Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 27

< September 26 September 28 >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame Motion

Kwame Motion (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, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. Promo. UPE editor blocked. scope_creepTalk 22:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable, another influencer. Sources don't show importance of the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the UPE had some articles that meet GNG, this one doesn't. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sources are just contrived PR coverage of the meaningless "Top 50 Bloggers" award.-KH-1 (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is written from primary sources, all I find are press releases. --HuRistudent (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Ghana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I tried to find out a couple of notable sources which per wp:Sigcov I thought at a glance meets the guideline of notability later when I fact checked per the editorial ethics, The only Article which seemed fine until I found out that the article [1] too is not an Wp:Independent source Its an interview. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 08:12, 3 October 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 02:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inline Freestyle World Championship

Inline Freestyle World Championship (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)

Almost none of the dozens of medalling participants save for a couple from over the last years of the championship are notable (as evidenced by the abundance of red links), and the only cited sources are primary. PopoDameron (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned medalists are the best in the world of an official sport sanctioned by World Skate which has the full recognition of the IOC. There are more sources than just the primary one. Arielo (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero hits in google news for "Inline Freestyle World Championship" suggest that this isn't as big a sporting thing as it seems. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true at all. A Google search for that retrieves approximately 1500 results and +400k results without the quotes Arielo (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Try checking again. They said on Google news not just a regular search. PopoDameron (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion as I'm reading Arielo's comments as a Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Although it has sources from Organizational websites but it lacks Mainstream coverage on media that makes it eligible for a soft delete. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 08:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to read over WP:SOFTDELETE. And what is this "Soft Keep" that you sometimes state as your opinion? Can you link to the policy explaining this? Liz Read! Talk! 00:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is entirely sourced to primary sources which lack independence from the subject. No evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 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 Batman family enemies. Most commenters here do not seem particularly interested in merging, but also don't strongly object to it. Accordingly, article history will be left in place for use by anyone who is interested in doing so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Batman enemies in other media

List of Batman enemies in other media (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)

While the List of Batman family enemies (de facto List of Batman enemies) makes some sense due to popularity of the franchise, this is a weird and small spin-off. What are "other media"? The article suggests it's "not comics", and intends to present a list of characters that debuted outside them (so it's really is a List of Batman enemies that debuted outside the comics). Ok, but how does this meet WP:LISTN? Instead, I am afraid such a categorization meets WP:OR. At best I can suggest this to be merged back to the regular list of Batman's enemies. And I am afraid most if not all entries in Category:Comics characters in other media need similar treatment (see also the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poison Ivy in other media, which like most of the entries at least doesn't violate OR due to an attempt to list characters that debuted outside comics, but it was still found to be an unneeded split from the main article). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an WP:OR list per nom, and fails WP:LISTN too. No reliable sources establish this as a verifiable concept for a list. Jontesta (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A relic of a time in which Wikipedia was as permissive about fictional cruft as FANDOM, it is totally unencyclopedic for modern Wikipedia and fails LISTN miserably. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Information on where characters first appeared is already part of the main Batman enemies list, and the articles on the various movies and tv shows have character or cast lists where these characters are listed, making this list unnecessary. Rhino131 (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The first edit to this article was 04:49, 10 July 2008‎ Jc37 talk contribs‎ 11,000 bytes +11,000‎ split from List of Batman enemies. That article is now named List of Batman family enemies and is suppose to list supervillains, but just regular villains without super powers, gadgets, or a history of accomplishments are listed as well there. Most of those listed there without their own article probably could be pruned. Anyway, that list shows the characters first appearance in the column "First appearance". If it matters if they first appeared somewhere else, a new column could be created listing if they were first appearing in comic, television, video game, movie, newspaper, or radio broadcast. Someone could then click to sort by that information if anyone cared. Redirecting this article to there, and if anyone sees any valid information not already there, they can then copy it over. Dream Focus 09:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:LISTN - "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists..." - Sooo, anyone here actually read those policies that you link to? Or are you merely driveby voters? This list was split, per normal splitting of lengthy list pages. See also Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Article size. etc. As for its content, this is no different that any other "in other media" section/list/article we see everywhere. As for WP:OR, how exactly is finding out the debut of a character (a single verifiable fact) any sort of WP:SYNTH? Again, do you all actually read these policies? So, so far, not seeing any reason to delete. Instead, just seeing bare assertions with no policy backup. You can not like certain content, but, as we all know. IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid deletion argument. So please keep your disdainful assertions of "cruft" to yourselves, such nonsense has no place in a consensual discussion. - jc37 09:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you search for "in other media" at Category:Batman in other media you'll find other entries, some of which are just categories for other things, but there are list articles for some of these: Mr. Freeze in other media, Penguin in other media, Poison Ivy in other media, Riddler in other media, Robin in other media, Scarecrow in other media, Catwoman in other media, Bane in other media, Joker in other media, Barbara Gordon in other media, and Two-Face in other media. This article is not like any of them though, nor like any of the other "in other media" articles that exist for other fictional series such as List of Spider-Man enemies in other media. This is not a "in other media" list article, it is a List of first appearances of Batman enemies. If kept the article should be renamed that. I think the information would fit fine in the other article though. Dream Focus 17:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not against a rename. Though I'll note that you may run into issues with entries like Barbara Gordon - Depending on the source, she appeared in comics because she was going to appear in the show, or vice versa. - jc37 03:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing WP:LISTN. Agree with the nom that this categorization is WP:OR. Also agree that this can be merged back into the main article, and a redirect would be a consensus option that would allow this to take place through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to say "per X", you should say why. Especially since the policies in question don't support your assertions - as noted above. - jc37 03:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep per jc37's statement above. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 08:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. From just a utility standpoint, it seems useless if we don't have articles/list entries on them. It doesn't help the general reader in any meaningful way, and it's not a navigational tool. The characters all seem too minor to even bother listing. The overall topic doesn't have sources to establish notability for the grouping. TTN (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per DreamFocus.4meter4 (talk) 02:19, 5 October 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. There is a clear consensus that this article needs some work, maybe a Merge or Retitling is called for. But these discussions should occur on the article talk page so I'm closing this discussion as No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niacin

