Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 13

< June 12 June 14 >

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. This is not the strongest consensus I've seen, but including the OP, we do have a rough consensus to delete with only a weak keep in opposition. As the discussion has already been relisted twice, I think it's time to move on. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rahel Blocher

Rahel Blocher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage to support notability. Geoff | Who, me? 17:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I started adding in coverage her from the Swiss press. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep - the top two sources I found are these.[1] [2] In addition her opposition to required vaccination against COVID generated a bit of press.[3]

References

  1. ^ Pfister, Jessica (2021-11-07). "Blochers Jüngste im Rampenlicht". Schweizer illustrierte. Retrieved 2022-04-19.
  2. ^ Ihle, Pascal; Knüsel-Rietmann, Melanie. "Das Phantom". Handelszeitung (in Swiss High German). Retrieved 2022-05-30.
  3. ^ "Jüngste Blocher-Tochter greift in Covid-Schlacht ein". Nau.ch. Retrieved 2022-04-19.

DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I think she must really be notable, at times most sources are hidden. EV Excalatory Vocian 18:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for more participation and noting that Excalatory Vocian has been blocked as a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even in French, I can only find what are press releases. Oaktree b (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio High School Football Records

San Antonio High School Football Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable...

A list of records at a particular high school is not notable and is also very difficult to maintain, as it is very unlikely that every performance is documented in a reliable source. Note that reliable sources are required for each entry even though notability sources are not required for each entry. The difference is that reliable sources might not be in-depth, and may not even be independent, to establish the facts needed for the list. Notability sources, needed for the overall list, need to be independent and in-depth. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

references have been posted correctly. Mjmja5 (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAA_football_records#Defense Mjmja5 (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WAX for an explanation as to why that is not relevant to this decision. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understand....but it's the same category....just different state. Mjmja5 (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of football records for high schools in the San Antonio, TX area...not one particular high school. Mjmja5 (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
please advise how page can be corrected to avoid deletion. Mjmja5 (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My delete vote stands, this is not what Wikipedia is for. WP:NOTSTATS WP:NLIST policy take precedence here. Ajf773 (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I don't know about "Strong" delete. The article creator attempted to add citations for a subject of some interest, although from what looks likes two (and only two) sources that don't themselves list their sources, so are presumed to be...primary sources?...(it's unclear). This clearly doesn't pass Wikipedia's guidelines for citation (WP:C) and verifiability (WP:V), which require an article to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple editorially-controlled secondary sources in order to be considered notable (WP:N). But that said, this feels like a newer editor trying to create an appropriate article and I'm seeing what seem like good-faith questions from said editor here asking how to improve the article. User:Mjmja5, in order for this article to be preserved, you would have to find sources that demonstrate that this list is significant beyond local interest in that area, generally by finding articles in secondary sources (i.e. newspapers, magazines or notable internet news sites) that have covered this topic significantly. If you can find examples of those kinds of sources (and it would have to be more than just one), that will go a huge way toward determining a positive outcome of this AfD. -Markeer 01:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.....I used this page as a reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAA_football_records
    It's the same category Mjmja5 (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:FANCRUFT, that doesn't demonstrate the need for a separate article, per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. These are reasons for deletion, the existence of some other similar page is not a valid reason to keep this, as per WP:OSE. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no demonstration of meeting WP:NLIST. A list of a self defined topic, with no clear boundry (does this include suburban schools? If some schools in a class or conference are in San Antonio and some aren't?), your source quality varies from no source, mainly sources that don't come close to WP:RS. Primarily I view this as WP:OR FANCRUFT, in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. As far as the article's creator's question, there's nothing you can do to save the article. It is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. My serious suggestion would be copy it now and purchase a website. It's cheaper than you might think. 174.212.228.43 (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete I don't see it anything more than a trivia. NavjotSR (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://sanantoniofootballrecords.blogspot.com/ Mjmja5 (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not acceptable per WP:RS. NavjotSR (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laulea Taufa

Laulea Taufa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaliele Papani

Kamaliele Papani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pio Palu

Pio Palu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matana Paongo

Matana Paongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fineasi Palei

Fineasi Palei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oliveti Vai

Oliveti Vai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apolosi Atuekaho

Apolosi Atuekaho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:13, 14 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lavern Francis

Lavern Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2022 (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 draftify. ✗plicit 23:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craivecia Sutton

Craivecia Sutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify.--MonFrontieres (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - young player who has just burst onto the international scene. Not notable yet but could plausibly be notable soon Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 16 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Springer

Caroline Springer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who does she play for? At what level does she play? Olympics? Friendly match in some dude's back yard? I find no sources on her. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing does not meet GNG. If a new soccer notability guideline is approved, it does not look likely she will meet the resulting guidelines, and that would still not overcome the GNG problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:54, 14 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zabihollah Kohkan

Zabihollah Kohkan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zabihollah Kohkan

Association football player who neither satisfies general notability nor the former sport-specific special notability guideline. He was on the roster of a first-tier team, but did not make an appearance, and is now on the roster of a second-tier team. This article states only that he is a football player, and makes no mention of any third-party significant coverage. On the one hand, an article should speak for itself and should tell the reader, who may not want to read the references, why the subject is notable. This article does not do that. On the other hand, a check of the references is equally uninformative, although the article has been bombed with useless references, largely to his place on the youth team, and other routine coverage.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 football-tehran.com Listing in a listing of players Yes No Yes No
2 tasnimnews.com Mention as member of youth team Yes No Yes No
3 the-afc.com Routine coverage of youth team Yes No Yes No
4 teammelli.com Another story about youth team Yes No Yes No
5 varzesh3.com More routine coverage of youth team Yes No Yes No
6 jfa.jp A youth team roster Yes No Yes No
7 persianfootball.com A comment about his play on a youth team Yes No Yes No
8 farsnews.ir Pictures of a youth team match Yes No Yes No
9 Google.com Google search results - Indicate that he exists Yes No Yes No
10 sbfootball.blogfa.com Blog says that he is on the team Probably No No No
11 rasanknews.com Says that he is on the team Yes No Yes No
12 footba11.com Roster of team Yes No Yes No
13 us.soccerway.com Routine coverage of a game Yes No Yes No

There is no significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1 He is a first division team player, not a second division. 2 is a young phenomenon of the country who is present in all the basic national categories of his country and has participated in big tournaments. 3 He is in the adult team of machine building. Machine Sazi F.C. is a professional team. He has played 21 games for Machine Sazi F.C. Zabikn7 (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My teacher, please remove the delete tag from the article. Please help me to develop this article. This article is progressing day by day. Zabikn7 (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My teacher, I worked very hard for this article and I ask you to help me delete this article. Please help and do not let it be deleted. Zabikn7 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying this article is complete, it works, but instead of deleting it, let's help it develop Zabikn7 (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to provide reliable sources if you want to prove notability of this subject. TolWol56 (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my country, Iran, these sources that I gave are reliable Zabikn7 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to clearly pass GNG, the table shows a variety of valid sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a search of his name in the Persian language brought up this source, appears to be SIGCOV but I don't know about its independence or reliability. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All sources in Iran are valid Zabikn7 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow Zabihollah Kohkan in TransferMarkt, one of the strongest football sites Zabikn7 (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review recent sources added and mentioned here. Also, consider, whether, in addition to Deletion or being Kept, if Draftification is a feasible option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you see fame? There are so many credible sources. All of these sources are credible in my country, and this player is a phenomenon. Zabikn7 (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Zabikn7 has been blocked for sockpuppetry and for altering the source table above. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OGBODO UK SPORT

OGBODO UK SPORT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article was nominated for PROD which was contested by the creator. Added references either did not mention the company at all, were spammy press releases or links to the company website. At present, the article has 7 references of which none is an independent source discussing the company in detail. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Football, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Articles 4 and 5 are just mentions of the agency owner and nothing on the agency itself. The other sources are from profiling websites like transfermarkt which are not WP:RS. I didn't want to be hasty when i PRODED the article at first as there's no In-depth coverage on the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shakila (Kabul)

Shakila (Kabul) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not quite sure how notability is established. One of 502 appointees selected to participate in the Afghanistan's (2002?) Constitutional Loya Jirga. Mooonswimmer 20:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 13 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Arbuthnott, 17th Viscount of Arbuthnott

AfDs for this article:
Keith Arbuthnott, 17th Viscount of Arbuthnott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hereditary Viscount, who has not held any notable position. What content there is could be merged into the 16th Viscount article. John a s (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 13 June 2022 (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 03:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Ram

AfDs for this article:
Aditya Ram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are PR, clickbait , profiles and passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 20:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://celpox.com/celebs/aditya-ram-producer?ID=50264
https://www.cinestaan.com/people/aditya-ram-110890
https://www.moviebuff.com/aditya-ram
https://clapnumber.com/celebrity/adityaram
https://www.cinejosh.com/news/2/2566/aditya-ram-in-trouble-with-puri-jagannath.html
https://www.indiaglitz.com/aditya-ram-appeals-for-ending-piracy-telugu-news-51315
https://www.filmytoday.com/image/view/1023435/film-producer-and-studio-owner-mr-adityaram-received-the-best-realty-brand-award-2015/ Eva Allison (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More profiles and clickbait and a non-notable award from a construction company/real estate company. More PR. scope_creepTalk 08:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    he is doing real estate business and film producing ..he got five more awards Lyla Albert (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was rejected three times at Afc. scope_creepTalk 12:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    yes accept but now improved content and reference URLs Lyla Albert (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
original name is Aditya Ram other name was Adityaram Lyla Albert (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What you have done is pile the article with reams on really poor references that hits WP:CITEKILL, that are clickbait, PR, profiles, even listing, SPS sources and other junk references. scope_creepTalk 16:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets look at the first 15 references:
  • Ref 1 Puri Jagannath teams up with Adityaram Mentioned in headline. Rest is a passing mention. Signficant:No, Independent:Yes, In-depth:No
  • Ref 2 Adityaram A site similar to IMDB Signficant:No, Independent:Yes, In-depth:No
  • Ref 3 IMDB Non-RS.
  • Ref 4 Maternal divorce to producer Adityaram Signficant:Yes, Independent:No, In-depth:No
  • Ref 5 Puri Jagan - Aditya Ram join hands together "15 years of Aditya Ram Group of Industries – Aditya Ram" A small paragraph. Signficant:No, Independent:No, In-depth:No
  • Ref 6 Filibeat Non-RS.
  • Ref 7 [1] Account suspended.
  • Ref 8 Profile site Primary. Signficant:No, Independent:No, In-depth:No
  • Ref 9 About SPS site. Signficant:No, Independent:No, In-depth:No
  • Ref 10 Page not found. Dead link.
  • Ref 11 Profile site. Signficant:No, Independent:No, In-depth:No
  • Ref 12 Film Producer and Studio Owner Mr. Adityaram received the Best Realty Brand Award – 2015 Non-notable industry award. Signficant:No, Independent:No, In-depth:No
  • Ref 13 Adityaram Film Producer Clickbait site. Signficant:No, Independent:No, In-depth:No
  • Ref 14 Aditya Ram (Producer) Clickbait site. Signficant:No, Independent:No, In-depth:No
  • Ref 15 Aditya Ram in trouble with Puri Jagannath Two short paragraphs. . Signficant:No, Independent:No, In-depth:No

Not a single secondary sources amongst the lot of them. scope_creepTalk 10:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see at least one other uninvolved editor, besides the nominator, look over the sources supplied.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

will check and update 113.193.184.10 (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
removed Non-RS urls and updated correct RS check and remove tag Lyla Albert (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
anything else guide will update Lyla Albert (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://in.bookmyshow.com/person/aditya-ram/IEIN013958/filmography Lyla Albert (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many violations (AfC bypass, PR links, non-reliable sources). --Bigneeerman (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any reliable sources here and fails WP:GNG. In addition from the way it is sourced and filled with images, I strongly suspect the author of the article has a connection to the subject. Finally it is filled with typos and is not suitable as an encyclopedia entry in the state it's in. PaulPachad (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Denmark

List of people on the postage stamps of Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with rationale Many books on stamps, but often only in the library and in their archives and not on the Internet. This still does not change the fact that out of all of these AFDs and PRODs for "List of people on the postage stamps of X", even when pressed for sources, very few people have tried to source these articles at all and just argue keep because WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Even fewer have argued why these and other lists like them meet WP:SALAT. We can prove that these people were on stamps by using catalogues, but that does not make the list itself a notable topic. Like I said, this is like saying List of Family Fare locations should exist because Family Fare is a notable supermarket chain and any phone book published for Munising, Michigan proves that they have one. WP:NOTINHERITED is in full effect here.

tl;dr: There is no proof that the subject of the list is a topic worth retaining a list on, even if many of the entries are themselves notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with regards to WP:GNG due to the notability of the topic, as evidenced in the following reliable, independent sources:
  1. Contains many paragraphs about the various portraits (12 mentions) of people on Danish stamps: Sor-Reime, Geir. 2001. “World of Stamps: 150 Years of Danish Stamps.” Mekeel’s & Stamps Magazine 188 (14): 17. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=4313829&site=eds-live&scope=site.
  2. Talks about the inclusion of 4 people on postage stamps (an engraver, a printer and 2 postmasters) POOLE, B. W. H. The First Stamps of Denmark. Mekeel’s & Stamps Magazine, [s. l.], v. 206, n. 19, p. 14–15, 2010. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=53304374&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 13 jun. 2022.
  3. Talks about the portraits of two kings on Danish stamps: CORREL, F. The Frimaerker i Forum. Mekeel’s & Stamps Magazine, [s. l.], v. 202, n. 13, p. 12–14, 2008. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=31552713&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 13 jun. 2022.
  4. Is a newspaper article about Crown Prince Frederik and family appearing on a Danish postage stamp. Smith, L. (2006, Dec 22). Forget the mags, mary's a true people's princess: [1 edition]. The Mercury Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/forget-mags-marys-true-peoples-princess/docview/353046049/se-2?accountid=196403
So while 2 & 3 are more like passing mentions, 1 & 4 provide enough significant coverage, in my opinion, to conclude that the topic of people on Danish postage stamps is a notable topic. I think the nominator should have considered merge options at the outset and not doing so has accidentally steered people away from options other than delete, which should be prioritised at AfD and therefore this process is a bit flawed. CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 4 does not explain why the subject of "people on stamps of Denmark" as a whole is notable. It just states that one person was on them. I see no point in calling for a merge as I see no viable merge target, nor any content worth merging. Again, we can verify that these people were on the stamps, but none of the sources you cited (except maybe #1) gives any reason why they should be catalogued. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Postage stamps and postal history of Denmark seems like a viable merge target. I still say keep, but it is interesting to me that nobody who voted delete seems to have considered merging and it seems like an oversight. CT55555 (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per CT55555 and Orland. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a single one of those is a valid, policy based reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like I did make a valid, policy-based argument. But in case you didn't like the last one, here is another: WP:LISTN is the relevant notability guideline. It has a slightly lower bar than WP:GNG. I quote Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set independent reliable sources Please focus on the key thing here, the sources need to treat the topic as a group, in independent sources. They absolutely do that. That is all that is needed for WP:LISTN CT55555 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how any of those sources treat the entire topic as one of notability, except maybe the first one. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I quote from WP:LISTN The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability. CT55555 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with CT55555. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PERX is not a valid argument. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A random list of people with the most tenuous link. Essentially an unstructured list that fails WP:NLIST and would better served with a template or a category. The sources provided above to give a veneer of notability at best. There is no consensus around this, that proves this is notable. It is just another one of these weird useless lists that you find on Wikipedia, that lacks true historical meaning. scope_creepTalk 07:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some sources have been presented regarding the history of Danish stamps, but I don't see how they support the existence of such a list. If a source mentions several people who were on Danish stamps, it's not the same as attempting to create a dedicated list. For example, we have literary analysis of some novels or series, but they do not suffice for having lists of characters, places, or literary motifs foudn in such books. Indexes of trivia are not encyclopedic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:50, 19 June 2022 (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 Nomination Withdrawn. An entry in the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture makes eminently notable. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 08:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Shin-ae

Shin Shin-ae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 19:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is a trot singer? scope_creepTalk 14:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trot singer is singer who sing Trot (music) Preferwiki (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is her Wikipedia page on Korean Wikipedia: https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%8B%A0%EC%8B%A0%EC%95%A0 It includes seven sources - mostly from 1970s and 1980s. And yet still she is in the news in 2021 https://www.donga.com/news/Entertainment/article/all/20210603/107246885/1 and in 2020 https://www.hankyung.com/entertainment/article/202007247120H I am unqualified to say how primary/secondary the sources are, if this is tabloid or not, so I'm running on good faith, but 4 or 5 decades of news coverage does strongly suggest notability to me. CT55555 (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Find her as representative of Manyo’s genre in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. Revised the article and already add it into citation. Mentioned in Encyclopedia suggest notability. http://encykorea.aks.ac.kr/Contents/SearchNavi?keyword=%E6%BC%AB%E8%AC%A0&ridx=0&tot=575 Preferwiki (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@Preferwiki: You can only have one keep. Please read the Afd guidelines. scope_creepTalk 09:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Preferwiki: That seems reasonable with an entry in the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, which is a product of Ministry of Education, that makes her notable. Thanks for posting that. The references are much better condition now than the profiles, passing mentions, PR and clickbait sites that were there before. It is probably the best WP:HEYMANN standard update I've seen. Good work. Nomination Withdrawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 14 June 2022 9:32 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Alexander

