Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 20	June 22 >

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. No prejudice against a redirect if it can be sourced in the target section. czar 05:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N4 Axis Centre

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

No Citation and failed WP:GEOLAND. Not even one source. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet NCORP. Could plausibly be WP:A7ed.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This Afd has been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 24 and will further be added to related categories. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 06:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Longford: This article is little more than a list of former and current firms renting premises at this retail park, which in the absence of references could amount to WP:OR. Searches find brief local coverage in the Longford Leader of retail openings and incidents at the retail park, but nothing that indicates specific notability. The brief coverage already at Longford#Economy seems sufficient; a redirect to there seems a reasonable option. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:NBUILDING, WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. An Irish Times search, for example, returns just a single passing mention. And a similar Google News search returns similar passing mentions (almost all of which about traffic queues in the McD's drivethru post-lockdown reopening). I can find no news/academic/book/other sources which cover the subject directly. Otherwise, while WP:MALLS doesn't provide for a specific notability criteria for shopping centres, WP:NBUILDING and WP:NCORP cover this type of topic/category; And neither is met. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:TENANTS also apply. Guliolopez (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (no redirect) per Guliolopez. Might or might not deserve a cited one liner in the Longford article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one line in the Longford town article is sufficient. Spleodrach (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Longford#Economy, it is mentioned there and I see no reason not to have a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:54, 28 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 23:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IkonoMenasa

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

Nonnotable business. No improvement since being tagged. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also the parallel AfDs on the related channels: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikono_(art_democratization) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoTV. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. See my extended comments regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoTV. AllyD (talk) 09:28, 26 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 23:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IkonoTV

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

Nonnotable business. No improvement since being tagged. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguously promotional and only sourced to its website. enjoyer -- talk 02:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also the parallel AfDs on the related channels: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoMenasa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ikono_(art_democratization). AllyD (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If one of these multiple articles is to survive, it should probably be with this title. However, the current article text is promotional and I am not seeing a previous quiet point version to which it could be reverted and improved, for example by incorporating the coverage referenced in the Ikono_(art_democratization) article, to facilitate consideration of whether notability can be demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now simplified this article and incorporated one reference. AllyD (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article from The National (Abu Dhabi) which I added as a reference is associated with their then-recent regional launch. From around the same time, there is a paywalled article by Alex Newman; while I can't see that, it contains the same sentences as this uncredited post which appears to be the same, and would indicate it to have been tied to their relaunch in central Europe and to be more about the founder's biography than the particular service.Some may regard these two items as sufficient for WP:NCORP but my view is that both are associated with describing the start-up proposition, and that more subsequent coverage is needed to demonstrate attained notability. Happy to revise my opinion on this particular article if such coverage can indeed be identified. AllyD (talk) 09:25, 26 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 23:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikono (art democratization)

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

Nonnotable business. No improvement since being tagged. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also the parallel AfDs on the related channels: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoMenasa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoTV. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. See my extended comments regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IkonoTV. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 26 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 Ateneo de Manila University#Professional Schools. ✗plicit 23:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo Graduate School of Business

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 22:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Professional Schools. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Judging by the template, there seems to be a wholly didproportionate number of articles on different bits of this university: how many of these are now circular, and is disruptive editing going on?TheLongTone (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Professional Schools. None of these Ateneo de Manila University article forks are notable and it's ridiculous they where created in the first place. Hopefully once all the similar articles are deleted or redirect the template for them will be deleted also. As it would be weird to have a template that's just made out of redirects. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:50, 28 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 Ateneo de Manila University#Professional Schools. ✗plicit 23:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 22:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Professional Schools. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:24, 26 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 Ateneo de Manila University#Professional Schools. ✗plicit 23:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo School of Law

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 22:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Professional Schools. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Professional Schools. None of these Ateneo de Manila University fork articles are notable on their own. I'm perfectly fine with redirected them to the main article as an alternative to deletion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ateneo de Manila University. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola Schools

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 22:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ateneo de Manila University. I don't see how the "college of the university" is distinct from the university itself, which one would assume primarily revolves around providing a collegiate education. BD2412 T 00:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Extremely selectively to Ateneo de Manila University. There's zero difference between the college of the university and the university itself. At least not enough to warrant the college having it's own article. Even if there was enough good references to justify it. Which there clearly isn't. So I support either deleting or selectively merging this. Only the small amount of material that's referenced should be merged if the AfD is closed as merge though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above.TheLongTone (talk) 12:44, 28 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 Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. ✗plicit 23:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo School of Science and Engineering

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 22:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. None of these Ateneo de Manila University off shot fork articles are notable. I'm fine with redirecting them as an alternative to outright deletion though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:30, 28 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 Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. ✗plicit 23:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo School of Humanities

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 22:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. It way sucks all these Ateneo de Manila off shot articles were created. As none of them (including this one) seem to be notable. Such is life though. At least they are finally being dealt with. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 28 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 Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. ✗plicit 23:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo School of Social Sciences

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 22:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. This clearly fails the notability guidelines. As all the Ateneo de Manila University article off shots seem to. That said, I'm fine with a redirect. Since they are cheap Etc. Etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:47, 28 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 Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Gokongwei School of Management

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 22:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SBKSPP: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES isn't a guideline. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Ateneo de Manila University#Loyola Schools. I'm fine with either option, but this clearly doesn't deserve an individual article. Especially since it has a section dedicated to it in the other article already. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and promotional. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:11, 28 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 23:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Maritime Foundation

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

Not only may fail WP:NORG and WP:N, but also may fail WP:V#Notability. Created probably merely to promote the organization from India (maybe without looking like an advertisement). Furthermore, users repeatedly infringed the official website, incorporating the material into the article. Searched for third-party sources substantially covering the organization, but they briefly mentioned it or never at all.

This article briefly details the organization, including its cooperation with Indian military in just two sentences in one paragraph. Preceding paragraphs briefly mentioned what the organization did for just one occasion, but that's about it. The news article was never about primarily the organization as much as about something else in the journalist's mind. George Ho (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS, non-notable, history is clear in copyright infringements. -- DaxServer (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article has no Reliable Sources, fails WP:GNG, looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I support the above views. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:06, 25 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconds Apart

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

Does not meet GNG PenulisHantu (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not only does it meet WP:GNG, but it easily passes WP:NFILM as well. There is a Variety review cited in the article [[1]], and there is a link to Rotten Tomatoes which has Critical reviews listed [[2]] and [[3]]. Also found a review at CineMagazine [[4]]. Was a WP:BEFORE done before nominating? Donaldd23 (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Donaldd23. The film meets WP:NFILM with the reviews from Variety and The Times-Picayune | The New Orleans Advocate (Nola.com), which are both reliable sources. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFILM per reviews in reliable news websites and magazines. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG and WP:NFILM. I've even added a few sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources that would establish NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it meets WP:NFILM, no matter that I don't find its story interesting. Alex-h (talk) 08:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'll grant that a couple of the sources already in the article are less than ideal, they aren't all terrible and other commenters have demonstrated that other good sourcing exists to improve this with. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Wallah