Niacin (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)

Newly created disambiguation page based on dodgy splits and renaming. As the two main "stuffs" are both Vitamin B3, why were they split and renamed at all? This serves no purpose. See prior discussion at User_talk:Artoria2e5#Niacin_split_revertedThe Banner talk 16:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Until August 24, 2022 there had been "Niacin" (a Good article) and "Vitamin B3" (a small article). Earlier, Artoria2e5 had proposed a split of Niacin on the Talk page and I, as the person who had raised Niacin to GA, opposed. On August 24, Artoria2e5 went ahead with the split, renaming the former "Niacin (substance)" and the latter "Niacin (nutrient)" and moving ~30,000 bytes of content from the former to the latter. I reverted the deletion of content from the former but left the latter, with the added content, intact. In my opinion. Niacin (substance) should revert to "Niacin", Niacin (nutrient) should revert to "Vitamin B3" and this disambiguation page should be deleted. This action would leave "Vitamin B3" as a separate article, with some content duplicated at "Niacin", but no great harm. An alternative that would take some editing work would be to delete "Vitamin B3", first moving useful content and references to "Niacin", and have a redirect for those who search on "Vitamin B3". David notMD (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some arguments for the split is linked above by The Banner. The big issue here is that "niacin" is currently the common name for both the nutritional entity with multiple vitamers and the common name for nicotinic acid, the blush-inducing vitamer/drug. The nutritional use is, IMO, the main use, for which Vitamin B3 cannot be treated as a common name. (For other nutrient articles involving multiple vitamers, see Vitamin B6, Vitamin D, and Vitamin E. Folate is a bit of outlier here in that it also describes both concepts merged under the same heading, but it has enough written under "Definition" for clarity -- and the pharmacological action isn't as distinct.) My procedures were questionable, but I still believe that it follows the more in-depth consensus of Talk:Niacin_(substance)#Merger_proposal and the idea that no one in particular owns the article. --Artoria2e5 🌉 00:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Artoria2e5 🌉 00:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't support the current naming as it asks the reader to make the rather academic distinction between substance and nutrient. A reversal of the actions taken or some other solution would be preferable. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move "niacin (substance)" to "nicotinic acid". I am far more familiar with the concept of "niacin" as a vitamin group and "nicotinic acid" as its own specific chemical within the niacin group (mostly in the context of AchRs), and actually have been irritated by the redirect to "niacin" in the past. Everything that is actually called niacin in other articles should link directly to the niacin (in the vitamin sense) page, and everything that refers to a specific vitamer should link to its own page. If editors are using "niacin" in article text to refer to NA without realizing the ambiguity, that can be dealt with case-by-case. I can't imagine people searching for "nicotinic acid" are actually looking for "niacin" (vitamin) without knowing the latter as the more appropriate search term, but if they are they can just follow the link to that page from "nicotinic acid". Likewise, I don't think anyone searching for "niacin" would be surprised or confused to end up on the vitamin page, and even if they were looking for "nicotinic acid" specifically it's linked right there in the lead sentence (or should be). Therefore, there is no need to have a DAB, much less one necessitating weird, ambiguous parenthetical titles, when the distinction is already straightforward and better-contextualized in the first sentence of the niacin article. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Niacin" should still be a standalone page (covering the vitamin), with "niacin (substance)" moved to "nicotinic acid". So the page "niacin" shouldn't be deleted, but the DAB should also not exist. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Niacin (substance) to Niacin (wrong place to discuss moves, I know, but that's what I think should happen instead). According to Pageviews, it seems like the substance is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Niacin (nutrient) was a standalone article before parts of the nutrient were copied the same day as the DAB was created. It seems like the substance was moved but not showing in the logs, which explains why so many pages link to the DAB page. SWinxy (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. AFD is a blunt tool and not a good platform to discuss editing decisions. What, among the limited options here, would you like to see done with this specific page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep and open a discussion at one of the various Niacins' talk pages. As Liz says, this is simply not the place for in-depth discussion on how to organize pages. Ovinus (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep As Liz notes, this is turning into a move discussion rather than an AFD. Interested parties should discuss this further on the talk page. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prior to the new move-discussion, the contested edits should be reverted to have a clear start-situation. The Banner talk 08:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That can also be rectified elsewhere. Ovinus (talk) 07:28, 30 September 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. In any future discussion, further analysis of the proposed sources would be very helpful in determining a consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