Clayton Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ember Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications based on Google searches that Alexander or his companies "Radiance Lightworks" or "Ember" are WP:N. Article seems to have been created and maintained as part of an ongoing public relations effort. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only one source provided which is insufficient. Does not meet notability.Craigwikiman (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for UPE. MER-C 06:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack even one source to show notability. The nature of patents is that even having a lot does not actually guantee you are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the sources to prove Alexander is the Founder/CEO of:
Radiance Lightworks: https://www.radiancelightworks.com/people
Ember Technologies: https://ember.com/pages/about-the-founder Nsands901 (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are just trying to update his bio with the latest version, as the current one is many years old and does not include his latest ventures. Please let me know what else you need to get the bio updated and out of deletion mode... Nsands901 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one denies that Alexander is the Founder / CEO of those companies. That, in itself, is not sufficient to merit inclusion at Wikipedia. (Please read WP:BIO.) To prove that Alexander is notable, you'll need to provide multiple examples of independent coverage about him in independent sources. Press releases or advertorials about his companies / products are not sufficient; these need to be independent, in-depth reporting about him. If you can find such coverage about Ember Technologies, that article might be rescued. Again, we need more than just product announcements. Given that Ember seems to only have two products on the market, such coverage might be hard to find. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Please let me know if these articles work as sources:
    https://www.fastcompany.com/90717041/ember-known-for-keeping-coffee-hot-builds-a-shipping-box-to-keep-vaccines-cold
    https://www.thestartupstory.co/episodes/clay-alexander-founder-of-ember
    https://www.brooklinen.com/blogs/brookliving/wind-down-with-clay-founder-of-ember
    https://www.smartkitchensummit.com/clayalexander
    https://www.entrepreneurialjoy.com/inventors-circle-clayton-alexander-ceo-journee-lighting-radiance-lightworks/ Nsands901 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Press releases and the like are not useful for reliable sources. I find nothing showing mentions in other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We get his on a Tarzan movie from 2016, which I don't think is this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not include any press releases, so I am not sure what you are referring to. ALL links above are independent sources. Nsands901 (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, podcast descriptions. Those are even less notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And interviews with the subject on mostly unheard of websites. None of these are useful, I've gone through the lot of them, whole pile of nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Nsands901: Puff pieces like the Brooklinen blog "Wind down with Clay, founder of Ember", are not reliable sources. In general, first person interviews are a poor source of verifiable information. The information from FastCompany about the Ember Cube might point to notability for the Ember Technologies company, but that still doesn't indicate Alexander's personal notability. (If we decide to retain Ember Technologies, we will likely end up redirecting the Clayton Alexander article to the Ember article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not delete our pages. I am not sure why Ember Technologies' page is also being considered for deletion. That is absurd. There is plenty of sourcing there. What else can I provide to ensure these pages are not deleted?
    Does this Crunchbase page help? https://www.crunchbase.com/person/clayton-alexander Nsands901 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nsands901 They aren't your pages. They are Wikipedia's articles about Ember Technologies and Clayton Alexander. I will leave more information for you on your talk page. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You need reliable, neutral, third-party mentions in things such as Time or the New York Times. The references you provide are a long way from these. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as not-notable (fails WP:BASIC and WP:NCORP). I couldn't find any significant coverage of Alexander or Ember Technologies, just brief mentions in the context of "gifts for the holidays" newspaper columns (touting Ember's $149 coffee cup). There's a nice Inc. (magazine) article, but at the bottom, it's labeled sponsored business content. Schazjmd (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not understanding. That Inc. article was NOT sponsored. You are looking at the "sponsored content" at the bottom of the article that is completely unrelated to Ember's Inc. feature.
    We were also placed on the Inc. 5000 list in 2021. That lists Clay, as well: https://www.inc.com/profile/ember-technologies
    There are endless amounts of coverage about Clay Alexander, Ember (Technologies), and Clay's ownership in the company all over the internet.
    Some more:
    https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/ember-mug-inventor-wants-to-put-computer-chips-in-all-dishes.html
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/ember-smart-coffee-mug-has-joe-and-nick-jonas-as-investors.html
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/15/business/cold-storage-covid-vaccine.html
    https://thespoon.tech/ember-to-bring-its-temperature-tech-to-reusable-cold-chain-packaging/
    https://www.packagingdigest.com/pharmaceutical-packaging/reusable-cube-provides-safe-passage-temperature-sensitive-drugs
    A piece about Ember's relocation to the new headquarters: https://www.cbre.ca/en/press-releases/ember-thousand-oaks
    Clay selling his lightbulb to GE: https://www.designcurial.com/news/ge-lumination-acquires-journ-e-s-led-module-technology
    What else can I provide?? Nsands901 (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merge into the company/mug page First up, one editor here saying "we" does strongly suggest a conflict of interest. Secondly, I was about to vote delete, after finding nothing because I searched for "Clayton Alexander". But if I search for "Clay Alexander" I find:
  1. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/ember-smart-coffee-mug-has-joe-and-nick-jonas-as-investors.html it does include quotes, so imperfect
  2. https://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/ember-mug-inventor-wants-to-put-computer-chips-in-all-dishes.html also an interview (I don't know how reliable this site is, the reliable sources ntice board did not help)
  3. https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2022/01/11/transformational-coffee-warming-mug/9158223002/ brief mention of him, more about his invention, also includes interview
  4. https://time.com/5023212/best-inventions-of-2017/ talks about his invention, again an interview.
So at this point, I could keep searching, but knowing WP:CREATIVE infers notability for people who invented a something, I think he passes that. CT55555 (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!!! We can definitely change his name to "Clay Alexander," if that helps? He definitely goes by Clay, as opposed to Clayton. Nsands901 (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we" in this question; and can you please answer the question on your talk page? CT55555 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to Wiki - sorry, which question on my talk page? Nsands901 (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the link in my question. It's the one where someone else asks you if you know Clay Alexander. CT55555 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you say here that you are in the PR team for C Alexander's company.
You have a conflict of interest and should not participate further in this discussion and editing the article. If you have edit requests, you should suggest them on the talk page. CT55555 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do I suggest edits on your talk page or mine? Nsands901 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should suggest them on the page in question. i.e. for this one, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clayton_Alexander CT55555 (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only thing I see as being notable is the temperature control mug, it has links to Wired and CNET in the Ember Tech article. Even those are not much. I'd still prefer to delete these articles, the fact that the PR guy keeps trying to keep them tells me it isn't notable. He's given podcast summaries and company websites as reliable sources. The inventor just isn't notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted !keep, but I do find the argument that the temperature control mug is the notable thing here agreeable. I don't know what to do that that detail, but maybe that should have an article more than the inventor of it. CT55555 (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CT55555: I think you mean you !voted "keep" ("not a vote", not "not keep"). If the mug is considered notable (I don't think so but opinions vary), than !vote to "keep" Ember Technologies (the producer of the mug) and "delete" Clayton Alexander, or redirect Alexander's bio to the Ember article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You caught my error correctly. And I agree, but I guess merge this content into Ember? I think I'll do that, but checking if that seems logical to you (respecting that you disagree on the mug-notability). CT55555 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: I'd wait on any merge until this discussion is done. As both the biograph and the corporate page are nominated for deletion, the decision might come down to delete both. Or neither. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, I worded that badly to. I was asking about voting merge, not actually merging content. CT55555 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Too soon. Generally the topic seems to be notable, but not enough media/reportage independent sources. --Morpho achilles (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many, many, many sources have been added above. Nsands901 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Morpho achilles Your comment doesn't make much sense. GNG defines notability as having "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". If there isn't "enough media/reportage independent sources" then it's not notable by that defninition. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ONUnicorn I wrote "seems to be notable", I didn't write "it's notable" or "it's definitely notable". In other words, the topic is interesting and possibly notable, but not this time. That is why I wrote from the start: Wikipedia:Too soon. Morpho achilles (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A merger of Clayton Alexander to Ember Technologies was suggested by a couple of participants and I'd like to see whether this option has support over an outright deletion of both articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment To be clear, I oppose a merge, because I don't feel that Ember Technologies is notable either. They've made a single notable product (a $149 internet-connected coffee mug) that got some notice, but otherwise seem to be a run-of-the-mill tech startup. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The company page fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability and I don't believe there are sufficient references for the inventor, Clayton, to pass WP:CREATIVE or any other guideline either. But I suggest that there are sufficient references for the "Ember Mug" product to pass NCORP criteria and that the existing articles are redirected to Ember Mug with the focus changed to be on the product. I'm happy to draft an article on the product to kickstart the process if this suggestion achieves consensus. HighKing++ 11:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that agreeable. CT55555 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, due to lack of significant coverage about this living person, or merge into Ember Technologies, for which I do not have an educated opinion about. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing Children

Choosing Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unnecessary disambiguation page, now that the Choosing Children (documentary) article is deleted. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I added a link to the producer of the documentary making it a valid entry. MB 22:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Two potential valid redirects from title to creator, so a valid dab page. PamD 08:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is a valid disambiguation. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 18:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and Salt. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Games

AfDs for this article:
Dream Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See the first AfD just two months ago, where this was deleted. This article cites reliable sources, but those fail WP:ORGIND. WP:NCORP requires independent sourcing, which also includes "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject". None of the sources, which are all re-publishing info already published by the company itself, can be considered independent by this definition, thus making them unusable to establish notability. I had done a search myself online to find sources in the previous AfD, and a search now doesn't show anything extra: nothing has changed since the previous AfD and this company is still not notable.

I had tagged this for speedy G4, but it was removed by the same non-AfC reviewer who moved this draft into the mainspace, and who also just happens to have created Royal Match, a game of this company. ~StyyxTalk? 14:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm a bit confused as to how you're hand-waving away coverage like this CNBC source, which is very high level, mainstream source that's giving significant coverage in terms of detail and noteworthy accomplishments. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite early in that particular source you can see "[...], the company told CNBC" (and later as well). It then proceeds to give some background information about how shit our economy is at the moment, then states in a single sentence that the company was formed in 2019 after Peak Games was acquired by Zynga, makes a very short comparison with Trendyol and Getir, and after that it is almost completely repeating the statements of the CEO. This fails WP:ORGIND (a part of WP:NCORP), which states that the content itself also must be independent. The source is reliable, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with using it in the article, but it just cannot be used to establish notability. I don't know how you are confused by something that already was in the nomination statement. ~StyyxTalk? 20:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same source here? I'm confused by how you came to that conclusion. I still am. Obviously things like interviews or press releases that are just replication of the subjects own words are first party accounts and not usable for notability. But a lengthy article with some comments and quotes from the subject is absolutely not the same at all. Much of it reads as CNBC's own words. If you're discounting all the sources with that sort of reasoning then I'm leaning keep here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the source is "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking", apart from maybe the comparison with other Turkish unicorns? ~StyyxTalk? 18:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything not in direct quotes. Again, the fact that they merely got some info straight from the source itself does not suddenly turn it into an entirely first party account. Especially when it's clearly not a press release and there's clearly no actual connection to a publication like CNBC. It's nice to see your concern to some degree - many editors try to use interviews or press releases to prove notability - but where you're trying to draw the line is far too strict here. With your sort of reasoning, very little would ever meet notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I would've analysed the sources if the subject wasn't a for-profit company. Original content is mentioned only in NCORP, so I believe treating the sources as if the subject wasn't a company is wrong. But everything not in direct quotes? Even the background on Turkish economy part helps to establish notability? ~StyyxTalk? 19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as last time, it's press releases and routine funding announcements, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly salt. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Merko (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Throwing fundraising announcements, most of which are about the exact same number and published on the exact same date (18 January 2022) isn't going to get us anywhere. Also the Milliyet and 2nd Habertürk sources aren't significant at all with only one sentence of the articles being related to this particular company. ~StyyxTalk? 18:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the subject has received very detailed, high level, non-routine coverage from high level third party sources like CNBC and Bloomberg. It meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except it's supposed to meet WP:NCORP because it is a company. With reference to the sources you've listed, you should pay particular attention to WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, the CNBC and Bloomberg sources are independent third party sourcing. And if you can't tell that the "in a nutshell" banner at the top of NCORP is just a paraphrasing of the GNG, then I don't know how to help you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are *corporately* independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just WP:RS for establishing notability.
  • We therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
  • Just about all of the references fail ORGIND never mind CORPDEPTH, since they're various forms of regurgitated press releases and announcements. This from Intellinews in turn references this CNBC article which is also listed in the article. Some of the articles provide an overview of the Turkish gaming market as well and some discuss other gaming companies and titles - none of which are relevant for establishing the notability of this company. These are just one of several that report on this specific announcement from the company. Some of the references contain a description of the company including details of its founders, date the company started, list of games, details of previous rounds, etc, but these details can all be found in other announcements too - which shows the information is not "Independent Content". For example, this post is a lengthy post which contains most of what I've just mentioned - and sources the information as "press release". As per WP:ORGIND, these types of funding announcements don't meet the criteria for establishing notabiltiy as they do not contain any "Independent Content". There is no information that is *clearly* attributable to sources unaffiliated to the company, there is no independent fact finding or investigation, these types of article simply regurgitate the company announcements. Once we accept that funding announcements fail ORGIND, we're left with directory entries for games or reports on revenues generated by games - again none of which meet NCORP criteria.
Since none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 20:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Royal Match as WP:ATD, as Royal Match is the companies only product, which is notable through these reviews: Appspy Common Sense Media. Jumpytoo Talk 04:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per user:Sergecross73. LittleNirvana (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that CNBC and Bloomberg count towards the general notability guidelines. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states that you must pass either the general notability guidelines or a subject specific guideline, not both. Dream Focus 03:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet wP:NCORP. CNBC and Bloomberg stories are routine events for a startup company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you expect from a startup company (this is a $2.75B startup company that has received $467.5M in funding. It passes WP:GNG. LittleNirvana (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's my exact thought! Your standard start-up company also has dozens of fundraising announcements. Dream Games is just a run-of-the-mill thing. They just happen to have some of their people try to get their article created. Also, to understand the relation of the GNG and other SNGs, see this, which states that "SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies". There aren't many ways to interpret this. Either this means that companies meeting the GNG is irrelevant, as they have to meet NCORP and NCORP only. Or it means that the "Independent of the subject" part in found in the GNG has different requirements depending on the subject, and for companies it's WP:ORGIND (my money is on the latter, though). So, you can't just simply try to by-pass the strict requirements of ORGIND by telling that the company meets the GNG. ~StyyxTalk? 16:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fundraising announcements are routine coverage for any startup. Also, Since this article was re-created[2] by a user who knew it was deleted, and knew the deletion was endorsed[3] at deletion review, maybe steps should be taken so that we don't have to do this again next month. ApLundell (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:NCORP as cogently argued by HighKing. Not seeing a strong policy based argument refuting this analysis.4meter4 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2022 (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. On a pure nose count, this would seem to be a "no consensus". However, AfD is not a vote, and the assertion that the references available were either non-independent or not in depth and therefore do not demonstrate notability were strongly backed by analysis in the discussion, and not refuted nor were better references provided. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Ventures

East Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable venture company with small capitalization and no notable clients. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Reads like advertisement. Many PR/newswire sources and not necessary external links. Assirian cat (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Companies. Assirian cat (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has steadily deteriorated with what looks like inside editing since I cleaned it up and moved it to mainspace years ago. I must've screwed it up when I moved it because the history credits me as being the creator, instead of just a major fixer. I rolled back a lot of the changes and think it looks better now. I'll have to add it to my watch list to keep it from deteriorating again. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep the page has a chance. It's similar to Jungle Ventures as it's not the only WP:Mill and it meets WP:GNG. However, most of the information is based on different venture announcements --Morpho achilles (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.. Thanks for the comment. East Ventures is one of Indonesia's largest VC and the early VC in Indonesia so far. Some of portfolios are the largest in Southeast Asia, such as Tokopedia, Traveloka, Grab... 101.128.119.77 (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
we also has changed it to be more neutral compared to previous one. 101.128.119.77 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in the spirit of the above comment re: mild keep. The article is looking better now. It's first iteration was pretty rough. I can see why it may have been nominated but in my opinion is up to snuff, at the very least on principle of the subject itself. Gnomatique (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspect that the page has been edited by the compamy itself from an IP. The above IP comments are strange. --Morpho achilles (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just removed some more unsourced info that was added by an WP:SPA that geolocates to Indonesia. 101.128.119.77 please don't add unsourced info, and please read WP:COI. Otherwise, you're going to get the article flagged for inside editing, even if it's kept. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since this is a company, WP:NCORP applies. Like Jungle Ventures, none of the references that I have found meet NCORP - it's all announcements and mentions-in-passing and nothing that contains "Independent Content". I'm happy to revisit if sources turn up in a different language which might be eluding me due to my inadequate search skills but until then, for me this topic fails both NCORP and GNG. HighKing++ 20:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Are you sure you are applying WP:NCORP correctly? A close reading of WP:NCORP says A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This entire article is sourced with multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. What am I missing? If you aren't sure about the one Indonesian source, here's our article about the publication if you want to determine its reliability: Kompas. Kompas is an Indonesian national newspaper from Jakarta which was founded on 28 June 1965. I just removed some other sources that were poor, but I'm playing whack-a-mole. Still, this isn't my article, even though my name is on it, but it's still easier to fix this article about an obviously notable Indonesian firm than to vote delete. TechnoTalk (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. There's also the WP:SERIESA essay too. "Independent of the subject" doesn't just mean that the publisher and the topic company have no corporate links, it also means "intellectually independent" so that we need to see in-depth content within the article that isn't just a regurgitation of a company announcement or interview, but contains independent opinion/fact checking/analysis from a source unaffiliated to the topic company. If you've concerns/questions over a specific source, link it here and I'll try to see if there's anything we can use to establish notability. HighKing++ 12:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There’s no need to link anything. The sources are all in the article already for any closer to see. No one us going to delete a well sourced article because of misapplied reasons and wiki-lawyering alphabet soup. TechnoTalk (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You ask me if NCORP is being applied correctly and when I explain and point to some relevant sections, you call it "wiki-lawyering alphabet soup". Hmmm, Ok. This company puts out a ton of PR in annoucements and interviews - check their website if you like - and this same PR is simply being regurgitated without the journalist adding any of their own independent opinion or analysis. The article has 16 sources, many used to support facts within the article which is good but for the purposes of establishing notability, it isn't the quantity that matters but the quality. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source *unaffiliated* to the subject. References cannot rely solely on information provided by the company, including quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews. Here's a break-down of what is in the article:
  • Tech In Asia reference relies entirely on an interview with Cuaca and has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
  • This from TechCrunch merely regurgitates a company announcement, the same one being parroted by other publishers on Sept 2017. Fails ORGIND
  • This from FINSMES and this in the Jakarta Post are also based entirely on a company announcement, fails ORGIND
  • This next from TechCrunch is a mere mention-in-passing, the topic company is mentioned by name in a sentence with no other details, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This in Reuters as well as this in Digital News Asia are entirely based on this company announcement, fails ORGIND
  • This from Bloomberg is a mere mention-in-passing in one sentence, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from The Business Times reports on "EV Growth" which is a different company as this is a venture between three companies, the Sinar Mas group, the topic company and Yahoo Japan. It includes a quote from the CEO of East Ventures but contains no in-depth information on the topic company and fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This announcement of raising funds by Traveloka mentions the topic company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This funding announcement by Mercari mentions the topic company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This third from TechCrunch about EVHive mentions the topic company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from Kompas.com about Ruangguru.com mentions the topic company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from e27.co about Shopback raising funds mentions the topic company in passing, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from TechInAsia is identified as a "work in progress" and is a list of the most active investors in Southeast Asia. It is behind a paywall which I cannot access but there was an older list which was available. The list provides a summary of the company and statistics such as a list of "Recent Investees". There's no analysis or commentary and it relies entirely on data/information reported by the company or their investments. It the new list is the same, it fails ORGIND.
  • This next from Business Times is the most likely candidate as a source that meets NCORP. I do not have access to the report from Prequin but the topic company made an announcement about their inclusion and later that year invited Prequin to speak at their 10 year anniversary event where the aspects of the report are explained. We also have this article from Institutional Investor which discusses the report. Without seeing the report I would say it is likely to meet the criteria for establishing notability depending on whether there is any opinion/analysis expressed in the report - if it is simply ranking companies based on the data reported by those companies without analysis/opinion, then I would say it doesn't.
Feel free to comment but overall, nearly all of the references are regurgitated PR and announcements or mentions-in-passing as I first said, failing ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. We do not have sufficient verifiable in-depth "Independent Content" to pass NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You went to a lot of trouble to attack reliable sources. Maybe try to have them banned at the reliable sources noticeboard instead, and save yourself the huge time sink you find yourself in trying to justify your view that no company announcements should ever be covered in the media. You seem to be saying that if something is announced, that somehow negates the related reporting. I'm not sure you understand why there's a PR industry. Do you think only reports that come from journalists somehow getting an anonymous tip are worthy of reporting? Few articles would survive your deletion efforts if more closers agreed with you. TechnoTalk (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did I say they weren't reliable sources? Where did I "attack" their reliability? HighKing++ 12:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCORP per HighKing's convincing source analysis. @TechnoTalk We have a higher standard for sourcing for corporations in our written policies at WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND for a reason. Ignoring it with dismissive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT statements and personal attacks towards HighKing isn't strengthening your position.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2022 (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. On a pure nose count this would be a "no consensus", but AfD is not a vote. The "keep" arguments do not refute the assertion that the references available are insufficient to demonstrate notability, and some in fact support it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attaullah Tarar

Attaullah Tarar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article claims the subject is a minister, but he isn’t, he’s just an official spokesperson and therefore does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As he is public office holder and current spokesperson of punjab government. He is teh grandson of former president of Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ashraf333 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  – well, he's a prominent politician, PLMN's legal advisor and spokesman, also official spokesman of Government of Punjab, and advisor for interior ministry's affairs to CM Punjab (some sources claims him to be interior/home minister Punjab). He regularly (I'll say daily) appear on mainstream Pakistani news channels, as a party representative, and it's highly unlikely he'll not have enough to pass GNG threshold. As he daily appear on mainstream news channels, it's really hard to find articles with SIGCOV, from tons of trivial mentioning articles.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
    1. ^ "PML-N's Attaullah Tarar appointed as Punjab government's spokesperson". www.geo.tv. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
    2. ^ "PML-N's Attaullah Tarar 'released after brief arrest'". The Express Tribune. 12 February 2021. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
    3. ^ "Atta Tarar's prediction regarding Shahzad Akbar proved true". ARY NEWS. 24 January 2022. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
    4. ^ "Anger outpours as Atta Tarar warns of violent reaction if called 'lota'". Global Village Space. 14 April 2022. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
    5. ^ "Atta Tarar's prediction regarding Shahzad Akbar proved true". ARY NEWS. 24 January 2022. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
    6. ^ Hanif, Intikhab (23 June 2012). "Tarar grandson's induction Dust-laden file back to table". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 9 June 2022.
    7. ^ "Farah Khan sent a legal notice to Atta Tarar on the allegations Geo Tv News". Retrieved 9 June 2022.
Radioactive (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ahatd: I agree. These seven sources don’t establish notability in my view. They are mostly run of the mill coverage typical of any official spokesperson, but generally such people are not notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per past precedent; government spokespersons of higher agencies are considered notable, even if sourcing is poor. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPOL. He is not a prominent politician as argued above, as he doesn't hold elected office. There is no SNG for spokespersons, so GNG is our default policy. None of the sources address Attaullah Tarar "directly and in detail" as required by our notability policy. With the lack of significant independent coverage in multiple sources, I am not seeing a policy based argument for keeping this article.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deming Woods, Indiana

Deming Woods, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An old subdivision now part of Terre Haute; the only reference to it I found other than the usual clickbait and GNIS stuff says so. It was apparently preceded in the late 1800s by "Deming's Woods", which appears to have been just that, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KL Digital City

KL Digital City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Sources in article only give a passing mention or are not independent. Cannot find any sourcing online; perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. – Pbrks (t • c) 19:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Malaysia. – Pbrks (t • c) 19:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely a case of TOOSOON. Fails GNG in present form. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, not a crystal ball, or used to promote one politician's plan to make money. W Nowicki (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2022 (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 Nomination withdrawn. The Moose 00:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celsius Network

AfDs for this article:
Celsius Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Celsius Network

Cryptocurrency exchange that did not satisfy corporate notability in February 2022, and was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celsius Network, and is still not notable. An article on this business was restored on 13 June 2022, but what the reliable sources indicate is that the network ceased operation on 13 June 2022. If a company was not notable when it was in business, then it is not notable when it is out of business – unless its failure has itself satisfied general notability, which is not the case here.

A draft, Draft:Celsius Network, was also submitted and declined on 13 June 2022, and has been resubmitted. The draft can be kept for possible expansion in case the failure of the network itself satisfies general notability Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is definitely notable, in fact, I would suggest it is actually notorious now as probably Ponzi scheme. As it is mentioned throughout the news as a collapsing cryptocurrency network in which many inventors, many of which are not sophisticated, are losing billions. Many frauds/Ponzi articles are kept after the schemes inevitably collapse. Thus there is no need to say that because this scheme has collapsed, it is no longer noteworthy -- in fact it is important that we remember these existed and who was involved. Mentioned in the Washingont Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/06/13/celsius-crypto-bank-withdrawals-freeze/), Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-13/crypto-lender-celsius-freezes-withdrawals-fueling-market-rout), Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/technology/crypto-firm-celsius-pauses-all-transfers-withdrawals-between-accounts-2022-06-13/), Financial Times (https://www.ft.com/content/25ac1667-9f50-4f16-b553-448ea4582613). So I do suggest keeping the article. --User:SilentAfterAll. — Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on a draft about a year ago under a different title. I resubmitted it after all the latest news and updated the title to Draft: Celsius Network I did not realize that there was a different version that had already been submitted and reviewed. My draft has many more sources. I submitted it again today after the most recent rejection because I added more sources which I thought demonstrated notability. I regret if I've made things difficult for any editors. I think my version is much more extensive and demonstrates the notability of the subject: numerous articles about the subject in mainstream sources over a period of time. JournalismResearch (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — There is sufficient coverage on this subject, largely due to the Bitcoin crash that's occurred due to Celsius Network. The reason why it's notable doesn't matter here; this is a very similar case to Libs of TikTok, where the article subject's notoriety warranted it a page rather than its preexisting status. And, as far as I know, Celsius isn't out of business, it's just shutting down withdrawals due to "extreme market conditions". New accounts can still be created and money can still be put into it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy keep - The nominator needs to do some basic news searches and will find that Celsius Network is at the top of the financial and mainstream news as part of a larger cryptocurrency slump. The Reuters headline could not be clearer: "Crypto contagion fears spread after Celsius Network freezes withdrawals." [4] Add to this Bloomberg, The Verge, Financial Times, Yahoo Finance, Barrons, et al. Suggest closing this early as it is a bad nomination. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in La Presse[5], Le Journal de Montreal [6]. Ample coverage in French. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject of widespread coverage, even NYT, Bloomberg, Reuters, etc just today. WP:SNOW is falling. What an utter waste of time by the nominator, bad form. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, the lender is top news everywhere, surely notable. Censorship is evil, and the attempt to censor an article from Wikipedia doubly so. Tiphareth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now. This would have been a potential delete barely keep before their apparent collapse, but freezing withdrawals has definitely caused additional coverage and notability. Skynxnex (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extensive in-depth coverage in media, especially with the news this week. Thriley (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Nomination because general notability concerning its failure has now been met. The article as now revised marginally satisfies general notability, and should be further expanded. Adding sources is not a substitute for adding information from the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heloísa Maranhão

Heloísa Maranhão (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY; article fails to establish why she is notable – there are millions of writers and not every one merits a Wikipedia page. Just a single source listed on the page, and hardly any other mentions online Jkaharper (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A search of Google Scholar turns up dozens of scholarly works about Maranhão. Most of them are in Portuguese, which I can't read, but she's clearly an important Brazilian writer. pburka (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR#3, it appears she has a collection of works with multiple periodical articles analyzing her work. e.g. via GScholar: A trajetória de Rosa Maria Egipcíaca e o silenciamento cultural dos africanos no romance de Heloisa Maranhão Letrônica. jan-mar2020, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p1-11. 11p. (translation via WPLibrary: "The trajectory of Rosa Maria Egpcíaca and the cultural silencing of Africans in Heloisa Maranhão's novel."); "Tempo e Espaço no palco giratório do romance histórico de Heloísa Maranhão" interFACES (from the abstract: "In the historical fiction of Heloísa Maranhão (Lucrécia-1979, Dona Leonor Teles-1985 and A Rainha de Navarra-1986)..."; "O que é um lar? Revisão do conceito histórico de nação em Paradise (1997), de Toni Morrison, e em Rosa Maria Egipcíaca da Vera Cruz (1997), de Heloisa Maranhão" (a doctoral thesis; from the abstract: "The comparison between Toni Morrison's Paradise (1997) and Heloisa Maranhão's Rosa Maria Egipcíaca da Vera Cruz (1997) shows how these two novels create metaphorical images of home as a way of revising the official history of national formation."); later published; História e literatura: Rosa Maria Egipcíaca da Vera Cruz (re)escrita no romance histórico contemporâneo História e Cultura (abstract: "This article is inserted in the debate on the relations between History and Literature, departing from the critical reading of some fictional and historical elements permeating Rosa Maria Egipcíaca da Vera Cruz: the amazing story of a black princess between prostitution and sanctity, a contemporary historical novel by Heloisa Maranhão."); CORPO NEGRO: ENTRE A HISTÓRIA E A FICÇÃO. O CASO DE ROSA MARIA EGIPCÍACA DA VERA CRUZ, Em Tese; and per WP:AUTHOR#1, she appears to be widely-cited, e.g. LA BARCA DE LOS MARGINADOS NAVEGA HACIA UN PUERTO CENTRAL: LA NOVELA HISTÓRICA CONTEMPORÁNEAY LA BÚSQUEDA DE LA INTEGRACIÓN DE LOS EXCÉNTRICOS, Revista Iberoamericana; at 5 pages into a GScholar search there are still further results to review. Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My Portuguese is minimal, but I did notice that she won the 1982 Prêmio APCA de Literatura. A google search in Portuguese yields many results that don't show up in an English langauge search. Vexations (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How does one "do a Google search in Portuguese"? Google is Google. If you hit in a person's name, articles of all languages appear (unless you're using a different alphabet e.g. Arabic). The results that come up for her on a standard Google search are minimal at best. Mostly just carbon copies of her Wiki page. --Jkaharper (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was another source, the Dictionary of Women Worldwide which the nom removed claiming it was not a RS. I don't understand the rationale for that, or for this nomination. I have reinstated the reference.Dsp13 (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted that. The url just linked to the front page of encyclopedia.com, so it looked like someone had made a source up. Jkaharper (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The link works for me. In the future, I think it's important to disclose that you removed sources when you nominate pages for deletion. pburka (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The link works now because you've changed it to the correct one. It didn't before... --Jkaharper (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't change anything, and I checked the link from the history: it works. Even if it had been broken, the removed reference should have been disclosed at AfD. Please remember to AGF and refrain from accusing editors of making up sources without evidence. pburka (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP: AUTHOR. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashrafi Family

Ashrafi Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited, and this article appears to establish group notability by means of ancestry. The notability of the family as a collective is meanwhile not obviously established here by any reliable, secondary sources. (The sources are a fairly dubious mess.) A WP:BEFORE search turns up very little to convey anything otherwise. Smacks of WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ─ The Aafī (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2022 (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tantacrul