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. I am unable to find significant discussion of this website in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources in article are unreliable. Fails GNG. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. We don't have articles on YouTube channels just because they have subscribers. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. just another promotional article. RationalPuff (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG no independent coverage available. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearing like a advertisement or company profile listing promotion. See Wikipedia:Notability -- Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 04:09, 25 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 23:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Christian Academy

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

Unsourced after being tagged as such for 12 1/2 years. Prod was removed. This one fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES once granted high schools automatic notability if they could be proven to exist, but this free pass was eliminated by consensus in a 2017 RFC. This school doesn't meet any standards of notability and should be deleted. Jacona (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jacona (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete No sign of Notability. Also see WP:What WP is Not. Brascoian (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator...I noticed on further review that the page was created by a vandalism-only account, with their only contribution to this article being the initial edit "Rachel R. will fight you; and win.". Jacona (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Per nom, Can't see any reliable news coverage available to pass GNG. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability, as Jacona said. Circumstances of the article's creation eliminates draftifying as an ATD; commonplace name eliminates redirecting as an ATD.209.63.121.20 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Block evasion, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John from Idegon --Blablubbs|talk 16:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Since this is a private school it has to pass WP:NORG. Which it clearly doesn't because the available references are only extremely trivial namedrops about other stuff. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times

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

Contested PROD. Original rationale was "There is no claim to the notability of this book. What is so special about it? Books are written about the NFL all the time." PROD was removed with the rationale: "see Bookmarks". I assume this is an instruction to refer to the article's one source, which is a book review website. The site appears to aggregate all the reviews of a given book fairly indiscriminately, and there is still no substantiation of the claim to notability. – Pee Jay 17:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:BKCRIT with reviews in NYT, WAPO, and WSJ. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, book reviews are pretty much the very definition of trivial, even if they're in reputable publications. You're trying to tell me getting reviewed by a few newspapers is the equivalent of winning a "major literary award"? That's absolute nonsense. – PeeJay 21:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's long standing consensus that multiple book reviews in important publications qualifies a book for an article under our notability guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed for notability yet - perhaps it will be?, but I did let out a hearty chuckle reading the article. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it is notable, with many book reviews. However, this isn't an article worthy of an encyclopaedia right now. SportingFlyer T·C 18:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per El cid, el campeador. Book reviews in major publications attest to its notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Bookmarks review got tossed for some reason (they're a review aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic), but on the page you can see 10 overall reviews. I agree that the article could use some work, but a stub is better than nothing IMO. Pinging @SportingFlyer:, open to a discussion on Bookmarks. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Nom says "a few newspapers" like they are not some of the USA's most reputable. The reviews are in reliable sources, thus this is a clear pass. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: (and salt): Essentially as the content is not suitable for an encyclopedic article as it stands. If this stuff was wanted in this form a web bot could scrape off the Bookmarks site and pretty well generate thousands of articles like his. As it stands this is almost totally promotional and very little encyclopedic and merely a directory to other stuff. I doubt it would be accepted at AfC, though the bar is is with good reason a tad higher. Its also a nightmare for the NPP guys as there pretty reluctant to curate it. Its probable most reviews are at book launch, September 2018; though the Leavy TWSJ journal article is 4 January 2019 giving a little spread. It needs more content before its ready for mainspace. I believe the author has pushed through many such articles recently so this is somewhat of test case at AfD. Its also why I suggest draftify and salt. These really needs to get up beyond a one liner stub to somewhere between start and C Class.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the conversation at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Back to Draft? where Onel5969 indicates some guidelines I was unaware of on a re-draftification; though my understanding (and I am pushed for time at the moment) is by Draftifcation !vote here reamins valid; and of course that is a guideline. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark, your interpretation of that discussion is correct. Draftification is a process initiated by a single editor, so opposition to it means the draft must be returned to mainspace. Draftifying through an AfD discussion is by consensus, and so has nothing to do with the review process of draftification. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it's certainly a problem that articles for so many notable books have been merely created by this editor, without them taking the time to include even a bare minimum of prose about background or writing or reception, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there's nothing wrong with stubs or short articles--we just need more than a sentence or two initially (although I've probably been guilty of same in the past). Caro7200 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with third party articles in major publications. I agree the content needs to be beefed up, but that's an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear pass of WP:GNG and WP:BKCRIT. Article should be expanded somewhat, but the topic is covered in reviews by major publications including The New York Times and the Washington Post. Frank Anchor^Talk 15:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass WP:GNG.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 19:02, 23 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. Daniel (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanalakshmi

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

A wholly promotional article, likely created by a CoI editor. No indication of notability. Merely setting up a successful business doesn't confer automatic notability. Citations included have just passing mention of the subject, moreover, these are mostly sponsored content. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV RationalPuff (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable businesswoman. Only passing mentions or puff pieces provided as references and nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE. Most of the references are about her company which I believe would not pass WP:NCORP if it had an article, so I don't believe she merits any automatic inherited notability as well. Jupitus Smart 02:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage in RS about her. --hroest 13:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, no reliable news coverage available to pass GNG. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject seems to have been covered in multiple news publications, which come across as reliable and unbiased (non-editorial pieces on national newspapers like The Hindu, The New Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle, India Today, BCC News, etc). Also, the subject's work has been absorbed into the curriculum by the Ministry of Education, Singapore. Hence, the notability criteria seems pretty strong to me, which is why this page was created based on personal research on the subject. When small-time entertainers and artists can be assessed as notable, why do we consider business achievers (who are inspiration to thousands of kids) as not notable? If the community still feels that the page needs to be deleted, then so be it. --Chakra14 (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability and Nobility are different things. Wikipedia is not interested in your 'noble cause'. A criminal could have wiki page while a Samaritan may not have one. Please list out which news article talks about the 'subject' and why you consider these 'significant coverage'? Passing mention in reliable sources, news about the company, patrons, balance sheet do not count. RationalPuff (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak move to Kidspreneur, the coverage of which in Deccan Chronicle and India Today seems to indicate notability. Furius (talk) 17:08, 23 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. The one remaining "keep" merely references a withdrawn "keep". Sandstein 10:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of National Struggle

