ranks from a mere sales agent to the top executive posts across the family's diverse investments". I do not see how this style of writing can possibly be a reliable source. Similarly, sourced to the Philippine Star "When his father announced the appointment, he was a guest at a wedding being held in another country. He began getting numerous text messages complimenting him on the promotion. Despite having been trained to become the conglomerate's CEO and having collaborated with his father beginning when he was a 21-year-old, he did not know his father would appoint him at that moment" This statement about his private knowledge can have come only from him, and for a news source to report it as fact without qualification is not reliable journalism. And apparently these are the sources that are considered best! I'll look at the others tomorrow. I am not saying that Cunard could not write an NPOV article, for I know he can, but I am saying that this version is not a example of one.
As for the question of objective notability , the formal rule is to go by the sources and that usually works. It does not work quite so well when all the sources are influenced by PR, or when thee is repeated attempts to write a promotional article. A non-promotional article can only be written where there is something actually objective to write about. In that sense, the GNG guideline is only a failable shortcut. NOT TABLOID remains policy. A subject about which only such an article is possible is not suitable or an encyclopedia . Celestina's view of notability is in such cases a much more reliable approach; but of course I think that, for that is the view I have followed and advocated myself for many years in WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting that a WP:ATD exists via a merge/redirect to Alliance Global or Andrew Tan. Not voting on if the article should be kept or not as I'm not sure of the independence of the sources, the sources given are large national newspapers which normally would be an easy WP:GNG pass, but I do agree with some concerns other editors have given regarding the RS. Probably the best bet for this is to find some sources that are based outside of the Philippines, as his family's wealth can make a lot of influence to even the best sources. Jumpytoo Talk 06:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt Son of a rich man with plenty of money to create an extensive map of coverage, generated by PR agencies. Kevin Tan on being a leader, Kevin Tan on being a son, Kevin Tan on getting married, Kevin Tan on being a devout Catholic, but not one describing why he is even notable. Why is that? scope_creepTalk 11:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anybody seen the latest trend in conversational advertising. Check out [[26]] They will take any content generated by a company, and create an article out of it, for your brand. scope_creepTalk 11:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Cunard. Article needs a little more clean-up by removing unnecessary stuff in the "Business career" and "Personal life" sections. Other than that, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated by the said user. As for the issue regarding WP:COI, the nominator's accusation against Cunard is baseless. There is no conflict of interest involved whatsoever as Cunard managed to look for sources and do a WP:HEY on the article. The current version is much different from the previous one, which looked promotional. I initially opted for a redirect to the company. But due to Cunard's improvements, I'll vote to keep it. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really think those edits are improvememts? Ii think they made the article much was. The details of his wedding ceremony and religious observances are non-encyclopedic content. The material I quoted from above is the very model of getting promotional writing about oneself--I had originally thought the coi editor wrote it, but it was Cunard who found the promotional material in the newspapers and added it from them. WP:RS does not imply that everything in a source should be added, regardless of whether it's encyclopedic . If by any chance the article is kept, I will certainly delete almost all of it.. For a volunteer to deliberately add promotional content is almost as bad as when a coi editor does it. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • DGG, Cunard has made a lot of clean-up and improvements in the article. Nonetheless, I see a handful of unnecessary/trivial stuff which need to be removed. Among those are his wedding ceremony and religious observances, as you mentioned. The article still needs to be trimmed down a bit to become encyclopedic. Nonetheless, Cunard's edits are really improvements whatsoever. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cunard has sufficiently demonstrated that the subject has had multiple coverage in reliable sources per the WP:GNG. —seav (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The trio of Praxidicae, DGG and scope_creep's rationale is exactly what I’ve been trying to convey and they all did a better job then I did in properly articulating it. Covert influence journalism is a huge crisis we are currently facing, a reliable source and a reliable piece aren’t one and the same. If there’s a claim that the subject of an article is notable then the article must speak for itself thus far all sources appear to be extended announcements and all discuss the subject within the confines of him becoming the next CEO asides that there’s nothing that expressly proves their notability. This is covert spamming and nothing more, I’m not opposed to the article being re-created at a later time but as of now this is at best WP:TOOSOON and WP:BARE notability. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO per Cunard's argument. The sources presented above are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Small variations in notability either direction will not greatly damage WP. What will cause serious harm is if we accept promotionalism or articles based on promotionalism , because that will make WP pointless--it'll be no better than Google.. This is pure promotionalism from beginning to end. Google handles this as well as it deserves, as we should stay as far away as we can from them. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - first, UPE should never be encouraged. I appreciate Cunard's efforts here, but the coverage is heavily PR weighted. As per the nom's arguments and DGG's. Onel5969 TT me
  • Keep. Satisfied that the sources identified by Cunard are sufficient to pass the GNG or BASIC. I understand there are many WP:IDONTLIKE because of COI issue. However we should follow the rules. Taung Tan (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see why you'd relist this one, because I for one would hate to be the closer. The debate has burned a little too hotly at times, which is a shame. I have for some time now admired Celestina007's ardent stance on UPE and note Cunard is an editor of long standing and reputation, who has attempted in good faith to clean up an Augean mess here. However, I do not believe even the improved, rewritten, article is balanced in tone - and note that the sources do not provide sufficient notability for Tan as distinct from his father. I truly do not believe anyone here, standing back and taking a look at the article, would agree that the world needs to know, via this encyclopaedia, that "Kevin Tan met Michelle See, at the Opus Restaurant and Lounge at Resorts World Manila when he was at the birthday party of his friend Ricardo Po while she had delayed her dinner owing to her unpunctual friends." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The person is notable only because of his father. However, instead of salting, a redirect to Andrew Tan should be created and protected. The sources that were provided by Cunard are from reliable websites, but the sources themselves are not reliable enough. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As per nom and per multiple past violations. Celestina007 and DGG rational are on to point we don't Wikipedia to like Google where we can host anything we want. Sanketio31 (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per DGG's comments. The sources look good until you look a little deeper. Angryapathy (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that a protected redirect is a good alternative to deletion for situation like this.. DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Celestina, DGG and Alexandermcnabb. JBchrch talk 12:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been mulling over this one for quite a while, and so, with the benefit of further reflection, I'll !vote Delete. This is a difficult case for one major reason: the relevant principles are effectively in contradiction. I remain convinced that Tan does indeed pass the GNG, having received, for better or worse, substantial coverage in reputable press outlets. Yet DGG's invocation of WP:NOT is also valid: in my view, the sources are so adulatory as to prevent the writing of a truly encyclopedic article. The question now is how to break the gridlock. Three points present themselves: 1) WP:NOT, as policy, supersedes the GNG, which is only a guideline. 2) The GNG creates only a presumption of notability. While that presumption is rarely rebutted, in this case it is in my view sufficient. 3) Under WP:DEL-REASON, which is also policy, WP:NOT poses its own reason to delete, independent of notability. These three facts convince me that this case presents the unusual situation in which passing the GNG isn't good enough. I have no objections to an appropriate redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to BGYO#Filmography. Sandstein 17:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BGYO videography

[edit]
BGYO videography (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 includes performance videos as music videos just to show that the videography contains several items. A separate article should not be considered if the performance videos are removed. Cairo ● 💌 ● ✒️ 03:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of regimes

[edit]
List of regimes (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 make any sense of this article, not least because the countries are indexed in a confusing manner; it looks like the article is poorly titled as well as it seems instead to be a list of countries by current regime — in 2008! The article is based entirely on a comparison of the Democracy-Dictatorship Index, Polity data series, and MaxRange index in 2008, already well out of date at time of creation in 2014. The two indices with their own articles already include the full list of countries there. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.