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

What a page history. Consistently questionable. Deleted, refused, AfC fail, AfD-worthy and now we're back here again, with a poorly sourced entry for a WP:GNG failing Youtuber whose only claim to notability is presented as his use of Audacity and MuseScore. It's not enough to get past the line and this time I'm asking you, ladies and gentlemen, to Delete and Salt to boot. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think this person has three different reasons to be considered notable.
First, his YouTube work, which apart from being popular, is excellently researched and detailed. Second, his status as the spokesperson and leader of MuseScore - the most popular notation application in the world. Third, his recent appointment to the position of spokesperson and leader of Audacity - a very well known and widely used application which (according to the Audacity WIKI) has been downloaded over 200 million times.
The proposal to delete states that his claim to notability is that he 'uses' MuseScore and Audacity. This is not accurate. He runs both projects. Sylvester Krakow (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)— Sylvester Krakow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: Aside from the sources already in the page (that already mention his important role in two very important music software), a simple Google Scholar search (try "Martin Keary", too) bring up some notable mentions discussing his role in music on social media, modern music encoding, and even a dissertation saying that he coined a new music term [7]. Furthermore, even if this page was deleted, I adamantly oppose SALTing, as a great portion of the sources are super recent, and he seems to be climbing in notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In case it wasn't clear in my first reply. Sylvester Krakow (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)— Sylvester Krakow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: as an author of 2 popular software, he should remain. Craigwikiman (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for UPE. MER-C 06:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, he is not the author, just the current product lead. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If he's more noteworthy as an open source leader, composer and designer than a "failing Youtuber", moving the article to Martin Keary might be enough -- Dänenleo (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)— Dänenleo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Hello! sorry to bother, but I believe the original proposal meant "failing WP:GNG" rather than failing YouTuber. If the article doesn't get deleted and doesn't get moved, I think Martin Keary would make an excellent redirect, as that's what some people may be searching. Very sorry for being nitpicky about the wording, I hope you have a good day. All the best,
    – DirkJandeGeer щи 17:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't looked closely enough to determine whether this should be deleted, but many of the above comments are WP:ITSIMPORTANT non-arguments that will likely get discounted by the closing admin. And the above comment is Dänenleo's fourth total edit and first edit since 2018. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the arguments to keep seem to me to be pretty clearly about notability and not about 'importance'. Does he have wide visibility? Yes. Is his work discussed in public forums, articles and papers? yes. Does he have significant influence in things that affect a lot of people? Yes.
    The initial call to delete seems motivated by a general dislike of the YouTube medium. It is fine to have this opinion but it is not massively relevant to the question of notability.
    My opinion would also be that the page should remain 'Tantacrul' simply because that's how he is better known (checked Google trends to confirm). Sylvester Krakow (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Audacity, probably better known than himself or his other projects. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Better known than MuseScore? And besides, this page doesn't just focus on Audacity nor is it his own project. He is just the product lead. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've only used Audacity to be fair. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'Software product lead' doesn't feature in the notability guidelines. The sources in this article do not amount to notability, being in the main passing mentions and devoted to the software, not its product lead. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He is the spokesperson for both apps though - specifically because of his visibility on software design, which has has talked about a lot on his channel. So, he makes public announcements for both MuseScore and Audacity - and evidently, the media pick up on what he says and quote him (as many of the references on the wiki page demonstrate). It's worth mentioning that his combined videos about MuseScore and Audacity have millions of views. So he is notable because a lot of people generally know him to be the spokesperson. I think that the reality of how well-known he is outweighs the question of whether a 'product lead is notable' in the abstract. In actuality, he is notable.
    You add his YouTube following on top of this and the notability seems pretty evident. Sylvester Krakow (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I don't think that he's too noteworthy to warrant a page. Points for the image being CC0, though. SWinxy (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These sources [8],[9][10][11] only talk about the company he runs. I don't see coverage specific to this person. A redirect can be created to Audacity but make sure it will be protected or be regularly watched. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Our notability guidelines require that we have independent sources that are "independent" and address the subject "directly and in detail". None of the sources that are independent address the subject directly and in detail. As such, I can't see a good policy based argument for keeping this article.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer. As the keep votes thus far have primarily been from single-purpose accounts and one blocked editor with a COI, please consider the strength of the arguments in your close per WP:POLL.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Was tagged for a BLPPROD but not a regular PROD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Zia

Hassan Zia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a film producer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. As always, film producers do not get an automatic notability freebie just because their work exists, but must be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but the referencing here is entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his own company's own self-published website about itself and simple directory entries, with not one shred of GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Schneider

AfDs for this article:
Ari Schneider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am the subject of the article. I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I want the article to be deleted. I'm not famous and the citations in the article about me are from one-off mentions and small blogs, not multiple, reliable, independent sources Back2Grainville (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Doesn't pass WP:GNG with current sourcing which outside of trivial mention is WP:Primary. Searching finds several articles written by him, but not finding sigcov about him. Has some awards, but not major journalism awards as far as I can tell. Delete per request of subject and not passing GNG. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Sports, and Vermont. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only reliable secondary source here is business insider, however that comes from a press release, which is not secondary. Therefore this does not pass WP:GNG PaulPachad (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ronayne

Chris Ronayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is all really just resume stuff. The subject hasn't had positions that make him notable, the article (and see the history) reads like it came from LinkedIn, and the sourcing is lousy--either primary or corporate/community fluff like this. No proof of notability by any of our standards. Note that the article was "curated" by a (declared) COI editor, User:Abbeyhughes13. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ohio. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another political wiki entry, currently running for office. The position itself would be non-notable, so this fellow isn't notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While some holders of the postion Ronayne is running for will be notable as a result of that positon (it is the county executive of a large metropolitan county), merely holding it is not enough to be notable, and he does not even hold it yet so there is no current justification for the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget. I agree that the article needs work and may not currently meet WP:NPOL, but as the leading candidate in the 2022 Cuyahoga County executive election, there's a very good chance he'll be elected as the County Executive of Cuyahoga County, Ohio in a few months. Deleting the article would be counterproductive, because we'd need to re-create it the near future. If there's no appetite to keep the article, it can be temporarily redirected to the article on the election. - Eureka Lott 01:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP: NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. No policy based rationale for keeping this article.4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2022 (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 Macalester College#Civic engagement. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Institute for Talented Youth

AfDs for this article:
Minnesota Institute for Talented Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 16:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-viewed YouTube playlists

List of most-viewed YouTube playlists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Impossible for this to be up to date. Promotional issues and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Mvqr (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. Mvqr (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - how is WP:GNG going to be past for this list if no reliable sources cover most viewed YouTube playlist. They pretty much only cover most viewed videos. Non-notable list and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. No clue if this is just subtle advertising for the smaller channels listed there currently. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and does not appear to meet WP:NLIST (that is, what makes this is notable list - there's always going to be the most viewed of something). In addition (but only a secondary concern), the criteria for this list are too broad - that is, there does not appear to be an "end" to this list. If the individual playlists become notable, they can have their own articles. Singularity42 (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a variety of reasons. WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOR and WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable concept and not going to become notable anytime soon. GenuineArt (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2022 (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 1994 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#United States. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Spicer-Bourdon

Laurie Spicer-Bourdon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that she is notable (i.e. meets the WP:GNG and has actual independent reliable sources about her). Very few sources in general[12], nothing in GNews. Perhaps known under another name back then? Fram (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability criteria. Tamariki (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing does not meet GNG, which is required of all sports related articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1994 Women's Rugby World Cup squads#United States There's not enough here for a GNG pass in my opinion, although there could be some written coverage in a deeper search. The subject would have also failed the old WP:NRU guidelines as she didn't play in a semi-final. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network

Autistic Women & Nonbinary Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources are first-person, or contain very little mention of the organization. A week ago, I asked the person contesting the deletion for specific sources as proof, but there was no response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autistic_Women_%26_Nonbinary_Network

Additionally, most internet searches lead to first-person sources or very brief mentions of this organization. Yleventa2 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, Nebraska, and Washington, D.C.. Yleventa2 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As someone who is autistic, I was hoping that the organization was notable. Google searches and Newspapers.com revealed very minor mentions. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Shouldn't have been undeleted after the prod. A complete waste of everybodies time. scope_creepTalk 21:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject verifiably fails the criteria for inclusion. The sources appear to be impressive in number but, on closer inspection, are shown up as lacking in substance and only testifying as to the corporation's existence: There's a number of routine, catalogue listings (e.g. here in the Candid information service; here in the Nebraska State Corporate & Business website; here in the IRS (!) site; and so on); a citation of the corporation's own website; reports, such as this, this, and this, about issues of autism but not about the corporation; and so on. Much as one would love to see one more article about something of benefit to autistic persons, this does not withstand scrutiny. Here's hoping that, in the future, they do more and become more notable for it. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OpenThinClient

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

Was proposed for deletion by Mean as custard due to No indication of notability. This PROD was contested by an IP saying There are multiple sources stating its notability, but the article still has no references and I was unable to locate any significant coverage. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No indication of notability. Completely unreferenced; it could be that there are numerous articles out there proving how popular it is, but until they are cited in the article then it does not belong on Wikipedia. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage exists, but the only article I bothered to look at, Get thin client benefits for free with openThinClient, reads like a press release and is written by a 'serial entrepreneur'. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appears to be commercial fluff; the claims of the IP contesting the PROD seem to be in bad faith. I would not be opposed to draftification, since the article seems tolerably well-written, but this doesn't belong in mainspace. — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if anything, in order to lower the amount of fluffery that looks keen to engulf the project. The subject evidently lacks independent notability. All the attempts rate as a miss: advertorials such as this or this; catalog listings such as this or this; download sites, e.g. here; and so on. Then, we are cited their own website. Of course, the fact that the text has been created and curated mainly by kamikaze accounts does not help, even if that plural is inaccurate. -The Gnome (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supercroc

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

A movie that does not appear to be notable. I was only able to find one full-length review from a possibly reliable source, here, which generally is not enough to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Any other coverage I could find were either brief mentions, or reviews from unreliable sources such as blogs. Rorshacma (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many hits for the actual fossil Supercroc, or Chance the Snapper as the Chicago Tribune called it. Zero for this film. Non-notable, almost sounds like direct-to-DVD film. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wish that there were sources out there for this, as I get a weird sense of glee in being able to establish notability for the strange, z grade horror films out there. But there's just nothing. This is one of the multitude of Asylum films that just never gained the coverage needed for an article. As far as redirecting goes, I think that this would be better suited redirecting to sarcosuchus, given that this seems to be a relatively used term to describe it. It also seems to be used to describe the deinosuchus, so perhaps a hatnote would be in order as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one review listed above, and another at Dread Central [13] DonaldD23 talk to me 20:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. www.cinema-crazed.com does not have on staff reviewers, but accepts submitted content from anyone without strong editorial oversight. As such I would not consider it a reliable source or significant coverage. Dread Central does have editorial oversight, I would accept that as RS. However, GNG requires a minimum of three reliable sources with independent significant coverage and we only have one piece of RS. Therefore, fails GNG and NFILM due to lack of sources.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gunjan Menon

Gunjan Menon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(sorry if I messed up the formatting, the page curation tool failed to create the AfD page for some reason, so I am renominating with Twinkle)

I feel like there ought to be sources rising to the level of WP:GNG, but I just have not found them despite searching.

First of all, there is decent-ish coverage related to The Firefox Guardian such as this review or that PR from Jackson Wild who gave it an award. I think the film is notable (if you disagree, go nominate it separately), but WP:NARTIST requires more than one notable film.

There’s a lot of interviews (example) or podcast invitations (example). Also, she wrote [that piece](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/the-red-panda-lives-in-mountainous-himalayan-trees-yet-it-is-endangered/articleshow/80712399.cms) for the Times of India. None of those count because they are not independent coverage, but at the same time it’s still more than the average photographer, hence my feeling that there should be something around the corner. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to the Firefox Guardian. No sources for her other than picture captions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. This does not necessarily require multiple works. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find a major contribution, she's taken photos that got published. It's almost routine. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're talking of The Firefox Guardian here, then isn't this a film she directed (apart from produced, shot, acted and edited)? How is this related to photos getting published? Jay (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Maddy that the nom's contention of WP:NARTIST requires more than one notable film is incorrect. Jay (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that multiple films are not needed, but I doubt that the Firefox Guardian is a significant or well-known work. That is a higher bar than notable, which I do not think the film passes. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Significant / Well-known / Notable - they are subject to interpretation. I tried to get some clarity here: WT:Notability (people)/Archive 2022#Well-known, significant and notable, but unless there is consensus, we'll have to go with our own interpretations. Jay (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I have not been active at AfD for at least five years, so I have not followed recent developments. I thought that "significant or well-known" was waaaay above notability. That seems out of the range of opinions shown in the discussion, which goes from "notable or even lower" for a minority to "a step above notable" for the majority (but only a step, not a Mona-Lisa-level of fame). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could be subjective, yes, but I feel getting shortlisted for a BAFTA and a mention by the UN and EU def counts as notable/well-known?! Sharonthomasr (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep::Hey everyone, I argue the article should stay because, within the wildlife filmmaking niche, she's a notable personality. It's not a mainstream genre but in the context of Indian and International wildlife filmmaking industry itself, she is quite well known, has given a TEDx talk and was featured by BBC Earth in their series Close Encounters as well. Here are some other podcasts [14] [15] I came across which don't work as references in the main article itself but I used them as research to write and are useful for this discussion. I've heard one of her talks online and find her very inspiring. (Also, unrelated and playing the devil's advocate here but I don't think conservation filmmakers get enough time or money to do their PR so the articles seem quite genuine but I could be biased). (example) Also on the advisory board of a notable film festival and the description there also suggests she's worked on more than one films as per what someone else pointed out. Hope this helps. Sharonthomasr (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article in a local newspaper (you might have to translate it) which can count as independent source. And another independent coverage in a South African news outlet - "Akanksha Sood Singh, Doel Trivedy, Gunjan Menon, and Malaika Vaz are four women reinventing the Wildlife Conservation filmmaking sector in India" Sharonthomasr (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
documentarytelevision.com is a (very) passing mention. Anything interview-like (talks by her, exchanges on podcasts etc. etc.) is considered non-independent. So all that is worthless for WP:GNG, which requires that each qualifying source is at the same time (1) reliable, (2) independent, and (3) contains significant coverage. The fact that wildlife filmmaking is niche, that she does useful work, that her life story is inspiring etc. are not excuses to get out of GNG requirements either.
That being said, patricka.com source is definitely on the better side. Maybe a bit routine, I guess ("the film director came through the village and did film stuff"), but still better than everything that was in the article before.
I am not withdrawing the nomination (yet) because even if the patrika source counts toward GNG we still need multiple good sources and I do not see another one. If someone can search other sources in Hindi, which I cannot do (wink, wink), I would bet there’s other good stuff. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do these count as independent? (I'm really sorry, I've taken your feedback and explanation into account but still new to this...thanks for your patience! In the end if this helps make the article better than win-win for all!)
1. Independent, reliable and significant coverage article about a talk on a major platform...
https://www.indiatoday.in/science/story/forest-laws-diluted-environment-global-priority-india-young-conservationists-1862985-2021-10-09
2. Box text in this article by someone else: https://sanctuarynaturefoundation.org/article/entangled-oceans
3. Not significant but considerable? " and India based award-winning wildlife filmmaker and writer, Gunjan Menon, The Firefox Guardians. Menon is a National Geographic Explorer, has won multiple accolades with over 40 international awards across 15 countries, and received the JACKSON WILD Rising Star 2020 award."
https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Independent-Streaming-Platform-EarthStream-to-Focus-On-Supporting-Non-Profits-Debuts-20211020
4. https://redpandanetwork.org/post/A-Photo-Within-A-Photo-Within-A-Photo-The-Cosmic-Side-of-Red-Panda-Conservation
5. Saw this today, to lighten up the mood ;) (It's a comic strip, in case you don't see the image, try opening in safari or incognito)
https://www.greenhumour.com/search?q=red+panda
6. http://thevibe.asia/7-female-filmmakers-from-india-who-are-documenting-the-wild-on-lens/
Sharonthomasr (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we need sources that are simultaneously (A) independent, (B) reliable, and (C) significant coverage. If you have one hundred interviews in big newspapers (failing "independent"), one hundred random blog posts (failing "reliable"), and one hundred entries in film listings (failing "significant coverage"), all those three hundred sources are worth nothing compared to one source that meets all three criteria.
So from your sources, #1 fails A and maybe C (it only repeats what she said at that conference), #2 fails A and probably C (repeats what Beyond Premieres says about themselves), #3 fails C, #4 fails C and probably A (it is mostly about Menuka Bhattarai), #5 fails all three (yes, I know it was a joke :)), #6 fails C and possibly A (it uses the same picture as other articles, which hints that Menon provided material for the article).
That’s short but I did not want to write a wall of text - if you disagree with any of those assessments, fine, let’s talk about that specific source. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 08:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess at this point we just disagree because of the subjectiveness and contextual importance of the topic and I feel there's not much I can do to convince you more if you've made up your mind. We've both put forth our points so we can let the community decide and vote and even though in this case, I don't agree, this breakdown will definitely help my future articles so thank you!  :)
Sharonthomasr (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with the new sources given above. And I've stuck by vote with the proper wikicode too! lol Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep She has worked on more than one film and has done other things too. Using the sources above I believe there is opportunity to improve and expand the article. Deletion would not improve the encyclopedia. Chronotime (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between Keep and redirect to The Firefox Guardian, I don't have a strong preference. The subject is notable per NARTIST, but there is debate on coverage in multiple independent sources. Agreed, that this is not a case of Subject notable only for one event, however, we also have to see what is currently available in the article. What does the article have that is already not available at The Firefox Guardian, or cannot be moved there? Probably, only the mention of an award from Jackson Wild Rising Star. Should the mention of this award be the deciding factor between having a standalone article vs a redirect? Per the essay WP:Semi-duplicate (which is the case now), it is better to have one redirect to the other. Personally, I have been part of the draft's restoration while in draftspace, and subsequent cleanup, and would have preferred the article to be a lot more about the person, than the 12 minute college thesis project which went on to have a life of its own. This version before the article was significantly trimmed was more like it. Also, I would not want this go back to draftspace (if decided) because the move to draftspace was rejected by the page creator. Jay (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The version you pointed out was a part of one of the first few drafts that were written but it was pointed out that it did not read like an encyclopaedic article and had peacock terms. So I trimmed it considerably thinking sticking to just basic facts was more likely the approved style. But I do agree with you, that was a lot better! Sharonthomasr (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Video Standard