İbrahim Halil Baran

İbrahim Halil Baran (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 what I found on him where derivatives of the Wikipedia article which was unsourced Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand- I initially leaned delete only source leads to a dead webpage, and all other sources I can find refer to the wikipedia article rather than being straight sources, so a case of circular reporting. He is referenced in Academic Influence, but he appears to be very poorly recognised https://academicinfluence.com/people/ibrahim-halil-baran. He also has a book for sale on Amazon https://www.amazon.de/-/en/%C4%B0brahim-Halil-Baran/dp/6052246685- but the only question is whether this man is the same person https://www.rudaw.net/turkish/kurdistan/010820226 as this source is clearly relevant and noteworthy. I suspect that this is the same person, in which case he is clearly notable as he is a prominent Kurdish politician, and requires expansion of the article to mention his imprisonment. EDIT: Also found these sources https://www.kurdistan24.net/tr/tag/ibrahim%20halil%20baranSpiralwidget (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also found this one from Voice of America Kurdish, (found it over the photograph used in Wikipedia Kurdish).Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete vote struck as a sock strike.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep- Seems notable per Spiralwidget and Paradise Chronicle. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 09:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Of the quality sources listed above, two of them are interviews which lack independence. Only one of the sources is independent and has significant coverage of the subject. We require three independent sources with sig cov to pass our notability guidelines. Also, not clear the subject meets any of the criteria at WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 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! 04:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal Tiger (2001 film)

Bengal Tiger (2001 film) (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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "Take it to AfD" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- Here I found [2] which i also added in the article from This Rotten Tomatoes review page on the movie itself, Which alongside the fact of notable casts like Mithun Chakraborty and Shakti Kapoor being in the movie makes it pass the GNG.Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 09:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Donaldd23. The keep vote appears to misunderstand that being on Rotten Tomatoes (RT) doesn't indicate notability. RT is a database the aggregates reviews from other sites, in this case the film has zero reviews found by RT, and being listed on a database doesn't indicate notability at all, falling under [examples] of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database. The refs I found are trivial, see 1, 2, so this fails WP:GNG (requiring multiple independent reliable significant sources, not just trivial mentions and databases), and WP:NFILM. Also a note- films don't inherit notability because of notable actors. VickKiang (talk) 22:58, 3 October 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 01:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Md Rasel

Md Rasel (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)

