Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 27	March 01 >

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. Daniel (talk) 07:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Elsie Lacks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I don't understand how anyone could possibly see this person as notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 23:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No sources about her, as opposed to her mother Henrietta Lacks. I doubt her family's allegations about her hospital (mis)treatment are worth mentioning, but they could be added to her mother's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Zero sources found and no notability shown. I agree with nom. Fails WP:GNG
Delete. Completely fails GNG. —Kbabej (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Current sources doesn't passes WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --Devokewater 18:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge. Unfortunately, Elsie lacks notability or the ability to pass GNG. The info relevant to her mother could be included on her mother's Wiki page. ser! (chat to me). 23:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment The information from this page is already included in the Biography section of her mother's page, Henrietta Lacks. Not seeing any reason to keep this as a separate page. Redoryxx (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Deer Crossing, California[edit]

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

Not clear why this is a named spot, as there has never been much of anything there. Not to be confused with the camp up near Tahoe, but after that, not getting much in the way of hits, and nothing informative. Mangoe (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment was a resort with cabins, alongside the resort of Miramonte, California immediately adjacent to it ([1], [2]). Plenty in newspapers.com if you search these two together, but my subscription broke. Perhaps a merge? ----Pontificalibus 16:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Looked through JSTOR, Goggle Books, Google Scholar, Internet Archives, and so forth. Found nothing that would indicate that this item is anything but a run-of-the-mill resort that is lacking in any historic or other significance. Found nothing worth merging. Paul H. (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete for lacking WP:SIGCOV as a named community. It appears to be just a USGS location name that according to them is "...not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name." Blue Riband► 13:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Film dubbing in Ukrainian[edit]

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

Do they not dub into nearly every language? This article seems completely pointless and doesn't even really explain anything, it just restates the title. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This article is part of [Cultural Diplomacy Month/List]; as a page on the Ukrainian-language wiki which is to be translated into different languages. (Moondragon21 (User talk:Moondragon21) 22:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

possible keep/merge There are actually some political implications here. More likely this ought to be merged into a general article on film in Ukraine. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep Which of the deletion criteria is the reason to delete? They make movies in every language, yet we have articles like Film in Kansas City, so there is no theoretical reason to delete this based on the scope of the subject. The Ukrainian-language version of this article, w:uk:Дублювання українською, has over 5,500 words in the main text and 168 reference, so there is no dearth of subject matter to be added to this stub. —Michael Z. 19:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
As the nominator, I would like to close this discussion. Not sure how exactly. When I encountered this article, it was one sentence and seemed completely pointless, but has now been expanded and, as others have kindly pointed out, has more info that can be added. Thank you all for your input. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 20:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
You can just close it as per WP:CLOSEAFD. (I would, but can’t since I voted.) Thanks. —Michael Z. 21:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Mzajac, thanks :) Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Dog Eat Dog (2001 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No critic reviews or other significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep Found these reviews (1), 2) straight away. Probably a lot more based on who's in the cast. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have been able to find those. I've found this one, too. It does seem to me, however, that these reviews are not quite the full-length reviews by nationally known critics that WP:NFILM requires, nor does the film meet any of NFILM's other criteria. Lennart97 (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Weak keep the definition of a nationally known critic as agreed by the Wiki Project Film is that the critic writes for a national publication of a sizeable circulation so the BBC certainly qualifies and the critic Jamie Russell is termed at Rotten Tomatoes as a top critic. TimeOut is also a major publication but the review is on the short side so it's a weak keep imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Enough coverage and notable enough cast for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Bradley Amendment[edit]