Audio Video Standard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have serious concerns about WP:GNG here. Nothing in the text suggests this is notable; my BEFORE revealed only a few conference papers using this term, something like 4, with 2 written by the same group of authors. This is not a hoax, but it doesn't appear to be a notable concept. Chinese wiki article is of no help, being shorter and sporting just a single footnote. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and China. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Agreed that the "standard" has a grandiose title, given that it seems like a niche of usage in China. However, the effort has lasted quite some time, and appears to have a bit of a revival with on-line 8K formats. Article of course needs work to reduce dated promotion. We do need more coverage of non-USA topics in the technical Wikipedia articles, although they need the same notability requirements of course. The downside of something Chinese and so old is that online sources might be hard to find. There are a few IEEE standards documents, which we should update the article to reference. W Nowicki (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also ran across the fact that there was an article on a reported implementation of this standard, OpenAVS, which was deleted in 2011: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenAVS while the OpenAVS web site seems to have gone defunct in 2019 without being archived? W Nowicki (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few more sources and started to remove the promotion and dated language. Could do more if the consensus is not to delete. W Nowicki (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@W Nowicki Can you tell us what makes you think this meets WP:GNG/WP:NSOFT? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The standards family is more notable than just the software that implements it. The standards documents are books in several parts and editions, each entirely dedicated to some part of the standards family. The group has many articles in the Chinese trade press, although I do not speak Chinese, that should not rule them out as contributing to notability. I have added a couple books that mention the efforts too. More could be added, but do not want to spend time unless the consensus is to keep, at least for now. It appears the group is still around, albeit publishing at a slower pace. W Nowicki (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a 2006 Chinese standard [16] and an 2018 IEEE standard [17] that is in its third generation in 2021 [18] demonstrating impact across time and multiple standards bodies. There are secondary articles describing the standards and their implementation such as [19] and [20] (dubious publisher, but it looks like a reasonable article) and IP, such as [21]. W. Nowicki has also improved the article with other reliable sources. It looks enough sourcing to pass GNG and support a modest article. NSOFT doesn't apply, as these are media encoding design standards, not a piece of software. I am also sensitive to systemic bias in the press against non-Western encoding technologies such as this. There are Chinese sources that I cannot read or evaluate as RS. But at least some may provide additional sourcing. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 13:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to pass WP:SUSTAINED and WP:GNG per Mark viking.4meter4 (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TV2 Matiné

TV2 Matiné (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability and no references. Xexerss (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2022 (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 14:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Capital Management

Jubilee Capital Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable venture company with small capitalization and routine media highlighting. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Not enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability Assirian cat (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines also apply. The references appear to be based exclusively on company announcements and/or information provided by the company, I'm unable to locate any in-depth "Independent Content" on the *company*. HighKing++ 11:33, 15 June 2022 (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Forman

Sol Forman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not inherited, non-notable former owner of a notable restaurant Peter Luger Steak House. Sources don't contain the kind of sigcov for establishing notability. NYT obituary is detailed but imo prose doesn't give indication of importance. NYP has an obituary, but my concern is the context of the publication is the restaurant's change of ownership, not the death of a famous owner. New Yorker article is far more about the restaurant itself. Given the long-time association, a redirect to the restaurant could possibly be warranted as an AtD. Zindor (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Zindor (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally we've accepted a full obituary in NYT as enough on its own; having checked it, I'm not sure what is lacking to provide significant coverage. Several other obituaries and articles are also available from reliable sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the content of the NYT or NYP obituaries provide indication of importance, there's nothing within the prose that supports that Forman himself is individually notable. The obituaries exist, sure, but it's entirely plausible that the existence of the obituaries is because the death concerns a significant change for an important NYC restaurant. On a lesser point, it's also evident that the extended family aren't nobodies in New York City society; it would be an oversight to not suggest that this could have weighted the decision for inclusion by city papers such as the NYT.
There's trivial mentions of Forman in articles about the restaurant, but where is the sig cov about him and what makes Forman important in his own right? The option was there during Forman's life for sigcov to be created, it didn't happen from what i can see. So why all the weight given to the coverage related to his death? It's a poor metric. Zindor (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect I few scattered hits, one in the NYT about his daughter running a meat shop under the Steak House. I'd redirect to the Steak House. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the sources already in the article, there is significant coverage of him in the books below.4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellen Williams, Steve Radlauer (2002). The Historic Shops & Restaurants of New York. Little Bookroom. p. 305-307. ISBN 9781892145154.
  • Seth I. Kamil, Eric Wakin (2005). The Big Onion Guide to Brooklyn: Ten Historic Walking Tours. New York University Press. p. 92-93. ISBN 9780814747858.
  • William Stadiem, Mara Gibbs (2007). Everybody Eats There: Inside The World's Legendary Restaurants. Artisan. p. 27-28. ISBN 9781579653224.
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 14:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis (DC Comics)

Crisis (DC Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary sources and original research since at least a decade ago. Subgroup of DC Comics crossover events, listed at Publication history of DC Comics crossover events. The biggest flaw, it points that not all events count as a "crisis", but does not clarify which is the criteria for that, as not even having "crisis" in the title seems to be it. Cambalachero (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if A redirect to Crisis on Infinite Earths would be useful, why are you advocating for this to be deleted? ~Kvng (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's no need to preserve page history, also because I think I meant it to read "could be." Argento Surfer (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is fine. This thing about the "Crisis-level" disaster does exist within comics, with COIE being the big one; and although plot elements do not always have notability to warrant an article, there's no problem in redirecting them to the work they come from. As for page history, I don't see any harm done if it's kept. We have WP:CRD listing the cases where something should be removed from page history (rather than just reverted or removed), and this doesn't seem to be the case. Cambalachero (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Coffey

Catherine Coffey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear what she is actually notable for. Sources are not independent (local Catholic church diocese describing their origin) and hardly indepth. Findagrave is an unreliable source, her death notice in the newspaper[22] indicates that the people then didn't think anything special of her either, with just a little bit more attention for her funeral[23]. Could at most be a redirect to the article on the diocese if one line about her is added there; but just being the first to teach catholicism in one small (at the time) city (and then perhaps just to her own children, as said here) is not much of a claim to fame. Fram (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Religion, and Australia. Fram (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Nom, although it's sort of a shame to lose such a fascinating little footnote, it is a footnote and belongs in a specialist history of Catholicism in early settler period Australia, perhaps as a passing mention in the Diocese page. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that this article should be deleted. I think a woman being the first to teach a Catholic catechism class in a new city in the first century that the country was colonised, is notable. She was a woman and so not usually allowed to teach Catholic classes and she was the first teacher of these classes in the city and state of Victoria in Australia. I think she managed a first and it was very unusual so she is notable enough. As for sources, please allow time to search for more secondary sources.LPascal (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal[reply]

  • Keep. Per LPascal. It also is referenced, meets WP:GNG and is of historical significance. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My advice to Kerrieburn and other editors who want to keep this article to please read WP:FINDAGRAVE and WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL and then work to remove Findagrave as a source. This article has potential, but it also contains a lot of extraneous information which makes it look more like a Findagrave or Ancestry article, rather than a Wikipedia or encyclopedia article, which is extremely problematic. If you need more time to rework this, "draftify" / "userfy" may be an option as well. Happy to answer questions and help if needed, but it is really important to understand the Wikipedia policies regarding Findagrave. Another suggestion is to try to get a hold of some local history books like Remembering Melbourne 1850–1960 which aren't digitised. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I’ve seen the sentiment “AFD is not cleanup” often quoted here. I don’t have the time or the resources to fix up this article. As an American, I’m not knowledgeable enough about the regional history here. I also don’t think the article is anywhere near so problematic that it needs to be “draftified” or deleted outright. I assume references exist offline for a notable subject, quite possibly in some offline history of the region or town centennial book. When someone has time, it will be added and edited and expanded upon. This is an article that should be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article has improved significantly since it was first nominated for deletion, so well done to Kerrieburn for your ongoing edits. All the problematic Findagrave citations have been removed. But in addition to that, better sources have been added and the writing has become much clearer as well, so the argument for notability is clearer. I do have some additional suggestions for further improvements, but I will make them on the Article Talk page. (I agree by the way that AfD is not clean up, but I also think any clean up that does happen as part of that process is a positive thing, and in any case the sudden introduction of more Findagrave sources was a big red flag. That has all been resolved now.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and per Cielquiparle. Deus et lex (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you to those who suggested changes to this article and supported it be kept. I think this article now has better sources, notability has been better established and the find a grave sources have been deleted. I hope this delete discussion can be closed now and whoever does those tasks can delete the banner "for deletion" on the article. LPascal (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal[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. There is agreement that this article is a hoax and should be deleted. An argument is made to retain it as an article about a hoax but no reliable sources are presented that discuss the subject as a hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelis Hendrikus Elleboogius

Cornelis Hendrikus Elleboogius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was browsing some twitter threads when the name of Elleboogius came up in the context of some people wink-nudging eachother that he may not be real, and that the English wikipedia "had not caught on yet" (e.g. the replies here: [24]). This was surprising as the page is fairly well sourced as far as appearances go, but upon searching the web further I found this forum discussion that claims that this is a fairly well-known hoax in certain circles perpetrated by someone named Richard Muller - [25]. I do not know any more about this matter, but if this is true then the page needs to be deleted or at least seriously updated - although seeing as I could barely find any evidence for the hoax, it would seem unlikely that it would be notable as such. People more knowledgeable on Dutch theologians or the culture of potential hoaxes surrounding them could maybe uncover more. BlackholeWA (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CommentDelete Well, this has been a timesuck. If it's a hoax, it's beyond me and WP standards, to be honest.

DeGruyter

  • Mylius on Elleboogius: A Fatal Misinterpretation - Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism. Pub: Godfried Quaedtvlieg 2013
  • In the Steps of Voetius. Synchronic Contingency and the Significance of Cornelis Elleboogius' "Disputationes de Tetragrammato" to the Analysis of his Life and Work Scholasticism Reformed. Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, hrsg. v. Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, Willemien Otten

Google Books

  • Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism: Studies in Honor of Richard Mylius Edited by Jordan Ballor, David Sytsma, Jason Zuidema (Page 657)
  • Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt Edited by Maarten Wisse, Marcel Sarot, Willemien Otten (Page 102)
  • Church and School in Early Modern Protestantism : Studies in Honor of Richard A. Muller on the Maturation of a Theological Tradition by Jordan Ballor
  • [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273350672_Would_Christ_Have_Become_Incarnate_Had_Adam_Not_Fallen Would Christ Have Become Incarnate Had Adam Not Fallen? Paper by Stefan Lindholm references Elleboogius DOI
10.1163/15697312-00901016]

If it's a hoax, it's widespread, with a number of academics either willingly contributing or mistakenly taking the existence - and works - of Elleboogius seriously. It's a remarkable thing for a respected academic to have done, mind. By WP standards, he's notable, he has sources. So until we have a proven hoax (and a nice new WP page about it), I reckon we're keeping this onedeleting as per discussion below. Oh, BTW, the forum post that calls BS on Elleboogious isn't an RS!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can't just pass a keep on a subject where the supporting sources are suspected to not be reliable simply because we don't have the personal expertise to confirm/deny that unreliability? I understand what you are saying but surely a circumstance like this warrants some deeper source investigation. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, if we can dig up any of the original sources, or references to them from before when Elleboogius was allegedly "rediscovered" in the 2010s, then that would be positive proof? If we cannot confirm they exist, then surely all subsequent worth would be shown to be unreliable? I don't think doing thorough source vetting would be OR as it wouldn't be an article contribution, just part of verification, and it might be warranted in this case. Initial searches don't look good - the original source on the existence of Elleboogius states that there had been a bibliography written by an "Egbert Neusbeen", but this name doesn't appear anywhere searchable on the internet except for that one passage from that one article attesting to Elleboogius. Also, does anyone here speak Dutch? Because I am starting to suspect that some of these names are etymologically suspect. "Egbert Nasal bone?" BlackholeWA (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to "Egbert Nasal Bone", "Elleboog" itself apparently means "Elbow". In fact, the Mylius paper also cites a Mr. van "Knee Joint" and a Mr. van "Asses". Every single referenced author in the stem article is named after a different body part. This is a blatant hoax. BlackholeWA (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there, yes I speak dutch. The names of editors of the works are all suspect. Egbert Nasal Bone, H. Schouderblad (Shoulder Blade). The name Voetius is probably the reason why someone started to "pull a leg". Voetius is of course a well-known theologian and his name looks like the latinization of the dutch word for "Foot". Now Elbowius and Footius are "joined at the hip" according to the article? And all the books mentioned under works are published by editors named after bodyparts? The already mentioned Mr. Shoulder Blade and Mr. Eyebrow, Mr. Shank (Schenkel), Mr Skinbuyer (Huidekooper), Mr. Eardrum (Trommelvlies), Mr. Bonehouse (Beenderhuis). It is just too much. My Latin is not good enough but I suspect that the titles of the works are bogus too. No doubt this is a hoax. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see... "In the Steps of Voetius", very amusing. Per Wikipedia's policies, I am hoping that we as editors are able to use some common sense judgement in this matter to confirm that these articles are contextually not reliable sources. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The very first time the name Elleboogius appears in Dutch-language newspapers and books is in 1776,[1] in a satirical rhyme by Otto Christian Frederik Hoffman, for his friend Joris Lubbersz Struif, who just had obtained a degree in Theology. In his rhyme, Mr. Hoffmann advises his friend to add -ius to his last name to gain respectability. According to Hoffmann, the last name Struif would only be ridiculed. Better still, he suggests, he would adopt a last name, like the famous Voetius (Footius), for example Elleboogius (Ellbowius) or Halsius (Neckius), so he would have followers who could be called Elleboogianen or Halsianen. The satire in these names is that in Dutch, like in english, a sharp-elbowed person is an aggressive, ambitius person. Likewise, the term Hals (Neck) is used for a gullible person. So Mr. Hoffman´s satire from 1776 lives on in the form of a hoax on Wikipedia. Please deleteRuud Buitelaar (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Gevonden in Delpher - Aan mynen vriend, den zeer geleerden heere Joris Lubbertsz. Struif, ter gelegenheid dat zyn weleerw. tot candidatus theologiæ wierd bevorderd". www.delpher.nl (in Dutch). Retrieved 2022-06-14.
  • If we do delete (and we should, per the above evidence), I wonder if this would have knock-on effects for the general reliabilities of the publications used as sources? Clearly the specific Elleboogius articles are being shown to be satirical (and thus not reliable sources of fact), however they seem to be part of larger works (journals? Essay collections?). If the content is similarly satirical or otherwise unverifiable throughout, it might be worth doing a search, because I did notice that Elleboogius himself is referenced in a few other articles and beyond him there may be further references to these sources. Someone(s) has gone to a lot of effort not only to perpetrate this hoax in academia but to integrate it seamlessly into English language wiki. Edit: See also, the attestations on the image used in the article, which if Elleboogius is false so must be its purported origin (which has copyright implications, as the image may be a modern forgery and thus its public domain rationale may be invalid!) BlackholeWA (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked what I could and yes, the specific essays on Elleboogius are clearly intended as jokes. Whether that means that the other essays or studies in these collections are also satirical, I cannot say. I believe it goes too far to dismiss these collections in their entirety as unreliable. The picture surely is fake and should be deleted. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's definitely a hoax, but probably not notable as a hoax. Yes, Muller's Festschrift contains a fake article, by a certain Godfried Quaedtvlieg. The list of contributors (p. xxii of that volume) describes him as "Professor of Psycho-Theology at Harvard Divinity School where he serves as chief Coptic papyrus manuscript writer for the Jesus' wife project." StAnselm (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This possibly deserves an entry in List of religious hoaxes, but we would still need a reliable source describing it as a hoax. StAnselm (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might also be a candidate for Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia at over 8 years, although I am not sure of the eligibility of multimedia hoaxes that then spread to Wikipedia. That said I am sure that the addition to Wikipedia was a deliberate component of the ongoing hoax. BlackholeWA (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but heavily amend If this is a hoax, it has got past some serious academic referees. Brill is a serious academic publisher. If this is a hoax, we should NOT delete it, but expose it as such by having an article that explains why his very existence is a hoax. Once something like this enters academic literature, it is liable to gain a life of its own. Muller's Festschrift certainly exists, but I have to confess that I have found it impossible to find any of the author's work on Eighteenth century books on-line or Early English Books on-line: I would have expected the two alleged works published on Britain to appear in one or the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to transform this article into "an article about the Elleboogius hoax" we need to have a reference that actually says it is a hoax, don´t we? If not, we would be doing some original research. I don´t think this article got "past some serious academic referees" but that two parodies were consciously published by Brill in the "Studies in the honour of" and "Essays in the honour of". The article does not contain any references apart from two parodies and an 18th-century satirical rhyme. Apparently some of our fellow-editors take these parodies to be serious academic works. I think the authors are laughing their heads off. Let´s put it on the List of hoaxes and get rid of the article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that the published articles are conveying a satirical tone that is plain to read on the part of those familiar with the subject matter (or who speak Dutch), but not to foreign outsiders. It could be argued that the satirical subtext is the true "content" of the published article, but I don't think that counts as clear sourcing as to the nature of the joke that is being carried out - it does, however, probably do enough to convey that the sources should not be regarded as reliable for their surface-level content. Given this I agree that the best way to proceed is probably to delete, unless an article or similar source emerges that clearly states the nature of the Elleboogius hoax, at which point the published satirical articles could be used as supporting documents in a transformed article written on the matter. I do not believe that any such article or other explicit source about the hoax currently exists, however... And I am not sure one will appear, unless in the unlikely event that this discussion and the deletion of the article brings enough attention to the matter for someone to write one. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TIC-80