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

It does not satisfy notability. Fire and Ice 16:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I’m struggling to see how an important theory of Mao’s wouldn’t be notable, and the plentiful references and bibliography indicate that it clearly is. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, Mao doesn't have this theory. (or more accurate, no one think Mao has a theory of national struggle.)Fire and Ice 15:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Could you please indicate which references indicate that this theory is real or notable? I checked several of the references in the article, and they don't mention this theory. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the sources don’t explicitly support the existence of this theory so the article looks more like SYNTH than it did on first impression so I’m striking my vote. Mccapra (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On reviewing the references, I cannot see a direct quote of the name of this theory. Upon searching Google Scholar, very limited results came back for "Theory of National Struggle" and the other varient presented in this article seems to focus on ethnic struggle more generally, rather than provide a discussion on this as a theory. If this is a language barrier, maybe adding new source that outline this theory in English would help save this article. But, as it currently stands, I do not see this theory presented in academic literature - please do prove me wrong otherwise though! Jamzze (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say delete per Jamzze. The sources in the article seem dubious – they include primary sources by Lenin (published before Mao came to power) and websites that do not seem to mention the article's subject. If better sources are available (or if some of the offline sources actually do discuss this topic) then I'm open to reconsidering, but at this point I don't see evidence that this is actually a topic discussed in reliable sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. Bungstnk (talk) 03:23, 27 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Choudhary Aurangzeb

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

Local obscure politician. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable figure. Mccapra (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Jupitus Smart 02:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of above.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly Written and lack of Notability and does not pass WP:NPOL. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Chairing a political party's internal committee is not an WP:NPOL-passing role, the article does not suggest that he's held any more notable roles (e.g. in the state or national legislature) that would bolster his notability at all, and the article is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold an NPOL-passing role. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe person is not notable as per above.Mitsurugi78 (talk) 21:15, 23 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 23:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Simone

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

Fails GNG. Minor media personality, no established significance. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local market radio personalities are very rarely notable, and the sourcing here does not suggest Simone is one of those rare local market people who is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local market radio personalities are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers technically verify that they exist — the notability test requires journalistic coverage about them in sources independent of their employers, demonstrating that they would pass WP:GNG, but there's nothing like that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 25 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 10:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hansen-Rice

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

Written like an advertisement. Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not notable and overtly promotional. WP is not a company directory. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transmedics

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

Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible WP:ADPROMO or COI. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And not only all of that, the company's website (the only source around) is very, very vague as to what this outfit actually does or produces. The grand buildings depicted aren't at all like the pedestrian office building in which the subject claims to have a third floor office, and the various "news" items on the site are all press releases FROM the site. I suspect it's a bucketshop. Ravenswing 19:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) nearlyevil 665 13:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Skrzyński

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

Fail of WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Player hasn't played in a top-tier national league. nearlyevil 665 13:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 13:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 13:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Educational Hub

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

a non notable YouTube Channel. Wants to promote its channel. References do not show the notability of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS GermanKity (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is an existing draft which has been rejected twice. The author has presumably gone and done a copy and paste move. – robertsky (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not yet notable. Does not pass WP:GNG. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only references are a Wikipedia edit that the article creator made, and the YouTube channel. Clearly not notable per nom. Vukky, a real human 👀 (talk to me!) 08:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. no indication of notability. Interestingly first citation is a circular reference to Wikipedia. RationalPuff (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speediable as not just utterly non-notable but unimportant. ("It is not so well-known" — quite.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 25 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 due to the lack of a viable alternative to deletion as discussed below. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla J. Yoo

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

I closed the first AfD as "no consensus". However, there have been problems verifying the claims to WP:NMUSIC suggested by the sole "keep" !vote on the last sparsely attended debate. Further discussion is required. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KH-1, Zin Win Hlaing, Mamushir, 00holiday00, and Aloolkaparatha: Echoing participants to the previous AfD. ——Serial 13:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Got a Boy or Delete - fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. There is lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Although she is credited for co-writing/co-composing one track for I Got a Boy, which according to WP:COMPOSER may indicate that the subject is notable, there is insufficient verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Most sources used in the article to support claims are not independent. Since the subject is best known for co-writing credit on one notable composition, and otherwise fails WP:CREATIVE, I don't think there is enough reason for a standalone article. --Ashley yoursmile! 12:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still favor Delete per the reasons outlined in the first AfD, but won't object to a redirect as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We generally do not redirect composers to albums they have worked on, unless there is an extremely strong association between the composer and that album. I can assure you that if this article were redirected to I Got a Boy, it would be sent to WP:RFD and unanimously deleted. The article should either be kept or deleted entirely. Mlb96 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: usually I'd be for a redirect per ATD-R, but as Mlb96 points out, that would likely waste more editors time down the road. ——Serial 13:12, 28 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 00:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All Road Management

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

Article content is based almost entirely on self-published content. Independent coverage is routine and does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SIRS standards. Corporate notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITORG). The article tries to portray the company as "a scheme set up to find talents" rather than a for-profit management service and refers to clients as "members" rather than paying customers. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing not sufficient for WP:GNG let alone WP:NORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Has some notable drivers but no independent coverage of the stable to be found besides driver signings. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. no independent coverage available. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Materialscientist (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Integrated Health Wellness Care Network

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

Article is entirely sourced to affiliated sources and a press release (republished by multiple outlets). Fails NCORP. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Girth Summit. The article is cited to their own websites and press releases which do not count towards notability. Tech Circle is probably the only source in the whole article which seems reliable and independent of the topic but is not adequate to meet WP:NCORP.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional and non-notable DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT, no rationale advanced for nomination. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Kinabo

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

SuperSwift (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#1, no arguments for deletion have been advanced. Sam Sailor 12:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 12:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 12:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 12:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onur Sasmaz

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

Non-Notable person Baran Ahmet (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baran Ahmet (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Baran Ahmet (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and written by the subject self. Shadow4dark (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than what is already in the article, I managed to find no sources. None. No signs of notability. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 07:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tacoma Trauma

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

Article sums up its own reason for deletion really. Never started playing. No evidence from elsewhere that it ever did that I can find; its website is now in a foreign language. Emeraude (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Women's Football Alliance per above, specifically failure of GNG. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable organization that didn't start... no sources that I can find nor in the article. Fails WP:GNG and any other notability measure I can think of. If you want to redirect, okay by me... but the article goes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:CSK #1 - no rationale given for deletion nomination (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Majekodunmi

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

SuperSwift (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, no reason given to delete the page, see WP:CSK #1 ~ GB fan 12:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#1, no arguments for deletion have been advanced. Sam Sailor 13:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 13:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#4. Any editor in good standing may re-nominate the article for deletion if needed. ✗plicit 11:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mevlüt Kaplan

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

The sources are unknown and unreliable and from local sites Aliaboomar (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see Sockpuppet investigations/Aliaboomar. Mccapra (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see Wikipedia:Clean start

I just create an article about notable persons! and I follow the rules of Wikipedia --Aliaboomar (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