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

Few verifiable sources to back up a law of uncertain notability White 720 (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -Cupper52^Discuss! 17:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment — I have found several scholarly articles that mention the Bradley Amendment, although I do not have access to read most of them. I have introduced a "Criticism" section with some of these articles and I have cited a book in the "History" section. I continue to seek consensus on whether the article should be deleted. White 720 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Weak keep - the law itself wasn't that notable, but the impact and criticism are. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep. This has received WP:GNG-worthy coverage. BD2412 T 22:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep. It has sufficient coverage. Thanks to the nom for the edits they made after nominating, which strengthened the article considerably. Incidentally, there's a good CRS report at [3] that may be helpful in expanding this. I've added a {{refideas}} template with it. TJRC (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus regarding the regional-ness (?) of one of the key sources, and also no consensus regarding the deletion of the article based off this. If the NCORP discussion reaches a clear resolution that the LE is not an appropriate source for demonstrating notability, this close is obviously not prejudicing a re-nomination. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Glenvale Transport[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Almost the whole thing is unsourced and there is no sourcing to verify 99% of it SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom. The sources listed e.g. Commercial Motor have many articles covering transport companies, nearly all of these companies are usually non-notable. Likewise, local newspapers have articles covering local businesses, again these businesses are usually non-notable. Having the local newspaper or trade magazine mentioning a business does not make that business notable. --Devokewater 18:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Aside from this article being about a major defunct public transportation company of a major English city, the Commercial Motor and The Herald sources present in the article alone demonstrate the company's notability. About the verifiability issue, the unsourced statement present in the article can probably all be checked and sourced by someone with access to the archives of the Liverpool Echo. Place the {{fact}} tag and move on, AfD is not cleanup. Mottezen (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mottezen: Nope. Those sources have nothing to do with Glenvale, and only serve notability of other companies that existed before them. SK2242 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Far from having "nothing to do with with Glanvale", the previous companies' notability enhances the notability of the company who acquired, consolidated and expanded the same service. See below for sources concerning this service from 2001 to 2005 under the name "Glenvale Transport". Mottezen (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No, notability is not inherited. SK2242 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

User:SK2242, you're arguing strictly on the letter of the policies, but are not honoring them in spirit. WP:NCORP is so stringent because of the need to counter PR pages and advertisement. This page does not have this issue, as the company is defunct. Read the article closer and you'll find the article was split from the main Stagecoach Merseyside article. Therefore, it is not really about the corporation, but instead tells the story of the corporate consolidation in the public transit sector of Liverpool following from its privatisation in the 1980s to 2005.
This former topic is notable; when you search "Glenvale Transport" in google books, you get sources that delve exclusively on this topic, mentioning the company only in passing. As such, simply renaming and rescoping this article to History of Stagecoach Group or History of public transit privatisation in Liverpool is a surefire way to prevent all the loss of content you're advocating for. Meeting WP:NCORP wouldn't be an issue under such title. Mottezen (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Almost any company article has to meet NCORP, whether it is active or defunct. You can make a seperate article on that subject if you want. SK2242 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Source on this company can be found on the Liberpool Echo website, and searching for its name in its archive yields a lot of hits [4]. Keep in mind that these are likely not all the articles published by the newspaper on this company, as newspapers certainly did not publish all on their content on their website at the time. Regardless, I managed to find these three sources [5] [6] [7] giving WP:SIGCOV to this topic and added them to this article. Mottezen (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

All fails WP:AUD a significant component of NCORP. SK2242 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed the Commercial Motor + local newspapers fails WP:AUD Devokewater 18:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The only national source I found on google is this one [8]. While it might look like it has only two sentence, it's exclusively on-topic, and the layout suggests a video was present on the page. It was likely presenting a news story on its demise. This video is no more accessible since Flash player was discontinued. WP:AUD states that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary", that's the one Mottezen (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the national source has to be SIGCOV like the others as mentioned in AUD, but you appear not to have quoted that part. SK2242 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The national source I quote does meet SIGCOV. Mottezen (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

2 sentences? And even if it did it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. "the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" is listed as trivial coverage. SK2242 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It meets SIGCOV because of the video. Coverage about a bus company that held 30% of the market in the UK's 5th metropolitan area is NOT trivial. Mottezen (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