TIC-80 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE shows the subject thoroughly fails WP:GNG. The most notable (and only) mention of this subject from a reliable, independent source is this article from Hackaday – an article which contains absolutely no information about the subject other than that it exists and therefore can't possibly be construed as contributing to notability. Essentially the only reason I brought this here is that the article has been edited heavily and almost exclusively (albeit fairly neutrally) by TIC-80's developer, thereby making it highly likely that a PROD would be rejected outright. (Don't know how I messed this one up so badly; yutyo doesn't work on TIC-80. I think some wires got crossed when I checked their Github.) I have a huge soft spot for FOSS and emulation, so I hope this becomes notable in the future, but right now, the subject doesn't have a single source that confers any notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TIC-80 is popular in demoparty, generally in retrocomputing category [=TIC-80 Pouet.net] (there is a problem with this link in MediaWiki, due to usage of special characters), DemoZoo. It is included in RetroArch. I added few books about it by Japanese authors. There are some article in Russian too.Popolon (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some possible sources for you from the Internet Archive (which probably has even more) – good luck!
    • RetroMagazine, Vol. 2, Issue 9, p. 20 (Italian).
    • Plus "A Game Maker's Toolkit" in The MagPi, Issue 73 (September 2018) (English) – it's on p. 33.
    • Not enough for notability on its own, but while we're at it, how about the 200th issue of Retro Gamer magazine? p. 107. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually @TheTechnician27: – it looks like there is TONS [some] in Wikipedia Library, also more in depth, and in English! I really think you should be all set. (I'm never sure how to best embed all the Gale OneFile links but you can just do a general search on Wikipedia Library and they should all turn up.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK the huge search result I got in Wikipedia Library initially was for related "retro gaming" articles in PC Week, etc., not necessarily mentioning TIC-80 (and also predating TIC-80). But I was still able to add a few articles from Beanz magazine to "Further reading", and also cited one of them. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechnician27 Is there something I missed that indicates @Comrade-yutyo is a developer? I'm fairly sure this is a different person who is not listed as a dev on the github. Afaik the primary dev is Vadim Grigoruk/Nesbox Strangerpete (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of sufficient coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources conferring notability, including articles in Retro Magazine, Beanz magazine, and The MagPi magazine. Inline citations have been added to the article, and unsourced content has been moved to the Talk page. In addition, the "Further reading" section has been expanded with additional sources by Popolon, also in Japanese (in case anyone out there has access to those books). Happy to discuss further improvements on the article Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has been sufficiently referenced since the nomination. -Vipz (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after the added sources and the notability in demoscene.Popolon (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2022 (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 solar eclipses in the 20th century. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of December 13, 1898

Solar eclipse of December 13, 1898 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG: The eclipse only occurred in the sea near Antarctica, and it is unlikely that anyone saw the eclipse at that time. Likewise, history does not record this eclipse, and this eclipse has no scientific value. Therefore, this eclipse is not of notability, and therefore the references in the entry do not prove notability, i.e., they do not constitute a valid introduction. Q28 (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 13 June 2022 (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 solar eclipses in the 20th century. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of January 5, 1935

Solar eclipse of January 5, 1935 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG: The eclipse only occurred in the sea near Antarctica, and this time it was so small that it had completely no scientific value. Therefore, this eclipse is not of notability, and therefore the references in the entry do not prove notability, i.e., they do not constitute a valid introduction. Q28 (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 13 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fit for Fashion

Fit for Fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the sources i could find in a wp:before and in the article are unreliable. wp:gng requires "reliable and independent sources".

bundling the season articles for mainly the same reasons.

  • Journey to transformation Manila Bulletin January 19, 2016. via WP Library
  • Filipinos join Fit for Fashion Season 2 The Philippine Star. January 12, 2016
  • From fat to fit thanks to reality TV show. Yahoo! News Singapore. March 6, 2015
  • ‘Fit for Fashion’ Season 2 Premieres in January Manila Standard December 23, 2015
  • Fit for Fashion’s bolder, braver Season 2 The Philippine Star October 29, 2015
  • Not familiar with reliabilities of these [26], [27], [28] [29]
If season articles need to be merged back to main article, or if they are better split out can be discussed after deletion discussion. They both need sourcing, but probably fine split out if sourced and main article can be expanded from stub. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above including national newspapers so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2022 (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 03:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madd Rod

Madd Rod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; WP:BAND; WP:SINGER no chart positions, no significant coverage, no evidence of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is signed to major record labels and touring around Europe. Some key relevant recent actions that prove his notability:
- this year he headlined shows in Brazil, Greece, Spain and Portugal;
- he signed on Buddha Bar (world's no 1 compilation);
- his track Devran is on the official soundtrack of the new LGBT blockbuster 'Fire Island' (from Hulu);
- there's over 30.000 people listening to his music on Spotify alone;
I'm not affiliated with him, but have been following his project since 2019 and he's one of the top artists in the Portuguese electronic music scene! João P Afonso (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – João P Afonso is the article's creator and essentially sole maintainer. The tone the article is written in (e.g.: "In 2022, new conquers take him further") makes it clear that, even if they aren't affiliated with the subject, they're a very big fan of the artist to an extent that separating peacockery from encyclopedic relevance proves difficult. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A few hits in GNews, mostly in TimeOut Lisboa, I guess confirming he exists. He's a minor player on the music scene. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Negus Nurse

Negus Nurse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article, possibly UPE, incidental mentions in scant coverage. He runs a tattoo parlour, but fails WP:GNG; WP:SINGER. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete:I humbly disagree with this tag. I argue that the artist does meet WP:GNG; WP:SINGER notability. you have tagged this under topics of Africa, which is incorrect. It is a Caribbean topic and independent Caribbean references must be fairly assessed. Please help improve, rather than delete. Happy to provide you with further independent.
See references that establish Negus Nurse as recording artiste and producer.
https://newsday.co.tt/2022/02/03/new-group-releases-soca-single-bend-with-dancehall-flair/
https://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/entertainment/20150816/ygf-heads-toronto-recording-artiste-negus
https://www.caribbeanemagazine.com/single-post/meet-dancehall-artiste-and-ceo-negus
https://www.grindweekly.com/music/2021/5/9/paradox-is-one-of-the-youngest-and-hottest-dancehall-artist-in-the-usa-chart
https://www.jamaicaobserver.com/entertainment/negus-aims-to-chronicle-his-success/ Capture2015 (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No charted singles, not notable as a singer. Promotional article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. His record label Street Platinum Records does in fact, have charted singles "Holding On" by Tommy Lee Sparta was produced by Negus Nurse as referenced here https://dancehallarena.com/tommy-lee-sparta-holding-on/ and in the song itself. Capture2015 (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A producer on a song usually isn't notable unless they win an award of some sort. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG literally says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." but rather it needs to be assessed against verifiable, reliable and independent sources. So could you rather help improve the article instead of deleting it. Remove and or rephrase material which you think is appears promotional, so that it is more neutral. In other words, help out! Capture2015 (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comemnt I have no interest in updating the article. If you want to, have at it. It's of no interest to me. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2022 (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 23:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intermediate University College

Intermediate University College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Earlier AfD'ed as being written in another language. The present article has no relevant content. A WP:BEFORE under the English and Arabian names brings me to the conclusion that this entity fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 11:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Arabic article is hardly better and has a single link to an archived article from Jordanian newspaper Al Rai that doesn't even mention the College, which has now closed. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2022 (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) 11:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Sakr

Omar Sakr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. One interview listed in article, nothing more found, doesn't seem to have had an impact. Fram (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2022 (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open Classroom Charter School of Salt Lake City

AfDs for this article:
Open Classroom Charter School of Salt Lake City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Earlier AfD saw minimal participation but this time this article can be deleted. Lorstaking 13:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The earlier AfD listed these academic sources: [30],[31],[32]. I have not looked at them at this point. Jacona (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I found nothing useful at newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com. Jacona (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC) struck comment: useful stuff found after changing search terms. Jacona (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sources for this school may be more likely under the former name, Thoreau School. Jacona (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search terms. If you search for "Thoreau School" and "Open Classroom" or The O.C. and "Salt Lake", things begin to come together. here is a source about Thoreau becoming The O. C. There are many sources to be found searching for Thoreau. Jacona (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting development. The Banner talk 15:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • On further reading: it states that it is an "optional program". So it is not a regular school. The Banner talk 15:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        In the long run, Thoreau School had an open classroom program, the city had a program called "The Open Classroom", eventually The Open Classroom" became part of Thoreau and later Thoreau took the name "Open Classroom". It's a messy history to be sure. Jacona (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        In any case, I'm probably dropping this conversation; hopefully my comments will be useful to others. Jacona (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete = it totally fails my standards for schools. It's basically a statement of its mission and values, which is supposedly unique, but isn't really, and without any assertion of what makes it notable. FWIW, I used to teach at charter schools. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NewCo

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

Non-notable abbreviation, and the list of "Examples" seems to have no relevance whatsoever Amisom (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I happened across this article when I was trying to figure out what Kyndryl meant (it's bad don't bother). And saw that it was named NewCo for a bit. Re-reading NewCo, it feels like it should be improved and not deleted. The examples are all purported to be ones that originally were named "NewCo" before taking on their current names. Should be better referenced but spot-checking a few all showed it to be true, so that's the relevance. In terms of how notable the name itself is, doing a quick JSTOR search, I find the term is used and mentioned in multiple academic papers about businesses and law: UNITED STATES v. WIDGET CO., NEWCO, AND PATENT AGGREGATOR PLUS LLC: A HYPOTHETICAL CLOSING ARGUMENT, Antitrust Law Journal Vol. 79, No. 2 (2014), pp. 527-555 (29 pages); Transitional Identity as a Facilitator of Organizational Identity Change during a Merger, Administrative Science Quarterly Vol. 55, No. 3 (September 2010), pp. 397-438 (42 pages): Although we lack the data to investigate this possibility, perhaps the positive overtones offered by the temporary name, Newco, contributed to the forward movement of the identity change process and, ultimately, the merger itself.; All buyouts are not the same: It can be different in England, Business Law Today Vol. 9, No. 4 (March/April 2000), pp. 16-20 (5 pages): In a buyout transaction, it is necessary to incorporate and capitalize a special-purpose vehicle (let's call it "Newco"); and Consolidated Gold Fields in Australia: The Rise and Decline of a British Mining House, 1926–1998, pp. 316-317: to bid for Consolidated Gold Fields and establish a ‘newco’ in the United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But the fact that a term "is used" doesn't make it notable. See WP:NOT#DICT. The notability guideline requires multiple sources that discuss the term itself "directy and in detail". You can't possibly claim that "let's call it Newco" is a detailed discussion of the term Newco. Amisom (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Transitional Identity as a Facilitator of Organizational Identity Change during a Merger" has a total of 105 instances of the term "NewCo" and heavily talks about the meaning of it for the company that was case studied A pivotal event occurred in a meeting of the two executive teams when Community's CEO unexpectedly offered "Newco" as a temporary, generic label for the imagined future organization and As researchers, we recognized that the emergence of Newco was likely to be important, so we began to explicitly track the development of Newco and its influence in the participant observer's field notes. We eventually developed the secondorder term for the concept of Newco as a "transitional identity," as two short snippets. It also, seems to me, that NewCo is both used enough, researched enough, and has enough examples so WP:NOT#DICT doesn't apply (or, it does but it matches its positive examples). Looking at bit more, I came across Achieving breakthrough growth: from idea to execution, Ivey Business Journal, January/February 2006, which talks in a lot of detail about the non-UK meaning of NewCo: “Distinct but linked” means that the new business, or “NewCo,” is a fundamentally different organization, but is still not isolated from the core business or “CoreCo.”. So, many passing mentions/usages and multiple significant discussions about the term and concept. Skynxnex (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we should keep this and find better sources. A number of online dictionaries and sites have this such as This and also have found this article. Samanthany (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that NewCo can be improved further to meet encyclopedic standards: I did make a start in adding the Rangers FC case as a notable use in relation to the transferring of assets from an insolvent company, but more can be done. --Minoa (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Gabon

List of people on the postage stamps of Gabon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally, this article is since its creation in 2003 mainly unsourced (one stamp is sourced to a random webshop stamp dealer), ends in 1996 or thereabouts, and has mainly served as a time sink for minor cleanup over the years, without actual improvements or readers (before the Prod, it had about one pageview every 3 days...). Fram (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Africa. Fram (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails LISTN, my WP:BEFORE is turning up material which talks broadly about stamps of Gabon, and even some more specific areas (such as Christian evangelization), but not SIGCOV of the phenomenon of people appearing on stamps. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have a source to show one entry on this list is accurate, that is it for sourcing and clearly not enoyugh. We also need sourcing that shows this topic as a whole is notable, and we have none.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing LISTN.--Chuka Chieftalk 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW. Same as all the others; even if we can prove every single person, we can't prove why the topic of them being on the stamps is in and of itself notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails NLIST. Avilich (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of Cloning: Human reproductive cloning from Shia view point

Ethics of Cloning: Human reproductive cloning from Shia view point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was prod'ded with the rationale "No evidence found of notability (for the book as well as the author) per WP:NBOOK, WP:GNG, or WP:ACADEMIC. " Article creator has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and many of their articles are up for deletion for a variety of reasons. Best to check this one as well. Fram (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Science, and Iran. Fram (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lambert Academic Publishing is a self publishing operator. This book is indeed not notable and its author likewise. Fails WP:GNG in spades. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional article by a non-reliable publisher. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable author and not notable publisher. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nom. CT55555 (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all the above. --StellarNerd (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2022 (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. Even those saying Keep reinforce the WP:TOOSOON argument with statements such as "He will no doubt be moving up to different classes soon." Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Sharp