SS Ben H. Miller

The result was Nomination withdrawn

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

I do not see how this Liberty Ship is notable . Routine coverage only, and no significant events in her career. Looking at the lists of n=Liberty Ships, I see about 1/4 have articles, and in those cases I have checked, there is something much more substantial to say than this. It's not my field, but practice in the field seems sensible to me, but this is beyond it. DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Community consensus has been that verifiable articles on large ships are considered notable, whether or not there were a lot of ships of the same design, or that they had to have had some extraordinary event or occurrance over their existence. Her wartime movements are here, showing she was on the Atlantic convoys, in the Mediterranean during the North African campaigns and the invasions of Italy, and in the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic towards the end of the war. Article can be expanded using these and similar sources. As an aside I'm a little surprised to see that you nominated this, given your views expressed on a similar discussions here and here DGG. Of course, views can change. Spokoyni (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:By community consensus, WP:SHIP has established that civilian ships larger than 100 tons or over 100ft in length worthy of articles. As an author of almost 300 Liberty Ship articles I can attest to the fact that this is a large project to add the 2710 Liberty Ships built, but once added, they can be expanded upon. Instead of nominating for deletion, find ways to expand the articles.Pennsy22 (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep per WP:SHIP. Routine coverage is enough in such cases. However, the ship isn't a special or legendary one. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Let the ordinary ships tell their stories too. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Claim to fame - the only Cuba-bound merchant ship searched by the Americans during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
nomination withdrawn -- there was much less content when I nominated it. , but it's true that my views some fields are a little less inclusive than they were 12 years ago. DGG ( talk ) 12:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is agreement that the subject meets WP:ANYBIO#3 by virtue of an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Barlow (priest)

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

None of this is substantial coverage; bishops are presumed notable, but not Deans. DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions about archdeacons

Bashereyre (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure why you included the list of other discussions, but I looked at the first three and the results were all "keep". St Anselm (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's more helpful to look at all of them 7 are keep, 4 delete, 2 redirect, so thee isi clearly no consensus to keep as a matter of course. DGG ( talk ) 11:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Piecesofuk (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piecesofuk. St Anselm (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DNB bio = notable per WP:ANYBIO #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp:Yes! St Anselm (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in ODNB. While WP:BEFORE doesn't require checking the Wikidata item to find sources, it clearly should, these days. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:33, 26 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 Journey from the Fall. Daniel (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Thái Nguyên

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

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in February 2018 (I'm working through these now). No external referenced except the IMDB are provided and notability is questionable. My G-searches turned up only Vietnamese-language sources; I don't read Vietnamese so I'm unable to find any useful sources for this actor. Can any AfD regulars help source this? I'll leave in in your hands! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 03:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [[:Journey from the Fall], the one film in which he had a major role; That might not necessarily justify a rdirect, except he was a major character in an rxtremely notable film. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 13:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Psychology of Wealth

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

Non-notable self-help book. My BEFORE reveals mainly advertising, amazon, and blogs, without any substantial independent coverage. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self published book. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt. It's a clear CSD. Thoroughly non-notable self-published book. Puff piece circumvented by the article creator (a sock) when his vanity wiki-bio was deleted repeatedly. RationalPuff (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinated: do you mean 'sock' or is the guy an out and out drunk? :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. well spotted. although perhaps both fits well in this case. RationalPuff (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now tagged as G5, as creator was blocked.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of any notability Dexxtrall (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, no independent coverage available. Rickshaw Takahashi (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is improving, so please give it a chance.103.40.197.94 (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Johnen

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

While playing in 3. Liga would make him notable as per WP:NFOOTY, he still has yet to make an official appearance on the pitch. WP:TOOSOON. nearlyevil 665 07:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 07:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 07:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage about him. Doesn't matter if he appears in a game tomorrow, he still needs significant coverage. The FAQ from the top of WP:NFOOTBALL makes it crystal clear that all sport figures need to pass WP:GNG regardless of how many professional appearances they have.
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
Alvaldi (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage found, does not meet WP:GNG. Alvaldi hit the nail on the head. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - still young so has potential to make debut in not-too-distant future. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not follows the norms, no reliable sources found.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, likely to pass notability criteria within the next six months. —Kusma (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sena (record company)

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

Non-notable ROTM events etc. business. The article is quite old, and seems to have been always virtually unreferenced; now actually so. Not an easy subject to search for, but I tried, and found nothing. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, sufficient sources exist in Icelandic. Soz, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. This is probably the largest entertainment company in Iceland, not just a record company. There are thousands of sources available in the Icelandic media found if you Google "Sena site:*.is". I added a couple of sources for the statements already in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks @Alvaldi:. Just to point out that 'thousands of sources' is only relevant if at least some of them provide significant coverage of the company, not passing mentions or coverage only of the company's products and services. That said, based on the sources you've already added, I'm happy to withdraw this nom. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rapyd

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

moved by contributor from draft space, but it remains a promotional article that fails NCORP. Thissort of editing is typically COI. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have nothing to do with the company, nor with the Wise Guys. I'm just editing articles about topics that are interesting to me. I read about Rapyd on TechCrunch, so I decided to create an article. Tell me what exactly does not meet the criteria of significance, and what is advertising? I edited dozens of different articles and saw their quality and improved them as much as possible. You can see from my contribution that I am on the contrary trying to make the articles appropriate for Wikipedia and add authoritative sources.--Condiwiki (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, which lists criteria for notability, and also a list of criteria that don't connote notability - which the references section of this article closely resembles. What are the three best references that clearly connote notability per the guidelines? - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some links as examples which prove the notability and importance of the company.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/12/03/rapyd-which-offers-fintech-as-a-service-via-a-single-api-adds-20m-more-to-its-coffers-at-a-1-2b-valuation/
https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/13/rapyd-nabs-40m-led-by-stripe-and-gc-for-fintech-as-a-service-a-single-api-for-payments-money-transfer-and-more/
https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/13/rapyd-raises-300m-on-a-2-5b-valuation-to-boost-its-fintech-as-a-service-api/
https://venturebeat.com/2019/02/13/rapyd-raises-40-million-to-expand-its-payments-network-worldwide/
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/israeli-fintech-company-rapyd-raises-300-million-655305
--Condiwiki (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all fundraising rounds, which are not considered sufficient to avoid deletion. See "Numerical facts" section of WP:CORP, which I referred you to above. If that's really the best you have, you're making the case for this article to be deleted - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is literally press releases, slightly churned press releases, and funding rounds (which don't connote notability). WP:REFBOMBing does not convince - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Gerard. Seems a pretty good example of what, per WP:NORG, isn't good sourcing. XOR'easter (talk) 00:32, 23 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 10:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Lubbock mayoral election

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

This page is on an "election" which did not take place. I think what's there is about the limit to which we can write on it. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The size of the article, or lack thereof, is not a relevant consideration for notability. It's part of a series of articles regarding the mayoral election, it would simply create a need to fill a hole by removing this article. Is there an alternative? What kind of BEFORE was carried out? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there needs to be an article to include in the 'series' of Lubbock elections. Perhaps having it only appear in the catergory of Uncontested elections is a solution?. Thanks. Naray14 (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps List of mayors of Lubbock, Texas or Lubbock, Texas#Government could discuss such history, but there is no need for an empty placeholder article for something that did not exist. Reywas92^Talk 05:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we have WP:ONEEVENT but this is a WP:NOEVENT. I don't buy the "part of series" argument, this series is better discussed/treated in another way than this. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We really should not have an article on an election which did not take place. We do have some articles on uncontested elections, but those races were at least on the ballot.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:28, 28 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 06:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Wise Guys