As I just said NCORP specifically says, coverage on business sales is trivial coverage. The fact that there’s a video doesn’t really matter if they couldn’t/wouldn’t write more than 2 sentences about it. SK2242 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The Liverpool Echo does not fail WP:AUD. It's a regional newspaper List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom#Newspapers_in_England. Mottezen (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not a list of regional newspapers, as evidenced by the fact the Liverpool Echo covers Liverpool and not the North West, and other newspapers on there are obviously AUD fails too. SK2242 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Liverpool Echo covers [just] Liverpool Fails verification
other newspapers on there are obviously AUD fails Why? AUD doesn't define what a regional newspaper is. So what if they cover only parts of a national subdivision?
non-wiki source for list of Regional Daily Newspapers in the UK. The Liverpool Echo is on there. Mottezen (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Regional means covering a region or province. Example = The Yorkshire Post. Covers the region of Yorkshire which is made up of several counties. A publication covering one county isn’t regional. SK2242 (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Where do you see that in WP policy? Mottezen (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, The Liverpool Echo could also be used in your example. It covers the Liverpool City Region, which is made up of Merseyside county and parts of a few others; the historic county of Lancashire and Cheshire. Mottezen (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Today, Merseyside is a single county. Its border history is irrelevant. The Liverpool Echo is local, not regional. On policy, is that off wiki article you quoted WP policy either? Also see this discussion. SK2242 (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

See Liverpool City Region, it has ‘region’ in the name covers more than just Merseyside county. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Is that off wiki article you quoted WP policy? Wikipedia relies on off-wiki reliable sources over user-generated content. The best way to show that the Liverpool Echo counts as a regional newspaper is to show that it's considered a "regional newspaper" per RS. For the Liverpool Echo, it definitely is. It's even winning Regional Press awards [9]. Mottezen (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

With your first sentence you are basically saying that all our policies and guidelines are useless because they are user generated. Since you clearly won’t change your mind I’ve started a discussion on NCORP talk. SK2242 (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not what I meant, I was just referring the the poorly-attended discussion you linked. Mottezen (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep, while it would benefit from a major cleanup, this company (when active) was a significant operator in the Liverpool and wider Merseyside region (itself not a small area) and the 2nd largest operator at the time. It was not a bit-player or a small fish in a big pond, despite not being in existence for that long. The company went defunct 15-16 years ago which makes online sources scarcer. I split it off from its successor Stagecoach Merseyside in 2008 so I can't account for much of the content. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep: Otherwise its a merge back into Stagecoach Merseyside which would not be beneficial.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep sources are suitable, "regional" has a meaning in the context of newspapers that isn't the based on NUTS 1 regions, and Commercial Motor isn't "media of limited interest and circulation". Peter James (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Jesse Akubuine[edit]

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

Meets WP:NFOOTBALL due to a single late substitute appearance in an allegedly 'fully professional league' four years ago. The rest of his football career has been at a much lower level and there is no evidence of any WP:GNG-level coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL and is a young player with ongoing career. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 16:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep - according to our fully-professional leagues page, this league was professional at this moment in time. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I can't believe Rushden & Diamonds are in the 7th tier now. I had them down as being in League Two or something... This player has only played 8 minutes of professional football according to Soccerbase - the one minute against Stenhousemuir doesn't count as Stenhousemuir were playing below professional level that season. I can't find any coverage on him but, as GS says, he is still young so he could build on his appearances, at least in theory. Spiderone</spa Itn>^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

They went bankrupt about a decade ago. Full on demolished the stadium and everything now. Eopsid (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete He currently plays for a non league team and is non notable Eopsid (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails GNG. Akubuine barely passes WP:NFOOTBALL and has since played for teams in the fifth/sixth tier in Scotland and seventh tier in England. His article can be deleted now instead of having someone stumble across it in 2031 and AFDing it. Dougal18 (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep on principle, passes NFOOTY and GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The player passes NFOOTY by the narrowest of margins, a brief appearance in one game nearly four years ago. Since then he has played only in either the fifth teir in Scotland or the seventh teir in england. The idea that he has some kind of ongoing career where he will suddenly bounce back to full professionalism and therefore some form of notability is essentially nil to the point of being a laughable suggestion.

Furthermore there is absolutely no in depth coverage of the player in any source of note and nor, given the level of his achievement, would one expect there to be.