Louis Sharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are either databases or primary sources, i.e. in this case sources by the organisers of the races or the sport, not independent sourcing. He may well become notable, but this seems a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fram (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and New Zealand. Fram (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is fully sourced, he is one of the front runners in the championship, having taken a victory and he is notable in the TOCA world. Article has plenty of information and plenty of sources, if it was deleted it would probably be created again in 1-2 years, there isn’t really a reason to delete it. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 8:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    • "Article is fully sourced"? We have at the moment:
      • Formulafirst.co.nz, the website of the organisation he raced in (Formula First)
      • South Island Formula Ford website of the organisation he raced in (and just a stats database anyway)
      • Motorsport.org.nz, the motorsport organization of NZ
      • Fifa Formula 4, the organiser of the races
      • Another page from Fifa Foumula 4
      • Driverdb.com, a database
    • While these sources are reliable, none of them do anything to establish notability, as none of them are independent sources, all are promoting or talking about their own organisations. What is needed are substantial independent sources. Fram (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    List substantial independent sources that I could use for this, as you forget, Louis lives in New Zealand, which is smaller than most countries, so it doesn't have very many independent sources. List every single source that I could use, or put them in yourself. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ....is this...trolling? JoelleJay (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ? ConcordeAAIB (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You were demanding an editor list all the independent news media in NZ that could be acceptable for GNG. That is a ridiculous thing to ask... JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added two references from Formula Scout but am unsure on what other independent sources I would be looking at here. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Another article being made WP:TOOSOON about a random child. Some WP:ROUTINE coverage shows up from reliable independent sources like Formula Scout, but it's nowhere near enough to meet the standards needed. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This delete message is coming from someone with no interest in Motorsport, clearly. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ConcordeAAIB: I would kindly recommend you to keep your mouth shut and stop attacking every user who doesn't share the same view as you do. It can help you for the future. To @HumanBodyPiloter5: consider taking another look at the coverage Sharp has. What comes up first in a quick search is all WP:ROUTINE but if you dig a bit deeper, there is some SIGCOV. I have included some of it in my vote comment. MSport1005 (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said to others, its called frustration, with the same person always submitting it for deletion and telling me different stories. First time they said it could be deleted because it had no sources and he did not have a win, which both now don't apply and they claim independent sources is the problem and he's still not notable. I am sorry but you can't tell me things contrary to what you've already said, it makes you a hypocrite. That is what the frustration is for. He also claims Sharp is a random child, which is quite rude I must admit. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (To Clarify, most of my frustration is towards Fram, not HumanBodyPiloter5, as Fram is the one whos submitted it for deletion multiple times, it just happens HumanBodyPiloter5 annoyed me at that moment in time so I do apologise) ConcordeAAIB (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm I think I see one source of confusion? The article DID always need to meet GNG (which mandates independent sources etc.), but the timeline for actually demonstrating that with sources in the article depends on when an editor actually notices it and decides to look deeper into the notability. There are several red flags that can catch a patrolling editor's attention. If I had to guess, the first time was because it had no sources and no claim to notability, making it suitable for speedy deletion per WP:A7. At that time, the "claim to notability" could have included a win per the motorsport SNG -- it wouldn't have removed the need for the article to meet GNG eventually, but it also wouldn't have been a candidate for speedy, and if sourced would likely not have been noticed so quickly. Surviving speedy deletion/New Page Patrol doesn't require fully demonstrating notability the way an AfD generally does, so that's maybe why you got different reasons for deletion. Also, if the first deletion came before March 2022, the criteria allowing a new sportsperson biography to avoid scrutiny from AfC/NPP actually WERE different than they are now: WP:NSPORTS2022 updated the guideline to require at least one independent RS with SIGCOV in all athlete articles from the start (and this is just if the subject's notability isn't challenged; if brought to AfD the subject still needs to demonstrate GNG is met) rather than just a sourced claim of meeting an NSPORT criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have put a substantial amount of effort into this, and would like you to realise Louis has reviewed the page and confirmed all the stats are correct and up to date. Louis is a capable and competent driver, who would've won SI1600 had he not been pulled into F4, and he already has a win and sits 5th in the standings despite missing Donington. He is a clear front runner and does not fall under notability, as you guys protested he had no wins so he wasn't notable, he now has a win so clearly that is irrelevant, the sources are good and correct and mostly run independently with some help from others here and there. I don't see what your problem is here as this is clearly a page that will be here as said by DRYT Motorsport within the next year anyways. He's a clear talent, beating Georgi Dimitrov who has a wiki page, which again takes out notability. He will no doubt be moving up to different classes soon. I would like you to explain what you want me to do to change this, rather than submitting this for deletion over and over again. It's disgraceful that you don't bother to even help with the changes and just instead keep submitting it for deletion. I understand you have to follow Wikipedia's policies but helping out and making changes or suggesting at the very very least would be helpful. I'd like you to reconsider this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcordeAAIB (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes it sound as if you have a conflict of interest, frankly. Your unprovoked personal attack against HumanBodyPiloter5 will also do you no favours. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a statement, not an attack, get your facts straight. You also fail to address any of my other points. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you would also have to understand my frustration, which is why some of these statements may come out sounding like personal attacks, but are frustration. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a database nor is it a crystal ball. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does not matter how many motorsport achievements someone has, if multiple reliable independent sources have not covered them in significant detail then we do not have an article on them. JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is contrary to what I was told. Apparently because he did not have a win he was not notable, which is not the case now, I can't find any independent sources on Georgi Dimitrov either, you guys can't keep commenting on new pages when existing pages also need to be revamped. You can't also make the excuse that your jumping on these because they are new, well other pages were new once yet still stick around. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ConcordeAAIB the relevant guideline is WP:NSPORT, which requires GNG. Your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument would result in either no articles ever being deleted, or a bundled mass deletion of all such articles. And perhaps Georgi Dimitrov also needs to be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article should really be draftified. Deleting it is a ridiculous idea, and this is one of the reasons of the draft feature: articles that are not yet ready/notable, but will be in the future. Louis Sharp seems quite promising in British F4, and he currently has some significant coverage, but not enough, as supposed to nothing. Deleting this would very likely end up in it being created again in a year or two, when it could just be drafted until then. That’s what’s been done with fellow F4 driver Draft:Eduardo Coseteng, why should it not be done for Sharp? If he becomes notable in the future which is very likely, it can be turned back into one. It seems absurd to delete it when it could just become a draft for the time being. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was draftified, but ConcordeAAIB moved it back to the mainspace. Fram (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I moved it back because the problem according to you was he didn't have a win so he wasn't notable and there wasn't sources, which both now don't apply, I'd understand independent sources if you had mentioned that but you just said general sources and said he needed a win to be notable. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Outcome of this should really be a draftificafion. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Honestly not so sure about this one. Seems to have gained decent WP:SIGCOV in New Zealand ([33], [34], [35], [36], [37]) and is certainly a very promising talent, but he's not quite at the level required to meet NMOTORSPORT. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but the independent sources should be enough to oppose deletion. MSport1005 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the summaries above, we require verifiable information from reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject (i.e. Independent). I don't believe the article is suitable in Drafts because it isn't that the structure/content of the article needs improving but that there are no qualifying references to establish notability. Drafts isn't a suitable storage space for topics which are not fundmentally notable. HighKing++ 14:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We require verifiable information from reliable sources unaffiliated with the subject (i.e. Independent). [...] there are no qualifying references to establish notability — are you sure you have read the comments above properly? MSport1005 (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have. Is there any reference in particular you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? Happy to discuss and WP:HEY if you've seen something I'm missed. HighKing++ 17:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Formula Scout is there, however drafting this might be the best cause of action, because that way we can all work on it collectively before we put it on the main space. ConcordeAAIB (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about Formula Scout because that is WP:ROUTINE. I'm talking about the 5 independent sources I've cited in my draftify vote comment because those are the ones that can establish WP:SIGCOV. MSport1005 (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, take the first source headlined "Motorsport: Kiwi teen prodigy Louis Sharp signs dream deal with Carlin in British Formula 4". What is "Independent" about it? It is based on an announcement and the exact same content of the announcement was covered by umpteen different publications all around the same date. Just regurgitating the same announcement and quotes. For me, that's WP:ROUTINE. HighKing++ 12:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Independent as in independent from the subject? Do you not understand the meaning of that? "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article", note the word routine. NZ Herald isn't a dedicated motorsport newspaper and covers the announcement because of Sharp. The four you cited cover it because it's a feeder series announcement. Not to mention that the first and fourth aren't even secondary. MSport1005 (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think best course of action is to draft this, so any problems that people have can be discussed in a talk page, and we can all collectively work on it regarding these issues, ie notability, too soon, sources etc, rather than delete hard work, only for it to be made again in the next few years anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcordeAAIB (talk • contribs) 02:10, 19 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antimeridianism

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

The only hit on Google Scholar and Proquest is Crump and Davies 2022, which coins the term. It has yet to be cited by any other paper, making this WP:TOOSOON signed, Rosguill talk 06:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Social science. signed, Rosguill talk 06:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage other than that mentioned by nom. Mind, it's never TOOSOON for a neologism... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article could be reframed as a focus on the form of discrimination that antimeridianism represents, rather on the term per se. References relating to the form of discrimination that the term represents has been substantially increased, as suggested. It is important that persons remote to UTC 0 weigh in on this topic, since those living in time zones close to the prime meridian may be unaware of the scale of the problem. Tarheelwriter07 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal doesn't really address the notability concern: if only one paper describes this specific form of discrimination, then it's not notable whether as a term or as a concept. We already have well-fleshed out articles on the extensive literature surrounding Global North and Global South, Orientalism, and other geographically-based gradients of discrimination that are similarly prominent in RS, there is no urgent need to document the valence of "antimeridianism" unless multiple reliable sources attest to its importance. signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, please address any conflicts of interest that you may have with John Crump, one of the authors of the paper coining this term. signed, Rosguill talk 20:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, I've searched, it's not a notable thing. CT55555 (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete One paper does not a topic make. Mangoe (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and I don't think a 3rd relist will help. Sourcing is enough that we're not in BLP territory, but far from keep level. Star Mississippi 13:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Meshkin

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

The subject has received coverage but the coverage involves passing mentions and small interviews. The subject for this reason fails WP:GNG.

Some coverage exists for the companies where he worked but we need to ignore that per WP:NOTINHERITED.Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom, seems to be less about subject and more about relationship to others and companies. Maybe a merge into one of the others, but not a standalone article as he fails WP:GNG. IrishOsita (talk) 02:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only participant besides the nominator is a sockpuppet. Hoping for more editors to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep sourcing to linkedin ins't helping here, but I get a few mentions in an NBC piece, San Diego magazine and a few hits in Gnewspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far from meeting GNG. Coverage is too trivial. Tessaracter (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very well sourced. However, I still think after 15 years, that I am in the minority view that school board members and superintendents can be notable when they are involved in a major scandal. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kerisha Powell

Kerisha Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Another JPL copy and paste job. StickyWicket (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Iosefa

Pine Iosefa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2022 (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 03:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Mohammad Nekounam

Amir Mohammad Nekounam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amir Mohammad Nekounam

Non-notable sport shooter. There is no sport-specific guideline for shooting sports, so general notability is the only guideline. The text of the article reads like a resume, and says nothing about secondary coverage. An article should speak for itself without reference to the sources, because most readers will not be looking at the sources. However, the references have been checked, and are only routine mentions that he competed in the events.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 issf-sports.org Entry in a list of sport shooters Yes No Yes No
2 https://en.mehrnews.com/ States that he won a gold medal Yes Not for GNG Yes Yes
3 https://en.mehrnews.com/ States that he won a silver medal Yes Not for GNG Yes Yes
4 financialtribune.com Coverage of a junior event Yes No Yes Yes
5 tasnimnews.com Does not mention subject by name Yes No Yes No

There is no significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Iran. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. he didn't win a major medal yet and didn't participate at the Olympics. the same goes to other articles this user is creating, or at least some of them. Mohammad Rasool Efati, Fatemeh Amini (sport shooter), Amir Siavash Zolfagharian, Sajjad Pourhosseini and Vahid Golkhandan. Sports2021 (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because it doesn't have significant coverage. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nom and source assesment above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. Why is a gold medal at the 2018 ISSF World Shooting Championships not an indication of notability? Drmies (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • He won a gold medal in the junior competition, I don't know if that's notable or not. just saying that wasn't a senior world championship medal. Sports2021 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. The resume seems notable enough; he participated in the 2019 Asian Championship and finished 17th in the individual competition for adults too, which you can see after you plow through this. These events in Asia are very poorly covered on Wikipedia; if these were Western competitions then most if not all of the medals would be bluelinked to a very specific section. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Even if the medal is an indicator of notability, WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 makes it clear that we cannot keep any article on a sportsperson without at least one example of WP:SIGCOV, and there are none here. BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Passing mentions, particularly in junior events, do not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter whatsoever if editors think an equivalent event would get coverage if it was in the West; if it didn't receive coverage we do not cover it. JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution of Iranians regarding the language and eloquence of the Qur’an

Contribution of Iranians regarding the language and eloquence of the Qur’an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by the banned sock puppet account Mohsenzadeh.CC.I.R.Iran in SA/MAKAMURE whose articles and activity have come under scrutiny recently. Written like an essay, wildly violates n-POV. Zaynab1418 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's an essay. CT55555 (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2022 (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 Song of Roland. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 03:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almace

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

There is no meaningful coverage of this topic in reliable third-party sources, and thus this fails WP:GNG. What scant sources can be found are only passing mentions, which are insufficient to build an encyclopedic article as defined in our policies and guidelines. Jontesta (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or maybe redirect. Doesn't look to have any WP:SIGCOV, but might be a valid search term as part of a major topic, if someone wants to suggest one. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, I suggest redirecting Excalatory Vocian EV 🦋💞☑️ 18:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Current sourcing is not sufficient to demonstrate stand-alone notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please specify where this article would be redirected to should it become a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Song of Roland - insufficient notability to warrant an article, which itself notes "very little is said about Almace" and I concur. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The clue is in "very little is said about this sword in the Song of Roland" Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Agreed, it's not enough for an article here. Agree to the redirect to the article about the song/lyrical poem. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not mentioned at The Song of Roland so that would not be an appropriate redirect target. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Garden, Indiana

Castle Garden, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searching is heavily masked by the far more famous NYC immigration facility, but still I could find nothing. It might be a rail spot, but I cannot tell; at any rate there's no sign of any definite town here. Mangoe (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently mining-related somehow? ("Polk Patch" seems to be Selvin, Indiana). The mine was apparently sold under receivership in 1928. A fire there destroyed a residence in 1941. This also confirms the mine but says nothing significant. Everything else I'm finding is passing mentions about roads or the rail line running through. Delete unless someone finds something better than I could, as passing mentions and some minimal references to a mine aren't enough to warrant an article on this subject. Hog Farm Talk 04:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ––FormalDude talk 06:04, 13 June 2022 (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 "keep" side is weakly argued: they cite no sources that could contribute to notability. Sandstein 06:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madereros de Durango

Madereros de Durango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I had initially tagged the page for being unsourced and failing notability guidelines. The tag was removed, and some sources were added, but all primary sources which do not address the notability of the team in question. fuzzy510 (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Nom may well turn out to be right about notability, but no sign of any BEFORE. I added the sources, such as they are (mostly not primary), from the Spanish article: "unsourced" =/= "inadequately sourced", and it's not inconceivable that a more thorough search would produce more. I've no view one way or the other beyond that. Ingratis (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider the new sources added to the article since this AFD was opened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep, professional team in a professional league that has received at least some coverage. BD2412 T 06:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local media routine coverage of match fixtures, no evidence of notability as per WP:GNG. Team is defunct and so is the league, which itself doesn't appear to have been especially notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2022 (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 TDS Telecom#Subsidiaries. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baja Broadband

Baja Broadband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourced entirely to local sources or press releases. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Merge salient content into TDS. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 13 June 2022 (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. There is obviously some media coverage here, but as pointed out by the nom and Delete voters, this article would be far better served if it were recreated with some sources that aren't social media, regardless of their origin. If he really is notable there will be news sources that aren't a minute of him talking on YouTube. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mithun Vijay Kumar