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

does not meet standards for NCORP. the references are entirely mere notices or PR. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article fails to meet WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH that is core for the private companies. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, failure of WP:CORP and [[[WP:CORPDEPTH]] - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 17:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Modern English Bible translations and Bible translations into English and Early Modern English Bible translations. Selective merge to the three mentioned articles as considered appropriate. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous English Bible translations

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

Indiscriminate list of… well, miscellaneous information. Not only are there no criteria for why something should be here in this weird appendix rather than in the main page suite, half of the entries aren’t even “translations” so much as paraphrases. Dronebogus (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've made the point before, when a list starts with the immortal words "A broader list of XYZ is at List of XYZ", then the list it introduces is a non-list. Delete with prejudice. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into the existing articles Modern English Bible translations and Bible translations into English and Early Modern English Bible translations. It is perhaps a bit unfortunate that there are already three pages rather than one. The exact time-point at which something becomes a "Modern" translation rather than "Early Modern" would be rather helpful. It's sounding like those compass directions (North by north by a bit east of North east). There certainly shouldn't be an additional miscellaneous list - but it's possible some items in it will have escaped attention in one of the other three pages while still being notable and worthy of mention. Elemimele (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Selectively. The page mentions its for translations that are 'not easily classified in the other groups', however looking through the list I think the notable ones could be merged into the existing Early Modern English Bible translations and Modern English Bible translations. Some like the Modern Literal Version, Joseph Smith translation and Jefferson bible are already included in both the Misc and Modern list. Mousymouse (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per above. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:37, 26 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. With the support of the original nominator, the consensus is to keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Bray

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

Fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON and WP:GNG. As for his New York Times obituary, I don't have a subscription, but I suspect it's probably as short as the Harrisburg [PA] Evening News one: "Thomas J. Bray, director of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company and former president of the Republic Steel Corporation, died suddenly in his office here [Youngstown, Ohio] today." Not to be confused with the modern-day newspaper columnist of exactly the same name. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I do have a NYT subscription and so can confidently say that the nomination's suspicion is erroneous. Such an NYT obituary is quite adequate to demonstrate notability but, in any case, it is easy to find more detailed coverage of the subject in works such as History of Youngstown and the Mahoning Valley, Ohio. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This biography has been around for 7 years and has not progressed beyond what it is. It does not meet WP:GNG because significant coverage has not been provided - nor located - as per WP:SIGCOV - "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail....Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". William Harris (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The NYT obit is seven paragraphs; along with the "Who's Who" citation in the article, and the additional source found by Andrew, above, which gives a column and a half to Bray, I think that's enough to pass the GNG. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a photo from the source Andrew found. Bray is also mentioned in Ketchum, Richard M.. The Borrowed Years, 1938-1941: America on the Way to War. United States, Anchor Books, 1991, but I can't tell how significant a mention it is since it's just snippet view. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the absence of significat coverage prevails the possible general notability of the subject. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search of Newspapers.com shows fairly significant overage, unfortunately much of it is paywalled. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're not confusing him with Thomas J. Bray the newspaper editor (or the lawyer and politician in the '20s and '30s)? I have a newspapers.com account, and I haven't found much about the older man other than routine announcements (made president, retiring). Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of people of this name, such as T. J. Bray. The nominator fails to explain why the president of one of America's largest steel companies is less credible as a subject than a basketball player, journalist, lawyer or politician. What's wrong with engineers? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Sheldon Cooper. Why, they're almost as bad as geologists. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Notable person who was notably written about. Easily meets WP:GNG. At least as important as the usual Porn star; not an argument we are supposed to make. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline. I found a bio of him in [5], but is this work reliable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The NYT Obituary is available on ProQuest via the https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ Piecesofuk (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: Do you have a more specific link? I'm having trouble finding it. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: If you email me I can send you a copy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this link should work if you're logged into the Wikipedia Library https://www-proquest-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/docview/100804067/E444A07D389B47C9PQ/1 otherwise try searching for Thomas J. Bray 1933 and clicking on Historical Newspapers, it should be top of the list Piecesofuk (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. A long New York Times obituary is hard to argue with. (Thanks, Piecesofuk.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG advises that "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Have multiple WP:SECONDARY sources been demonstrated here, "as is generally expected"? I shall leave that for you to ponder. William Harris (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The discussion shows that some editors find it all too easy to argue with such evidence. Clarityfiend continued to argue even though I told him plainly at the outset that his contrary assumption was wrong. William Harris is mainly here as WP:REVENGE for a prod of his that I removed and Piotrus is a similar case. Asketbouncer seems to be the only arguer without any baggage but their !vote was rather incoherent. All concerned should now please apologise for doubting Mike Christie who is an excellent editor, having created over 100 good and featured articles. His essay on surviving Wikipedia is also worth a read. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Harris is only here because you badged the article with WP:METALWORKING - and deleted WP:BIOGRAPHY, and a biography is what the article really is - but without giving an assessment; the action appeared on one of my lists of interest. So there is an obituary, and some brief mention in the odd publication - that still does not make this person meet WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. What has happened here is the circumvention of a legitimate WP process; WP is not a collection of facts, it is an encyclopedia. As the amount of data grows on WP, so does the cost of keeping such data - it is referred to as Information Economics. Eventually this will lead to its demise based on cost unless it is managed. Today, it was not managed. William Harris (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was "managed" but not to your liking. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I study the history in more detail the pattern becomes clearer and it's not an interest in biographies. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, thanks for the kind words. I will add that it's not unreasonable to AfD a bio supported by an NYT obit; there are plenty of early obits that are no more than squibs without any independent support for notability. E.g. from the same day that Bray's obit appears, we get this: "John H. Gordon, an organizer of the New York State Road Builders' Assoociation, and its president for fifteen years, died last night. He was graduated from the Christian Brothers Academy in Albany and Villanova College." The obit needs to be reasonably lengthy, as Bray's is, or there must be independent references. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome but WP:BEFORE details what may be reasonably expected before creating a nomination. In this case, we have fails of B2; C1; C3; C4; D1 and D3. There are also other considerations such as WP:BITE and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I picked up on this nomination because Mike's talk page is on my watchlist. Novice editors don't get the benefit of such networking and we lose a lot to such zeal. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I "continued to argue"? I merely asked some questions. As for your claim that I failed numerous parts of BEFORE,