To be honest I was tempted simply to close this as delete given the weakness of the keep votes but I suppose it doesn't harm to extend by another week given three is not an overriding opinion one way orcthe other, to see if sources showing GNG can be shown.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - passing WP:NFOOTY barely on its own does not mandate that we have an article on this chap if there is little chance he will return to fully-professional playing. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Weak delete - the player is still in his early twenties but, given that he only passes the SNG by 8 mins and has zero coverage and given that the chance of him playing at professional level again is so incredibly low, I would have to lean towards deletion being the more reasonable outcome here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Kelly Chapman[edit]

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

This page was created by me and is about me. I would like to delete it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzysmumkelly (talk • contribs) 07:44, February 28, 2021 (UTC)

Delete - Completing nomination on behalf of the editor who AfD-tagged the article, who claims to be the subject and the article creator under a different account name. Above text is copied from their edit summary. Normal procedure tends to be to respect the wishes of article subjects of borderline notability in these matters, but regardless of whether they are who they say they are, provided sources fall short of meeting WP:GNG and I found nothing better at a first pass. (Courtesy ping to Izzysmumkelly.) --Finngall talk 18:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 18:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 18:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE and GNG regardless of the nominator's identity. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete. As per above fails WP:CREATIVE and GNG. Hulatam (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as noted above and based on my own research, and per WP:NACTOR, there is no indication of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Beccaynr (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable individual in the film business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete Kelly Chapman does not meet WP:GNG. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 09:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Santosh Paliwal[edit]

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

Looks like a resume, unambiguous advertisement of the subject. Previously deleted 3 times. DMySon 18:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon 18:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DMySon 18:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon 18:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete and salt A search for ""Santosh Paliwal" cartoonist" does not produce any RS. GNG fail. Possibly (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. No reliable sources found. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete and salt Fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
delete doesn’t meet basic, fails gng as well.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep Per nom. New Reliable Sources added and I found it notable. Uobito (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2021 (UT

"Keep Per nom"? You would like to keep the article because it is a resume/advert? Also as this account has been created just to contest this AfD, what is your relationship with the article? SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I am the creator of this Article. I have lost the access to the main account for that reason I have made a new account. After seeing the delete discussion I added the resources using which I made this article and I would like to bring this to everyone's notice that This article was by no means made for someone's prommotion or as a resume, it was made using the data available on the net as I thought this was worth writing the article. So i would really like you all to consider keeping this article. Uobito (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete Fails to meet any notability criteria.VViking_TalkEdits 14:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable visual artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete and salt - still does not meet notability guidelines; lacks significant coverage in WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Subject of the article does not meet criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. None of the sources are SIGCOV in RS. Netherzone (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devokewater 09:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Keith Carson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an officeholder at the county level of government, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, people at this level of government are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- local officeholders have to pass a much higher burden of notability than just being technically verifiable, such as by writing and properly sourcing some genuine substance about their political significance to demonstrate why they should be seen as significantly more notable than the norm for this level of office. But this is effectively written like a résumé, says nothing about him that would credibly support treating him like a special case of greater notability than most other county councillors, and isn't properly referenced: three of the five footnotes are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, one is a news article that tangentially verifies a stray fact without actually mentioning Keith Carson at all in conjunction with it, and the fifth is a dead link that can't even be recovered via the Wayback Machine to determine whether it did or didn't say anything noteworthy about Keith Carson either. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to contain much more substance, and much better sourcing, than this. (Note also that the existence of this article was recently raised in another current AFD discussion as a WP:WAX argument for why a similarly bad article about one of his colleagues had to be kept.) Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. Per nominator. Fails WP:NPOL and I could find no significant coverage in independent sources that showed why this person would be an exception. - 20:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 00:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete not even close to meeting the inclusion criteria for politiicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Eusebio High School[edit]

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

Same as the others, the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete From what I can find the only things out there about this school are an article about a student from the school who got shot and a brief mention of it in a survey. Neither address the school directly or in-depth though. So it clearly fails the notability guidelines as a topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - falling short on WP:ORGCRIT; my searches have found that the school uses social media (which almost every school does these days), they have a couple of Wordpress sites, they have a passing mention in the news but little else. Searching Mataas na Paaralan ng Eusebio also yielded zero useful coverage. Schools are no longer presumed notable simply by existing and need to meet our notability criteria for organisations and I can see no evidence that this school has the depth of coverage required. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as there is nothing there, per GNG. GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete nothing in books. The 49 total web results are database excerpts, social media, driving directions, and so on; nothing solid. Mathglot (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Buting Senior High School[edit]