Here the most sources describe only controversies about the actor. The sources don't describe his career, how he came to film industry and his personal life. He only acted one film. His biography isn’t notable. Mehedi Abedin 20:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion as the editor who PROD'd this article de-PROD'd it and sent it here instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Liz: I thought the removal of a PROD which rejects a soft deletion outcome was based on an editor assuming to oppose deletion by its removal? In this instance the deletion nominator was the only (de)PRODder and thus no one has actually contested it? Bungle (talk • contribs) 05:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to re-re-read those guidelines. I don't remember it being important WHY a PROD tag was removed, just that after the PROD tag has been removed, the article can't be considered for a PROD a second time. And a Soft Deletion is basically treating an AFD closure as if it was a PROD deletion. So, if since this article has gone through the PROD-De-PROD-Sent to AFD cycle, it can't be treated as a PROD a second time, even though it was the PRODder who removed the PROD. I've run into this several times recently at AFD and I don't know why some editors change their mind after PRODding an article and change it to an AFD discussion. PRODs are a much quicker form of deletion, as long as they aren't contested, than a typical AFD discussion. But again, I need to review the policy again. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: and @Bungle: Sorry for that. Actually I was going to AFD the page but I PROD it by mistake. That's why I removed the PROD tag because that was not my intention (to PROD it). I didn’t know that PROD can't be removed. Mehedi Abedin 11:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I'd definitely be interested to see what the official stance is in these situations, as surely the whole point of not soft deleting in this instance is because of the removal of a former PROD which implies someone, at some point, has contested some previous proposal to delete the article. This is a fairly unique circumstance, especially as Mehediabedin has conveyed the PROD itself was a mistake (and therefore, invalid)? I think that explanation is entirely plausible given the difference of just 14mins from placing a PROD and sending to AfD. If there is a policy that says a PROD removal under any circumstance invalidates a soft delete at AfD (even if by the proposer themselves), then that needs some serious reconsideration for scenarios such as this. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 September 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. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Lawlor

Derek Lawlor (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)

Cannot find any better sources. 10 pageviews in 30 days for a UK BLP is very low, and indicative of a lack of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I found a few references better than the ones in the article. There's this from the British Council. It is a blog post, but not an individual blogger. There is a film about fashion featuring him. There is a short description here: "The Irish designers everyone will be watching at London Fashion Week. (2017, September 16). Irish Examiner (All Ireland)." Other than that I came across interviews and a few name checks. Lamona (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blogs are not reliable sources, per WP:BLOGS. And it is not a "film", it is a 1:28m YouTube video. Neither counts towards WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply See WP:NEWSBLOG - it distinguishes between self-published blogs and those that come under the editorial control of a reliable organization. Also, lots of things are on youtube including, for example, President Biden's speech captured by CSPAN. I don't think we would reject that because it has been added to youtube. The thing to look at is editorial control and reliability, not just the platform. Lamona (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:GNG. For example, see Vogue Italia 2010 (featuring Lawlor and his 2010/11 fall/winter collection) and Business Post (Ireland) 2013 (featured alongside 12 other Irish designers). He got a paragraph in the 2017 Irish Examiner preview of London Fashion Week, and his 2011 collaboration with Welsh designer Jayne Pierson fusing "his" knitwear with "her" leather to create a new textile was featured in Wales Online. There is also this 2012 Daily Telegraph article on his exhibition at the Fashion Space Gallery at LCF, which is paywalled. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per the sources like [3] this and above as satisfies WP:GNG. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 10:13, 3 October 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 a clear consensus that this is not, in itself, a suitable subject for an article. There also seems to be a consensus that this should redirect somewhere, but not as to where, so that discussion should be held separately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zionist Spirit

Zionist Spirit (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)