B2: As I stated, I couldn't view the NYT article. The newer sources are mostly obscure and not readily available online.
C1: This is what the Afd is supposed to determine.
C3: This article is unlikely to have much traffic.
C4: At the time, his company was a redlink, which made an Afd more plausible. I suppose I could have checked for a different name. That charge I'll cop to.
D1: Nothing of any substance there, other than the NYT.
D3: One source, when it was unclear how long and detailed it is, does not constitute "adequate sources". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, no apology from Clarityfiend because they did everything perfectly. But paradoxically they now want to withdraw this immaculate nomination. And I still think that it should be speedily closed too. But the discussion continues... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem? When I nominated the article, it had one off-line source, a New York Times obituary true, but another newspaper I could read gave a very brief version. Since then, more sources have been found, so WP:HEY applies. How is that "paradoxical"? Also, WP:No personal attacks applies as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is now lots of substance beyond The New York Times obituary. The nomination has been withdrawn. You all agree! WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close. There is WP:Consensus and nomination has been withdrawn. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His entire life is summarized in numerous encyclopedic entries (e.g. National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, History of Youngstown and the Mahoning Valley, various Who's Who and Who Was Who compilations), and although secondary sources are preferred, neither WP:GNG nor WP:TERTIARY forbids the usage of tertiary sources (which often help structure biographies and facilitate the location of secondary sources). Additional coverage exists in trade industry publications: e.g. a biography and obituary, in The Iron Age, and short obit in Hardware Age. Newspapers and journal articles throughout his career provide non-trivial coverage: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." (Note: his father and son had the same name, so care should be warranted to avoid building a Frankenstein). --Animalparty! (talk) 01:29, 1 July 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 Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Liu

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

Not seeing enough in-depth coverage from secondary sources to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteKeep passes WP:Prof with 23,000 cites in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Xxanthippe, it does not appear to me that the Alex X. Liu having 23000 citations on GS is the same Alex Liu as the subject of this article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this comment. Do you have an idea of what his citations (if any) are? I am certainly cabable of changing my vote on the basis of new evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I did not find a GS profile, and it is unfortunately difficult to disambiguate from other Alex Liu's. The pubs listed in the articles did not look to be highly cited; I didn't quickly find reviews for the books. There could easily be an argument for notability that I didn't yet find. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe - I did the same thing at first, but I can't find anything regarding this particular Alex Liu on Scholar. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is definitely not the well-cited Alex Liu, who does research on channel state information and RFID. The Alex Liu in question here only has two articles from his WP page that are indexed by Scopus (under different profiles -- Y.C. Liu and Alex Liu), with a total of 27 citations. The article might be a student effort from the Data Communication and Visualization WikiEd course, although the author isn't listed there. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your research everybody. Action taken. I guess that the moral is not to support an academic bio until the authors of it have provided a GS profile of its subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect/merge to Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars. While I'm not seeing WP:NPROF notability, nor WP:NAUTHOR, the federation seems to have been notability in the early 90s, and the subject's role in it appears to have been significant enough for a mention (though probably not for a standalone article). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars. there is no WP:NPROF notability, and not enough for GNG (the science article only mentions him in passing and the Irish Tech is an interview), his role with the federation can be written up there. --hroest 13:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no reliable sources of information, not notable enough.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the newly added editions have no sources to support. The subject is very well-known.

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Pole, Idaho

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

The topos and aerials say this was a rail spot: there are still a pair of crossovers at the location. Searching is complicated by seasonal references which I cannot identify with this spot and by a feature in the mountains oft referred to by works on mountaineering. There's also a bunch of mentions in locating other features, one of which passingly refers to this as a "town", but I generally don't take those seriously. The spot is now in the midst of Spokane's outer suburban sprawl, but this is a recent development; you don't have to go all that far back before the region is all farmland. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. The article makes no claims of notability. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 06:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cerulean Studios

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

I cannot find evidence of independent notability for the company, separate from Trillian, which is notable. Redirect was reverted without comment, so we're here. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 01:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trillian. I cant find anything in the way of notability. I'm not sure why the redirect was removed without an explanation unless it was by accident. Perhaps AirportExpert would like to weigh in?--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, leaving the edit summary blank was accidental. Deleting the article should be fine however, but I think it would be appropriate to merge more components of the Cerulean Studios article with the Trillian page, to give further context behind the company that created the software. Trillian seems to be the only product of the company with any real notability, so its probably for the best that the two remain on the same page.--AirportExpert (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Thanks AirportExpert, but I'm slightly confused. That's what I had done, and exactly what my line of thinking was. If you agree, why did you change it back to its own page? Star Mississippi 17:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just wanted to be able to visualize the layout of the article independently, and transfer everything over to the redirect page, such as the infobox. The sandbox would've been a better use of that though I suppose, since I ended up not being able to finish and left the article only partially edited. Either way, lesson learned.--AirportExpert (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strong delete. WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH are not even close here. The company itself is not notable. How did it stay on Wikipedia for 15 years? Asketbouncer (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even remotely notable Dexxtrall (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow in the Night

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

Article about a song and music video, not adequately referenced as passing our notability criteria for either songs or web content. The notability claim on offer here is that it exists, but just being able to verify that a thing exists is not automatic grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- and when it comes to the sourcing, one of the three footnotes is the YouTube copy of the video itself, and another is a dead link that waybacked as a very short blurb on the proprietary blog of a defunct Jewish online dating service, which means two of the three footnotes aren't reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. And while the third footnote is an actual (albeit short) article in a real newspaper, that's a start but not in and of itself enough. There's just nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have a lot more than just one piece of reliable source coverage about it in real media. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like an attempted promotion to drum up advertising revenues over at YouTube. In addition to the local Alabama newspaper article mentioned by the nominator, I also found this: [6]. Both are informative but non-critical and possibly related to press releases. It's a worthy project but should be promoted elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ice Cube discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sic Them Youngins on 'Em

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

Completely unreferenced article about a song, not making any strong claim to passage of WP:NSONGS. The only notability claim on offer here is that the song exists, which is not automatic grounds for a standalone Wikipedia article in and of itself -- NSONGS requires achievements like chart success, music awards and/or reliable source coverage and analysis about the significance of the song, and does not just indiscriminately ascribe "inherent" notability to every song that exists. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ice Cube discography. Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Except this, I found nothing that covers the song and demonstrates notability. The corresponding article in Portuguese claims that the song has charted on Billboard Hot 100 and two other component charts, but I cannot verify that from these references [7], [8], [9]. --Ashley yoursmile! 08:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to I Will Survive#Other covers & popular culture. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ: The Musical