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

Same as the others, the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 17:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete clearly fails our notability guidelines for organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Per WP:INHERIT. Barely found anything about the school. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
DELETE Nothing there, per GNG. GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - I found this brief article in The Manila Times but, aside from that, nothing. Even searching Mataas na Paaralan ng Buting yielded no useful coverage. Looks like a failure of WP:NORG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

San Joaquin-Kalawaan High School[edit]

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

Same as the others, the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 17:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete It looks like the only thing out there about this school are social media links. There isn't even the usual trivial news articles in Google News or anything on Google Google Scholar. So, this clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG as a subject. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as there is nothing there, per GNG. GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete no significant coverage. Two trivial mentions in books in legalistic journals; web results are social media, and database extracts from phone books, public records, maps, stock photos, and so on. Note that the actual number of web results is 51, not 12,500 as can be seen by going to the last page of results. Mathglot (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to the respective ship articles. There's consensus against keeping these, but no consensus about whether to delete, redirect and/or merge. The redirection allows editors to decide for each individual article whether they want to merge any (sourced or sourceable) content from the history. I'm asking the nominator, Lettler, or others to implement the redirections because the closing script doesn't support automation of this step. Sandstein 13:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Bernd von Arnim[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Very similar to the Navy Cross nominations, except this person had no high-level award, only a ship named after him. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Also nominating these other articles for the same reasons:

Richard Beitzen
Friedrich Eckoldt
Karl Galster
Erich Giese
Bruno Heinemann
Friedrich Ihn
Paul Jacobi
Hermann Künne
Hans Lüdemann
Theodor Riedel
Diether von Roeder
Anton Schmitt
Hermann Schoemann
Max Schultz
Erich Steinbrinck
Georg Thiele
Wolfgang Zenker

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello •}

All of these could be merged to the ships named after them. And if they are deleted, they should be recreated as redirects. The easiest way to do this would be for @Lettler: to withdraw this nomination and then redirect all of these to the ships, with individual decisions on merging. I don't see much point in an AFD. —Kusma (t·c) 18:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Now that we've got other comments, withdrawing is no longer an option, so redirect all, with optional merge if it is worth it. —Kusma (t·c) 14:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete all per nom, then redirect. Once and for all, just having a ship named after you does not establish notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect all to their respective ships as namesakes, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability, similar to what I'm doing for US medal recipients who had ships names for them. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete the lot none of them meet standard inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect all as stated by others. Intothatdarkness 18:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment I thought the idea of trying to stuff in dozens of other articles into the AfD for a single one was already addressed, and the gist of it was that it's a bad idea, and yet it being done again here. Each article should have it's own nom and it's own review. - wolf 03:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it was a bad idea in that case because the notability (or lack thereof) of the nominees varied, plus there were a lot more of them. Here, it's all about the same: German naval men who performed a valiant deed and got a ship named after them, not much else (not even a decoration?). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete and then merge all As stated by Mztourist above. -- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 20:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Merge all. Not notable, but should be merged as an alternative to deletion. These are longstanding articles, so if the content was merged to the namesake ship article in the past or if content will be merged as a result of this AfD – quality of the article content varies – then we can't delete the pages, since they would be legally needed for attribution reasons. Unless someone wants to do the work poring over the page histories for all the articles to conclusively show that attribution isn't required, it's easier to not delete the pages. Some of the pages can be straight redirected such as those in the first half of the list, but several of the articles in the second half have content that isn't on the ship article/pictures that might be added to the target page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Redirect all: do not meet WP:BIO. There's nothing to merge as the source listed in most of these articles is someone's personal web site: http://www.german-navy.de/. --K.e.coffman (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Nagpayong High School[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Per WP:INHERIT. Barely found anything about the school. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as there is nothing there, per GNG. GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Santolan High School[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 16:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Per WP:INHERIT. Barely found anything about the school. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as there is nothing there, per GNG. GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Sagad High School[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 16:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 16:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 16:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Per WP:INHERIT. Barely found anything about the school. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as there is nothing there, per GNG. GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Kapitolyo High School[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 16:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 16:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 16:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete: Per WP:INHERIT. Barely found anything about the school. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete as there is nothing there, per GNG. GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Rico Kuijpers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Bocanegra (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bocanegra (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bocanegra (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bocanegra (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 28. —cyberbot I_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - no significant coverage, so likely fails WP:GNG; Tribuna, WF, Soccerway and BeSoccer do not have any appearances recorded that would allow him to pass WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete. I did not find significant coverage. He was often mentioned in the Eindhovens Dagblad as a player of SV Deurne, especially after scoring. At VVV he played in young adult teams. He also sat on the bench and played in friendly games of the main squad. SV Deurne was definitely the height of his career but even there no signs of meeting the WP:GNG. WP:NFOOTY is definitely not met. To replicate my research enter site:ed.nl "Rico Kuijpers" into a Google search box. Such mentions can also be found in BN De Stem and in ED misspelled as Rico Kuipers. Missing is any in-depth coverage. gidonb (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails both GNG and NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ganesh Seth[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 15:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