Mithun Vijay Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think he is notable. Most of the sources are Facebook or YouTube video in which he is one of many talking heads in a box. Few sources cover him in detail. Mvqr (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kerala. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He appears regularly on channel discussions and is known personality in this state. Visual media persons mostly have links of verified Youtube and Facebook channels to cite. The links shared are of the most credible sources in this country. Honesteditsvj (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A person felicitated by the nation's highest office and a man known for men's rights movement in the state is quite notable. Please search മിഥുന്‍ വിജയകുമാര്‍ in google to know more. Honesteditsvj (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and check the videos for news and debates. Honesteditsvj (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of links to daily news hour debates could be shared if required. Honesteditsvj (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And please note that the links shared are of not some random YouTube and Facebook pages but those are satellite channels which simultaneously play their program on their verified social media handles. People who appear mostly on visual media platforms could be cited with such links. Honesteditsvj (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honesteditsvj Instead of stating WP:SOURCESEXIST, you actually need to show us these sources MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Maxnacarter I've already added those links in the citations. Sharing some of those along with a few more for your reference. Some of the news sources cover the statements he has made and the other videos are related to his discussions on men's rights and other socio-political topics. Also sharing some links to news articles on him
https://navakeralanews.com/medias-keeping-double-standard-accuses-mentoo-member/
https://youtu.be/HQj_fVke_Rc
https://www.trueseconds.in/news/mithun-vijayakumar-says-those-who-speak-against-vijaybabu-are-forgetting-the-solar-case/
https://youtu.be/l3aW1z44oyg
https://fb.watch/djxhjGMwuN/
https://youtu.be/JydtWthqP4E
https://fb.watch/dhUqgYJj1R/
https://newsindiamalayalam.com/2022/04/20/mt-ramesh-facebook-post/ (News covering a campaign he ran against an extremist outfit which received massive response on Change.org (https://www.change.org/p/ban-pfi-before-it-matures-into-a-fully-functional-terrorist-organization-banpfi-bansdpi)
https://www.trueseconds.in/news/mithun-vijayakumar-says-those-who-speak-against-vijaybabu-are-forgetting-the-solar-case/
https://youtu.be/WGQOccjDN9Q
https://fb.watch/d7rTB_EWh6/
https://youtu.be/ec5RKEW4_eE (news covering his facebook post)
https://jagratha.live/ladies-kerala-vjiaybabu-kerala-attack/?amp=1
https://keralaspeaks.news/?p=45850
https://navakeralanews.com/medias-keeping-double-standard-accuses-mentoo-member/
https://notionpress.com/author/mithun_vijay_kumar (author bio on publisher page)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYU0XKWQhWI (debate where he represented right wing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHueMvnVtIo (video published on government of India's citizen engagement portal MyGov on him)
https://janashabdham.in/05/11/2021/16608/ (news on his book release)
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=4920549421396144 (prime time debate on a leading regional channel)
Are these sufficient to verify the claims I've made about this author and activist? Honesteditsvj (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the links to his book on top online stores such as Walmart and Amazon
    https://www.walmart.com/ip/Covid-A-Glimpse-into-the-Lives-That-COVID-Shattered-Paperback-9781685866570/394540131?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0
    https://www.amazon.com/Covid-Glimpse-Lives-Shattered-Malayalam/dp/1685866573
    https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/covid-mithun-vijay-kumar/1140938328
    https://wordery.com/covid-mithun-vijay-kumar-9781685866570
    https://www.booktopia.com.au/covid-mithun-vijay-kumar/book/9781685866570.html
    https://francieandfinch.indielite.org/book/9781685866570 Honesteditsvj (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These book sites hold nearly every book ever published. This is a 70 page self published book through self-publisher Notion Press. It doesn't even have a single customer review on Amazon.--Mvqr (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You conveniently ignored the media links discussing about the person or where the person is found having news debates on sensational topics of the day. Did you check only the book site links out of all the links shared, because that would support your point? You noticed there aren't any customer reviews but why don't you notice the support he receives under the Youtube channels of almost every regional media? In your first comment, you mentioned these are just some Youtube channels and Facebook pages, but those are not just some page but the live streaming pages of Satellite channels. I can agree we all have a point but let's be open enough for an objective review. If you are hell bent on deleting this, please feel free to. I rest my defence! Honesteditsvj (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And above all, you conveniently ignored that this person is honored for his contributions by the highest office of his country. Honesteditsvj (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - 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: 2022-05 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets all the criteria underscoring the notability factor. A person felicitated by the prime minister for being a star performer on the citizen engagement portal. A Men's rights activist with a good following. A person with a regular presence on TV channel discussions on socio-political issues and men's rights in particular. All the regular news channel debate links and other news links have been submitted already in the previous discussion thread. Honesteditsvj (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But he has no mentions in reliable third-party sources that support notability. Most of the sources given above are non-notable, some are spammy links. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which links you have checked. Just listing out a few out of the links given in citation. None of the links are spammy, please do not make incorrect statements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlkYl99OZdc (please do a google search and find out what Zee news is)
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=4920549421396144 (Check out what Manorama News is)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHueMvnVtIo (Please learn a bit about MyGov of India)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYU0XKWQhWI (Please check Reporter News) Honesteditsvj (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely non-notable, the extensive list of links given above are simply confirmation he exists, nothing in reliable sources found. Having an item listed at Amazon or Walmart is hardly any sign of notability. Rest are promotional links. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to stress too hard on Amazon and Walmart. There are multiple other links from satellite news channels given to support the claim of him being an activist an a debater. I don't know on what basis are calling them promotional since those are regular channel debates on heated topics of the day.
    None of the links are spammy, please do not make incorrect statements.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlkYl99OZdc (please do a google search and find out what Zee news is)
    https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=4920549421396144 (Check out what Manorama News is)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHueMvnVtIo (Please learn a bit about MyGov of India)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYU0XKWQhWI (Please check Reporter News) Honesteditsvj (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to see a serious consideration of these video sources from media organizations. For example? Are they all interviews or do some consider any influence he has on the region?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – A total nightmare for those of us ignorant of Malayalam. @Honesteditsyj: Would you be willing to translate what the host says about the subject in the introduction of [38] (i.e., how she introduces him)? Ovinus (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, most of the channel discussions introduce him as a men's rights activist or author. 171.49.216.102 (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When a book doesn't even merit an Amazon review, you're in the weeds. "A person felicitated by the nation's highest office" sounds nice, though. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. Should possibly be an article in Malayalam Wikipedia. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    His notability is not as the best selling author of this century but as an activist and debater. A person feliticated by the nation's highest office sounds good but fails in what manner? The YouTube link of the government's channel itself isn't valid enough is it? Honesteditsvj (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment page after page of non-notable sources isn't helping the situation. Three youtube links and a facebook post, which aren't reliable sources. We've asked for better sources and the quality has gone down in what's being provided. Further proof this is a non-notable subject. Oaktree b (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite unfortunate that Malayalam satellite channel links are not considered as reliable sources by the reviewers. Submit a lot of links and the response is page after page of non-notable sources. Submit a few links from top channels and the response is just 3 youtube links and a facebook post from non reliable sources. It's actually funny that the links of the top-most channels with high TRPs are considered non-reliable. Today I was going through the Wiki page of the most popular south indian actress Nayanthara. Even her biography needs additional citations for verification lol. Would simply call this the poor fate of South Indians. Please go ahead and delete the page sir because whatever I may submit no matter whether it's from the government source or from the satellite channel you'd call 'non-reliable'. Honesteditsvj (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not helping to lament the fate of the poor South Indian. Got a nice feature article from Malayala Manorama about his impact on society, have you? Now THAT would count towards notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wanted an article from Malayala Manorama, here's it. An article about him in published by Malayala Manorama in 2014 when he first became the part of MyGov. Hope this counts towards notability as mentioned by you.
https://scontent.fccj3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.18169-9/10409759_324770037710407_5378668989770617381_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=2c4854&_nc_ohc=KwHEiuWqTeYAX93AYBP&tn=lguqUIppaocFtfm0&_nc_ht=scontent.fccj3-1.fna&oh=00_AT_WyBryfHDa7OZNKQoCWG3HfkB0RcZjr5eDxzhL2vjVZg&oe=62CD59C3
Hope you wouldn't ask me to share the entire newspaper! Honesteditsvj (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And yes this article clearly talks about his impact on the society! Honesteditsvj (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Highly Notable. Here's a link from today's debate involving the issue of actor Vinayakan in which his opinion was sought by leading news channels. A person who's opinions are sought by news channels on social issues on a day-to-day basis is certainly a notable person.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1023247578299040&extid=NS-UNK-UNK-UNK-AN_GK0T-GK1C&ref=sharing (stressing that it's not some random facebook link as some of the reviewers were labeling the facebook links used to cite popularity. It's a link of a satellite news channel as all other links mentioned previously.
The reviewers asked for news articles in Malayala Manorama regarding his social contributions and the same has also been shared. in the previous comments. 103.154.54.190 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook pages are not sources. And a NIB in Malayala Manorama is not a 'nice feature'. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
High visibility and notability: Please understand that TV channel shows, interviews and debates can only be accessed through the Facebook pages or YouTube channels of these respective channels and these are verified news platforms. You don't get a feature article in Malayala Manorama (one of the newspaers with highest readership) by simply walking into their office and asking them to write an article on you. The article in Manorama speaks about the person's contribution in building the citizen engagement portal launched by the prime minister, his experience, etc., and if that's not a "nice feature" what else is?? Sorry to say, it's a very poor assessment by you! 103.151.189.76 (talk) 06:28, 17 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ofer Levi

Ofer Levi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during new page patrol. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. Given references are all himself (his website, facebook page, itunes page etc.) except for IMDB listing which lists a few small parts. I did a search and couldn't find anything else. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a major Israeli artist, with many albums released by major record companies, a reality show judge, and a very wide reputation. Most sources are in Hebrew, but there are so many! Here are three: "90s Star" marks three decades and we celebrate together with him, Ofer Levy: "If you want and ask, I would love to be a volunteer prime minister", After denying its existence - Ofer Levy gets infected with the corona and asks to be prayed for. This is Maariv and Mako (channel 12), not small time media. And there's so much more detailed coverage on him!חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the article is a translation of the Hebrew Wikipedia and it exists on six other Wikipedia versions. If you search for sources, use his Hebrew name: "עופר לוי". He sings in Hebrew mostly, some Turkish, so coverage is mostly in Hebrew.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not put some independent sources in that cover him in depth, which is what matters here? North8000 (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gave three sources above. Here another three: [39][40][41]. There's probably enough source to write Ofer Levi and COVID-19! And that's ignoring his 30+ year very famous career before COVID even showed up.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic Mizrahi singer.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reconsider given the improvements to the content of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sources found indicate sufficient notability MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gidonb and the sources found by חוקרת, which are better than what is currently supporting some other international artist articles out there, such as Patrick Hernandez and Nico & Vinz. Havradim leaf a message 08:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suggest that folks who nominate articles or vote for deleting the same, do a bit more research. If language is a major obstacle for such research, then just do not nominate/vote. This a very unnecessary nomination. gidonb (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say that I fully agree with your sentiment. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. Spurious articles are being written all the time, and it can be harder for an Anglophone to separate the wheat from the chaff when there is something of a language barrier. But AfD is vital to this project similar to what a waste management system is to a bustling city. We are merely some of the many line workers plucking out the random lost jewel from the trash. I actually think that something like this would resonate with millions of people around the globe if only they knew what the words meant (and assuming they could ever develop a taste for the genre that is). Havradim leaf a message 06:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to submit AFDs all the time. AfDs serve an important purpose but only after a thorough WP:BEFORE is done. There are many folks here who manage to work across languages and write meaningful opinions about sources in languages they do not know. That's wonderful! If you're not one of them, then it is better not to submit AfDs for foreign biographies, geographies, and organizations or even !vote on such topics. gidonb (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator noted that this was surfaced during NPP and also their reasons for the nomination, which were sound. The article had issues, search didn't unearth English language sources for enwiki inclusion. I see no issue with the nomination whatsoever. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The math at NPP is that the ten most active reviewers need to manually review about 500 articles per day in their available wiki-minutes with 1,000,000 editors generating articles. I don't have empathy for complaints by someone in the "1,000,000" group that can't be troubled to put their complained "sources exist" sources into the article. Doubly so when the sources are in a non-english language and character set which they understand and are 20 times harder for a NPP'er to search than the person doing the complaining. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Beniseau

Peter Beniseau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All current sources on the page are trivial and/or a database/statistics page. WP:SIGCOV is clearly missing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Oceania, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some of the sources go beyond the trivial and altogether paint a picture of notability for the player.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Out of 12 sources on the page, literally only two are both reliable and independent, and not only are they indisputably trivial mentions (constituting two sentences combined from routine match reports), they're from the same publisher so can only be counted as one source anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no significant coverage in reliable independent sources following search of Google, Wayback, and Newspapers. Notability not established. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2022 (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 Measuring network throughput. Since consensus for redirecting the article is strong, anyone is free to merge any important part to the target article per WP:PRESERVE. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 09:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internet speed test

AfDs for this article:
Internet speed test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be redirect to Measuring network throughput. Redirect reverted by article creator, so bringing to AfD for review. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Internet speed test also measure upload and download speed, not just throughput. I will expand this article --QiuLiming1 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I finished expanding the article, although it is still a bit short, I am not sure if it's a stub still, but that's all I know on the topic, you can delete or merge if there is no more volunteer to expand the article.--QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On hold Will decide after the article expands further. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
already reverted to rediect QiuLiming1 (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You had to wait until AfD was over. Anyway, I support the redirect. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at Talk:Internet speed test will shine some light on why its author QiuLiming1 gave up the dispute and made it a redirect. As an involved party, I don't think I can close this, but there is no further need for discussion unless the author changes their mind. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why but someone reverted the redirect. QiuLiming1 (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as above, the article isn't well written and reads like a dictionary definition with not much extra meaningful content. CT55555 (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as proposed in the nomination, and endorsed by the article creator (on article talk page). Jacona (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Both this page, and the closely related Measuring network throughput, aren't really ideal in their current states, but that's primarily due to the writing style, rather than because the topics are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It's unclear whether these should be one page or two, but there's definitely sourced content here that isn't present in the suggested redirect target – I actually think that this is the better page at current, despite being a lot shorter. The ideal outcome would be a complete rewrite of the two pages together, which would give us a better view about whether measuring the speed of an Internet connection is sufficiently different from measuring the speed of a local network connection that it needs its own page, but there's no guarantee that that will happen any time soon.

    In any case, the topics of both pages seem to be sufficiently sourced (and WP:GNG-notable) that it wouldn't make sense to say "this topic is inappropriate for the encyclopedia, we're going to redirect or delete the page"; just because nobody's written a good article yet doesn't mean that it can't be written, but it looks like this AfD is currently deciding to disallow an article on the topic entirely.

    I can see some argument for redirecting as an {{R with possibilities}} as a stop-gap measure until a better article can be written, but the close should at least have no prejudice against recreating the article; additionally, it would be a shame to lose the list of references from the article being deleted, because that's going to form the main foundation for any fix to the article in the future, and thus it would make sense to move any relevant, sourced, correct information over to the redirect target. --ais523 17:18, 15 June 2022 (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 merge to Emergency Vets. ✗plicit 23:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E-Vet Interns

E-Vet Interns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub, no sourcing found, deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Emergency Vets. Found a review on Common Sense Media, but everything else I saw was either a mention of it being a spin-off, or just about the veterinarian featured on both series. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Emergency Vets as an alternative to deletion. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skunked TV

Skunked TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub, no sourcing found, deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Discovery Family#Comedy series – Can't find any nontrivial sources either. A non-notable, short-lived television show. Ovinus (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC) Keep with the discovery of sources below, thanks. Ovinus (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG sourcing just needs to imporve. Common Sense Media review. Zap2it review published in several papers [42][43]. Coverage in Ashbury Park Press. Small coverage from Washington Post & Variety. Associated Press small preview ran in multiple papers. Can't get full view of this TV Guide (more) mention. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above including independent reviews so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by CMT. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo Titans

Tattoo Titans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourced almost entirely to IMDb. Deprodded with one source, but I couldn't find any better Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by CMT unless better coverage is found. Found few articles about local contestants who appeared on show. [44], [45], [46]. More sourcing that covers show directly would be nice. WikiVirusC(talk) 02:21, 13 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Opinion

Inside Opinion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub, no sourcing found, deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No independent secondary sources located to demonstrate notability on Google, Newspapers, Wayback - only listing in TV guides. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2022 (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 Animal Planet original programming#Former programming. ✗plicit 07:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get Out There!

Get Out There! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub, no sources found. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:13, 13 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Day with Doodles

A Day with Doodles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current sources are not reliable, no better sources found. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The obituary amounts to a passing mention, not direct coverage. Stuff like this should be covered at IMDB, not Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply Beautiful (TV program)

Simply Beautiful (TV program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced, no better sources found. The network doesn't even have its own article, so how can the show possibly be notable? Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:12, 13 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Detectives

Treasure Detectives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one source. No further sourcing found. Prod contested without comment Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as well as the Forbes piece referenced in the article there is coverage at Hollywood Reporter, Belfast Telegraph,Slate, and there is a review in The New York Daily News but I can't access it from Europe. There is enough coverage for WP:GNG so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'd go keep on this one, as per User:Atlantic306 - Forbes isn't any use as it's their 'sites', so is user generated, but there are reviews here and coverage from Slate and Metro just about inch us over the bar, IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources listed above, poor WP:BEFORE was done. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:39, 16 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Irving

Here's Irving (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced, no better sources found, prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:12, 13 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ke Semana!

Ke Semana! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely-sourced stub. Couldn't find any other sources. Prod contested Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (Ke falta de notabilidad!) It got mentioned a whopping once in the Columbus Dispatch — the only citation in the whole article. Very obvious GNG fail. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:24, 17 June 2022 (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 06:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Safari: Journey to the Bugs

Micro Safari: Journey to the Bugs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub, no sourcing found. Prod contested for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Totally nonnotable; only mention I can find of it in news sources is [47] which is a passing mention and doesn't contribute to notability. Ovinus (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkist Premiere Theatre

Sunkist Premiere Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to fail WP:V. I'm not expecting a ton of coverage for an early show, but I was unable to find anything at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am also unable to find anything on this. Lovewiki106 (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:10, 13 June 2022 (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 American Heroes Channel#Former programming. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ten (American TV program)

Top Ten (American TV program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be a notable show. Deprodded with rationale asking why I didn't tag for sources first -- I don't know, maybe because there's already a {{unreferenced}} on the damn article? The name of the show is hard to search for, but even adding keywords yielded nothing relevant on ProQuest or Newspapers.com Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Heroes Channel#Former programming unless sourcing found. Can verify it exists and aired. Found a mention of it on newspapers.com[48], and few books do reference it on Google Books. WikiVirusC(talk) 12:27, 13 June 2022 (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) Happyecheveria (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Springburn Museum

Springburn Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability Happyecheveria (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think. It seems notable based on:

  1. 6 paragraphs in Terry, S. (2011). Glasgow Almanac: An A-Z of the City and Its People. United Kingdom: Neil Wilson Publishing.
  2. A few sentences here: The Educational Role of the Museum. (1999). United Kingdom: Routledge.
  3. Half a page here: Volunteering as Leisure/leisure as Volunteering: An International Assessment. (2004). United Kingdom: CABI Pub.. CT55555 (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources here, and here. In newspaper articles via the Evening Times and the Herald at EBSCO. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_13&oldid=1094177001"