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a viral video, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for web content. The notability claim on offer here is that the video exists, "referenced" to its own presence on YouTube -- but simply existing isn't the notability test per se, providing circular verification of its existence by citing it to itself doesn't help, and otherwise this just linkfarms a long, contextless stack of glancing namechecks of its existence in newspaper or magazine articles that aren't about it, which does not help to build notability at all. We've all seen it, certainly, but that doesn't make it notable in the absence of any reliable source coverage about it to establish its significance. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to I Will Survive#Other covers & popular culture as a flash-in-the-pan blasphemy about which one can't say much more than it happened, people were either enraged or amused, it got News of the Weird-style coverage, and then nobody cared until the next time it came up for deletion on WP. Well=known cover, yes, which is why I propose the merge, but I don't see how it's justified as a stand-alone article. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to I Will Survive#Other covers & popular culture per above. The AfDs from 2009 and 2010 seem to argue "cultural impact" and "lasting significance" but this viral video has been basically forgotten 11 years later [10]. Evaluation of the sources doesn't help its case either.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Jesus Christ: The Musical at IMDb		WP:IMDB		✘ No
Stanford Law School - The Center for Internet and Society - "Jesus Christ: The Musical" Gets New Life		WP:BLOGS	Very short article about copyright infringement	✘ No
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/04/lessig-obama-and-the-fabulous-singing-jesus.ars			~ Article isn't focused on the video, but it's an important part of it	~ Partial
https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/TECH-CHRONICLES-A-daily-dose-of-postings-from-2602914.php			Passing mention	✘ No
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/youve-got-to-be-joking-20080628-gdsk05.html			Passing mention as an example	✘ No
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/a-funny-thing-about-taboos-20080711-3do1.html?page=5	Literally the same article as above with a different name		Passing mention as an example	✘ No
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10040628			~ Article isn't focused on the video, but it's an important part of it	~ Partial
http://media.www.loyolaphoenix.com/media/storage/paper673/news/2007/01/24/Diversions/Cheap.Date-2670273.shtml	? Dead link	?	?	? Unknown
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}}.

Overall the majority of the sources are passing mentions, and at best, just use the video as an example of the controversy around fair use law. That's not enough to justify a stand alone article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ice Cube discography. Since the song doesn't belong to any album, a redirect to the artist's discography is a valid WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Girl

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

Completely unreferenced article about a song, not making any strong claim to passage of WP:NSONGS. The only notability claim on offer here is that the song exists, which is not automatic grounds for a standalone Wikipedia article in and of itself -- NSONGS requires achievements like chart success, music awards and/or reliable source coverage and analysis about the significance of the song, and does not just indiscriminately ascribe "inherent" notability to every song that exists. Although claimed as the "sixth" single from his then-upcoming studio album Everythang's Corrupt, it does not appear in the final track listing of that album, so that claim isn't grounds for a redirect to the album either. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. WP:BEFORE shows nothing that would qualify the song for a standalone article. Cannot find it on any notable billboards either. nearlyevil 665 05:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ice Cube discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows only sources about its music video, not the song itself. SBKSPP (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XTRA Gaming

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

Fails WP:GNG. Forbes reference is from a "contributor", Esports Insider and ESTNN are a very niche sites~~, and DTS in not independent of the subject~~. A draft of this page exists at Draft:XTRA Gaming. — Pbrks (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Pbrks (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Pbrks (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't fail WP:GNG Forbes reference is legitimate and every article is mostly made by a Forbes contributor no one can be a contributor the application process is very hard and you need to be accepted and your article needs to be approved by Forbes it's also made by a Senior Contributor. Esports Insider is not really a niche site it is one of the most well-known Esports News Outlets and it is not DTS it is Subnation Media which is the parent company of XTRA Gaming which means it is directly related to XTRA Gaming. You've just copied and pasted what you said on the talk page of Team Vanish and nominated both articles for deletion. I think XTRA Gaming's article should stay up since it's a very well-known North American Esports team and is ranking top 3 in Fortnite Esports in north america. AnonymousReality (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Google to look up top Esports News Websites and Esports Insider comes first & second and is very well-known. AnonymousReality (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For now I think we should keep the XTRA Gaming article there's no reason to remove it in my opinion let me know what you think. AnonymousReality (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ESTNN is indeed a somewhat niche Esports News Website but is not 100% "niche" and is very well-known reputable esports news network you can find more information about it on Google also that is a additional reference and the article meets the general notability guidelines the article isn't 100% based on niche articles it only contains 1 which is an additional source and it's not like I added just the ESTNN news reference alone I've added that article just to support statements. I've also noticed you edited your message and added more stuff to it to make it look like a big deal which I think isn't really reasonable don't you think? I think you should've just replied with the updated message but anyways tell me what you think I think we should keep the article up, to me it seems like your just trying to take it down for no valid reason. AnonymousReality (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to remove the article for no good reason; I gave my reason above. I've written plenty of esports articles, enough to know that ESTNN is hardly reputable (I've seen plenty of errors in their works throughout the years). Forbes is iffy -- per WP:VG/RS: Articles written by Forbes contributors do not have the same editorial oversight and may not be reliable. Editors are encouraged to find alternatives to contributor pieces. Esports.gg is certainly not reliable. Even if Esports Insider is considered a reliable source, these four references are not enough to demonstrate notability. — Pbrks (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the guy that wrote the forbes article isn't just a contributor he's well-known and he's a Senior Contributor, ESTNN is sort-of niche but the wikpedia article isn't based on non-reputable articles, Esports.gg is new but doesn't have teh best reputation butthey don't write on anything and everything, esports is very new to the community and is hardly accepted by anyone I wrote this article because XTRA has done plenty of accomplisments that I think are notable. Just letting you know Esports.gg Is very new and has been launched in late march so I agree about it not being very reliable. In my opinion Esports Insider and the Forbes article are both enough to demonstrate notability, i've seen a lot of articles with 1 forbes article and 1 other random article and never ever been deleted and if it was nominated for deletion they would keep it up. I'm a new Wikipedia writer and contributor and I'm trying to give & feed people information about Esports Teams & Organizations since I realise there's this stereotype where people don't agree and think Esports is stupid especially on Fortnite, Fortnite is a fairly new Game but is vey big but I haven't seen a single article about a Fortnite Esports Team. Fortnite is a game that's hard to get press and articles published by news outlets for Esports Teams and overall get written about. Like i've said XTRA Gaming is ranking top 3 on North America Fortnite Esports and is one of the most reputable Fortnite Esports team, they are also constantly trying to expand their rosters in different games. So, let's just get to a consensus and keep this article up. AnonymousReality (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes contributors are generally not reliable per WP:FORBESCON. The other Esports sources have not been tested for reliability but are unlikely to pass it. IceWelder [✉] 15:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get them tested somehow? AnonymousReality (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WT:VG/RS or WT:RSN. These discussions can take long, though, so they should not be covered within the scope of this AfD. From a first glance, none of three is likely to pass as all are "by gamers for gamers"-type of sites, not experienced journalists. IceWelder [✉] 06:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are pretty iffy as discussed above. Even if the Forbes contributor is deemed reliable, one or two sources from the same person wouldn't be enough. If there were sources from publications listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Esports I'd be more inclined to keep, but at the moment the article does not have the significant coverage required by GNG. The article can be incubated in the Draftspace and submitted when it is ready. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 19:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources don't satisfy WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Moran