delete no results on search, no references as well.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Notable reliable sources not found for Bio. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete not nearly enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Kim Løkke[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "passes nfooty and ngng [sic]" - This is wildly incorrect on both counts. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails both GNG and football notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - it looks like WP:GNG is failed here; best sources I could find were both brief pieces in the local paper, Halden Arbeiderblad, [10] [11] Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Rune Lothe[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "passes nfooty and ngng [sic]" - This is wildly incorrect on both counts. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete fails our absurdly broad inclusions criteria for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Odd Petter Lyngstad[edit]

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

Disputed PROD: "passes WP:FOOTY" - this is incorrect because the player's handful of appearances in the top division of men's football in Norway happened when the league was semi-pro. More importantly, there is no evidence of WP:GNG-level significant coverage. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete does not meet our overly broad football inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Huang Jun[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of an economist and television presenter, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion standards for either occupation. As usual, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- but the only "reference" here is his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, not any evidence of third-party coverage about him in media outlets independent of him. And while I've also had to strip a bunch of WP:ELNO-violating offsite links from the body text, they also weren't reliable source coverage in media, but the websites of organizations or people named in the text and/or other language Wikipedias, which also aren't notability-building sources. Again, the notability test is not "he exists" -- it's "his work has been externally deemed as significant by media outlets that don't issue his paycheques", but there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable Dexxtrall (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources using "Huang Jun" and "黄峻" as search terms and in reviewing the articles about him on the other Wikipedia language editions (zh:黄峻 (房地产经济师), arz:هوانج جون, and ar:هوانغ جون). The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Not notable. STSC (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete per the well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Chad Evern[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an organizational founder, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for businesspeople. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they have jobs -- we're an encyclopedia, not a LinkedIn clone, and the notability test requires certain quantifiable achievements and a certain quality and depth of third-party media coverage about them, not just evidence that he exists. But of the five footnotes here, two are the self-published websites of his own firms being cited solely to verify that they exist, one is an IMDb profile and one is a Q&A interview on a non-notable blog in which he's the person doing the speaking and not the thing being spoken about -- and the only source that comes from a real media outlet also has him as its bylined author, and not its subject. All of which means that none of these are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all, because none of them represent real media coverage about him and his achievements. (There's also no explanation whatsoever, either in the article or any of the sources, of why our article is titled Chad Evern, while the sources all refer to him as Chad Knowles, which is the kind of discrepancy that needs to be explained.)
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete per the very well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources that establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete This is wholly a non notable business executive. Before search returned results only to social media sites which are not reliable sources. Luciapop (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hamza Khan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer and university instructor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. As always, neither writers nor academics are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's technically verifiable that they and their work exist -- the inclusion test requires certain specific markers of significance (e.g. notable literary awards), and it requires real third-party coverage about him in reliable sources. But of the eleven footnotes here, five are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person (and four of those, furthermore, are from podcasts), two are corporate blogs, two are glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage about something other than himself, and one is his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer -- the closest thing to a good source is a university student newspaper covering him in the context of winning an internal staff award from his own employer, which would be fine if the other sources around it were better but is not "inherently" notable enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the strongest source in play. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete nothing in the article suggests the subject is notable. Delete per the well reasoned argument of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

IDology[edit]

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

Defunct startup. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS scope_creep^Talk 13:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this company. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete - Passing mentions, press releases, and unreliable sources fall short of WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Mika Simmons[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR none of the sources even mention her. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep as per Ritchie333, her podcast is quite famous, lots of mentions in several media, had been interviewed several times. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Being interviewed doesn't support notability (a source only supports her notability if it consists of other people talking about her in the third person, and not if it consists of her talking about herself in the first), being mentioned in media doesn't necessarily support notability (there's a difference between sources that are about her and sources that just mention her), and just asserting that her podcast is famous isn't a notability freebie that exempts anyone from actually having to source the significance of her podcast by demonstrating that it's been the subject of any third-party analysis of its importance. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep: Lancome did include her in their "40 powerful women", the silver Remi is now sourced, the charity is real and sourceable, profile in Telegraph behind a paywall: I think it adds up to notability. PamD 17:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment I'm quite happy to be proved wrong here, but the in-depth coverage is pretty slim at the moment. Theroadislong (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment My primary intent was to extract WP:COI involvement in the article and remove promotional content. As for notability, I'm not convinced this meets WP:ENT. The point about lack of in-depth coverage is well taken. We generally do not put much weight in interviews as evidence of notability, although in this case at least two of the interviews were published in high profile magazines. My question is whether these and a few articles about the podcast are sufficient. I'm dubious. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep Her podcast is well known and her acting credits are confirmed. There is a large amount of valid information out there about her as a professional actress and podcaster. See references: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8] StefB12 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read what constitutes a reliable source it does not include IMDb (user edited), United Agents (primary source), podcasts (primary source), playacts (primary source) and getty images (photographs are not sources). Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep - easily passes notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Keep as seemingly notable, but someone needs to comb through the history because due to COI editing the page has morphed significantly over the past week or so and we should make sure no sources get lost. Confusingly I found this discussion via the AfC helpdesk as the COI editor seemed to be pasting the matter in unrelated discussion forums (this was already in mainspace, yes?) BlackholeWA (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

References[edit]

^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0799850/
^ https://www.unitedagents.co.uk/mika-simmons
^ https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-happy-vagina/id1493974007
^ https://play.acast.com/s/thehappyvagina
^ https://www.vanityfair.com/london/2021/01/lights-camera-orgasm-an-interview-with-mika-simmons
^ https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/mika-simmons-sex-education-podcast-vagina-681125
^ https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/gynaecological-awareness-month-how-to-have-a-happy-vagina/
^ https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/mika-simmons?family=editorial&phrase=mika%20simmons&sort=mostpopular

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7, there is no real claim to importance as a small startup website and only one independent source. Speedy tag was removed by a COI editor so no need to wait the full seven days. Fences&Windows 17:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Shopless[edit]

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

I find no evidence of notability from a web search. At most one source cited in the article is substantial coverage in an possibly independent reliable source, and it isn't clear to me that it's independent. I A7ed the article but somebody removed the tag. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy delete The A7 tag likely should not have been removed in the first place (pending confirmation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoomanbahreini). Regardless, the article is promotional fluff, sourced almost entirely to press releases; the NZBusiness "source" is more blockquotes from Bahreini than actual reporting. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. DanCherek (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Saumen Sarkar[edit]

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

Pretty much on the back of a non-notable event

[1] ttps://www.imdb.com/name/nm0799850/

[2] ttps://www.unitedagents.co.uk/mika-simmons

[3] ttps://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-happy-vagina/id1493974007

[4] ttps://play.acast.com/s/thehappyvagina

[5] ttps://www.vanityfair.com/london/2021/01/lights-camera-orgasm-an-interview-with-mika-simmons

[6] ttps://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/mika-simmons-sex-education-podcast-vagina-681125

[7] ttps://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/gynaecological-awareness-month-how-to-have-a-happy-vagina/

[8] ttps://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/mika-simmons?family=editorial&phrase=mika%20simmons&sort=mostpopular