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO, does not appear to meet standards for notability. I've checked the sources present and many sources on google and they amount to trivial mentions. While Conoco is certainly notable, it does not appear that Moran is on his own. The article was originally submitted and then draftified at Draft: Dan Moran for lack of encyclopedic tone and sources / notability, then recreated as a new article here by the same editor. A S U K I T E 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn: I'm convinced by the current "Keep" arguments, which include sources I did not see upon nomination. Seeing no need to drag this process out further, I seek to withdraw my nomination. Thanks to the other editors for their work in defending this article. A S U K I T E 04:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. A S U K I T E 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Continental Oil: How Dan Moran piped it to prosperity with a 2,100-mile gasoline line, and has staked its future in Gulf Coast sands". Fortune. June 1939. pp. 79–96. Retrieved 2021-06-20.
  This is a 10,000 word article published in Fortune in 1939 that profiles Dan Moran's work at Continental Oil. The articles notes in the first paragraph:
  Until the summer of 1928, when he was invited to 23 W all Street for lunch, Dan Moran had not given much though to the firm of J. P. Morgan & Co. Born at Cygnet, Ohio, he had picked up cash as an office boy and as a telegraph operator, earned his way through the University of Dayton, and then had gone south. To Tulsa, where he saw the oil spout from the Glenn Pool strike, then to Port Arthur, where he signed up as an engineer for the Texas Co. From there he was sent down to Panama and to South America, and from South America he had trekked north again into Mexico and to the States. By the summer of '28 he had done a number of things that are not common practice in Manhattan or on Long Island. He had got good work out of a crew of jailbirds and peons at Tampico. He had spent seventeen days in a hurricane on an oil barge. He had helped repair the ravages of another hurricane, which, ripping through Port Arthur, had floated away the oil tanks of the Texas Co.'s refinery there like so many toy ships. He had built refineries, drilled for oil, and had put up ocean terminals at Charleston, at Savannah, Pensacola, Mobile, Key West, and in Cuba. And in the process he had learned something of men and something of the sweet-smelling stuff called crude.
  The article further notes: "BEHIND those figures lie the work of the 5,000 men and the $125,000,000 worth of oil derricks, pipe lines, and properties that Dan Moran manages for $75,000 per year. And it is worth while inquiring into how he earns that salary, not only because he is a crack operator, but because Continental occupies a peculiar place in the oil industry." The article later notes:
  On properties he kept in operation Moran insisted on strict economies. When he took over the company he was appalled by the unused equipment lying around refineries and oil wells. Turning junkman, he gathered up as much of this as possible, sent salesmen out on the road hawking it for what they could get. In one respect only was he lavish: from '31 to '34 he figures he spent some $1,500,000 in paint alone. changing many a dilapidated-looking derrick of the Marland Co. into a spruce operating unit.
2. "Careerist In Petroleum Dan Moran Laid To Rest". Longview News-Journal. 1948-04-11. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The obituary notes: "Petroleum industry careerist Dan Moran, 59, who for nearly two decades headed the Continental Oil company, died April 3 in a Houston hospital. Rites were held in Houstin April 5 and burial was there." The article is an extensive obituary of Dan Moran.
3. "Dan Moran Dies in Hospital After Several Months' Illness" (pages 1 and 2). The Ponca City News. 1948-04-04. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article is an extensive obituary for Dan Moran. The article notes: "Moran was born at Cygnet, Ohio, on May 31, 1888, one of the four sons of Mr. and Mrs. Martin Moran, who followed their father in the petroleum industry. ... Dan got his start in the oil industry at the age of [illegible] at which time he was messenger boy for the Buckeye Pipe Line company. Earning a bachelor of arts degree, Dan Moran was graduated from the University of Dayton, Ohio, in 1907, and later did graduate work at the Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland, Ohio."
4. "Dan Moran, Builder". The Ponca City News. 1947-11-19. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Fate in the guise of ill health has forced the retirement of Dan Moran, for nearly 20 years president of Continental Oil company. In the retirement Ponca City loses a warm friend, Continental a great executive and the oil industry a forceful, fearless and intelligently aggressive leader. He along with a group of young men who came into the industry about the time of World War I placed it at the top among American business institutions and remained with it to see it become the premier world business."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dan Moran to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-06 ✍️ create, 2021-06 ✗ R2, 2021-06 move to → Draft:Dan Moran

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the current state of the article leaves much to be desired, sufficient coverage exists to satisfy WP:GNG. In addition to the detailed obituaries and Fortune profile listed above, Moran is the central figure in a 2 page story in Sidewalks of America (1954), excerpted from Then Came Oil: The Story of the Last Frontier (1936), and there are over 100 hits for Dan Moran in oil industry trade journals at the Internet Archive. An encyclopedia article doesn't need to be long to be complete, neutral, and well written: there are enough reliable, independent sources chronicling his life and career to make a decent article without invoking original research. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

However, while I think the subject meets notability guidelines, the laudatory, padded, magazine-style profile at Draft:Dan Moran is not appropriate nor encyclopedic in its current form. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KWBG

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

Looks promotional, unsourced NW1223_{(Howl at me · My hunts)} 01:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed sources are needed (even for a low-profile stub for a low-profile station, this is thin), but the station itself does meet WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. Nate • (chatter) 03:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nate. Will take care of sources in a bit. Got an appointment. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page updated with a slew of sources, 7 in total. Brings it well in line with NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has been expanded and is thoroughly sourced. Passes WP:GNG.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significantly improved since the nomination, passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 10:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see the problem at the time of nomination, but the article has been expanded with improved referencing. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 25 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 generation VI Pokémon. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 10:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xerneas and Yveltal

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

Non-notable pair of legendary Pokemon, no SIGCOV.

Alternative to deletion is redirecting to the list article List of generation VI Pokémon, as it is similar to other Pokemon AfDs (here here here). Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect Impressively referenced, but basically a WP:REFBOMB. Lacks the amount of WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon per nominator. Notability issues have been raised as early as 2019 on the talk page and in the the GA review. Link20XX (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Author) Redirect/merge – No qualms with this article being merged into the broader Gen VI list since it fails notability requirements. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, and not a likely search result. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of generation VI Pokémon The target has a notes column that can absorb the reception. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, as others have said. No SIGCOF, mostly trivial/passing references to the actual subject. They're about Pokémon broadly, not these specific Pokémon in any meaningful way. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Not enough significant coverage outside of the other gen 6 pokemon.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:33, 28 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 00:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hession

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Maynard Ferguson, but I don't think it meets the criteria. Boleyn (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have major news coverage so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Lesliechin1 (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person is not covered enough in reliable secondary and independent sources. Asketbouncer (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayatullah (Islamic organization)

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep I can’t read Bahasa but I can see what look like a lot of refs in Google books that at least mention the organisation. Also, in English, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and others. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep After looking at this case and also the citation that User:Mccapra have mentioned its safe to say that it's Notable. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial google books refs.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:29, 28 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.