Defunct alliance. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 20. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 15:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG, defunct or not -- and at any rate, it seems premature to say it's "defunct" after only about a week. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Alliance dissolved in a month, had two notable figures and isn't likely to remain relevant. If something ever happens to it we should probably bring it back, but as of now any notable information included in the article (of which there isn't much) should be merged into related articles. Totalstgamer (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ayelet Shaked, as the alliance was perceived in Israel a vehicle for her participation in the elections.--Eranrabl (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Yoaz Hendel, as the alliance was dissolved after Ayelet Shaked left and Yoaz Hendel dropped out of the race. --FellowMellow (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2022 Israeli legislative election as was done in Hebrew wiki. The 6 week alliance should be mentioned in the greater context of the whole elections. DGtal (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as never having participated in elections. As for the target, all three previous suggestions happen to be wrong. First off, people should only be a last resort for redirecting parties. To the core, the Zionist Spirit was an alliance between Yamina and Derekh Eretz (political faction). Yamina left and the Zionist Sprit, in its final weeks, was IDENTICAL to Derekh Eretz (political faction) with the faction outlasting the party. Therefore Derekh Eretz (political faction) is the only correct target. gidonb (talk) 11:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Where it needs to be redirected will require a separate discussion I think. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic case of WP:TOOSOON; the article should not have been created until the alliance was confirmed as running in the election. Number 57 12:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - United Jewish Home was deleted too after all Braganza (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirect to 2022 Israeli legislative election. I'd say the arguments to direct to Ayelet Shaked or Yamina, and Yoaz Hendel or Derekh Eretz are equally valid. JackWilfred (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The article should stay as this was a proposed electoral list and there are multiple sources. Otherwise, it should be a redirect to Yamina. --Checco (talk) 14:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yamina, as the larger faction of the party, would have been the correct target if Yamina had not left the party, leaving it as the intended election platform of only the Derekh Eretz faction. By default the largest faction is the correct target, under strong and special circumstances, this time it was the other faction. People should be targets for parties should only if all else fails AND these were very single person-focused lists. Definitely not the case here. Two targets, in any case, take priority AND this was an alliance between real factions with very justified articles. gidonb (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm inclined to Redirect this page but we have 4 different suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong, there are 5 different redirect targets mentioned here. Unless some consensus can be found on where this page should be redirected to (which can always be debated and changed later on), I anticipate this article will be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Ayelet Shaked for her being the center point of the entire event. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 10:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that there's a lot of dispute regarding the potential destination for a redirect, i think itd be best if we redirected to 2022 Israeli legislative election. Shaked and Hendel, Yamina and Derekh Eretz were all very important in Zionist Spirit's formation and brief candidacy. I intend on writing a campaign section for the 2022 page, which could presumably include all the details of ZS's existence. Totalstgamer (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ayelet Shaked.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 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. There is consensus that enough academic coverage to demonstrate notability has been dug up. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement

Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement (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. I would point out that what looks like an impressive list of references is largely composed of things co-authored by the inventor of this technique. Unsurprisingly it smells of spam. TheLongTone (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Mentioned in independent third party reviews, for example: PMID 29651257, 27149578, 30682663 Boghog (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I can see why TheLongTone nominated the article for deletion, because they probably ran into the same problem I initially had. Google searches including Google Scholar and Google Books are filled with an overwhelming amount of non-independent publications by Garland, or are trivial mentions that give MORE as an example of types of mindfulness-based interventions but without further context. It's hard to dig through all of that noise to find useful third-party sources that aren't trivial mentions. However, Boghog's sources do meet that standard and there are some books (example, specifically pages 253–254) that do go into more detail than just giving the name and citing Garland's paper, so I do think this article's subject does meet WP:GNG due to the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - After digging Google a bit I found GOV sources like [4] This and [5] which kinda shares some spotlight on it being notable enough to be considerable as a Keep. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 10:53, 3 October 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 23:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict transformation

Conflict transformation (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 not a notable concept. It's a vague term that several existing articles already touch on. Thenightaway (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:SYN and few/no sources treating this as a notable/cohesive concept. Neutralitytalk 04:53, 29 September 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 23:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Poetry

Global Poetry (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 nothing to indicate that this is a notable organization. Thenightaway (talk) 18:11, 27 September 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. Willing to draftify at request if there is interest in working on this article. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shoulda Been Stars seasons

List of Shoulda Been Stars seasons (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:REDUNDANTFORK of FCF Shoulda Been Stars. Barely improved following its recent move to draft, mainly because WP:TOOSOON. Storchy (talk) 17:48, 27 September 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 23:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict triangle

Conflict triangle (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 not a notable concept. It's exclusively used in low-quality sources. If there is any value in the concept, I fail to see why it cannot be merged with articles such as Peace and conflict studies or Security studies. It's such a non-notable concept/theory that I don't think it even meets WP:DUE for a brief mention in those articles. Thenightaway (talk) 17:42, 27 September 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 05:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveFence

ActiveFence (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)

Delete per non-reliable and not in-depth run-on-the-mill (WP:MILL) coverage not sufficient for WP:NCORP. Actually, WP:TOOSOON and WP:COI 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

includes non-trivial deep and significant coverage, including multiple company profiles in major english-speaking media i.e. Tech Crunch, Times of Isreal, Israel Hayoum, etc. keep TheWarOfArt (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Quality information on a relatively young page. Charlie doesnt know (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can't find any independent coverage, it all seems to be either press releases or based on press releases; eg the Tech Crunch source which almost entirely consists of statements from the company or its partners.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I DISAGREE, why should this page be deleted? its under editing work and contains the fact of a company born to do good in this world. 77.137.65.11 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, no sources that I can find for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
do you not view the Times of Israel, Globes, and Israel Hayom as reliable? As you can see, Wikipedia has deemed them to be notable. If you think edits would be appropriate, make the edits. I don't understand the deletionism here. TheWarOfArt (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing up how sources/references are used for two different purposes. References used for any purpose including supporting facts/information within an article must be reliable sources in which case we take a close look at the publisher and the author. But for the purposes of establishing notabiliy, we essentially evaluate the *content* to make sure the article meets the criteria. The Times of Israel article is a promo piece which relies *entirely* on information provided by the company and their partners - this fails ORGIND. The Globes piece contains one single sentence which mentions the company - that is neither significant nor in-depth, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. The Israel Hayon piece reports that the topic company won a non-notable award and relies entirely on this Press Release, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 14:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Israel, and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Draftify changing to Weak Delete or Draftify after Tim located the Frost&Sullivan report below. Still can't locate a 2nd source though at this time. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) where *each* reference contains deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The Times of Israel article is a promo piece which relies *entirely* on information provided by the company and their partners" what are you basing this on? "the Globes piece contains one single sentence which mentions the company - that is neither significant nor in-depth" the Globes piece is 500 words and several paragraphs, all on the company. Could you please elaborate? TheWarOfArt (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of Israel article is an advertorial, there's nothing in that article which isn't directly attributed to the company or their execs or their customers and there's no evidence that the journalist is making any comments based on their own "Independent" research/analysis or fact checking. Similar story with the Globes articles. HighKing++ 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note how NCORP is worded: The source must be completely independent of the article subject. Extensive quoting from the subject, or repetition of their words without much analysis, fails this criterion. Ovinus (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This company is only four years old and is not built on existing companies or units, so if it isn't found to be notable that outcome would make intuitive sense. Still, our decisions need to be data driven. Reading through the article and the AfD, there is one very strong SIGCOV source, written and signed by the technology correspondent of Globes that the delete sayers seem to sidestep. It might not be sufficient for a keep, and that's ok, but the delete sayers should clarify what they mean when they say there is no SIGCOV in RS. gidonb (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging the relevant editors: 多少 战场 龙, Pawnkingthree, Oaktree b, HighKing. gidonb (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my response above. HighKing++ 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still !delete, there is not enough significant coverage in RS. I'm not arguing over semantics. My reasoning for delete stands. We need to see multiple, substantive coverage is RS before we can even consider keeping the article, this isn't there yet. Please don't ping me every time you get an answer you don't like. It doesn't change my decision and makes an even stronger case for my !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, but you do recognize this as a valid (albeit insufficient) source that counts toward notability, right? gidonb (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, you still don't have enough for the article to be kept. Please don't keep harping over one decent source, it's not enough and a long way from GNG. Again, please don't ping me for silly stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, you totally distort my words. By 180 degrees! As strongly implied in my comment, I lean towards delete. I'm trying to make sure that nothing has changed in the appreciation of Israeli quality press. I continue to receive evasive answers, which was my concern from the get-go. gidonb (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've already said the source was fine. We can't keep the article for a lack of those. Thanks for pinging me after I've asked you not to. Please stop. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - coverage from TechCrunch and The Times of Israel meets the bare minimum of at least two independent sources with in-depth coverage. And international to boot. The Globes piece about the top #10 ranking is almost as good, and includes some additional profile info. The Frost and Sullivan report has a nice write-up from a notable analyst, which I've seen at previous AfDs as some people's criteria for notability. The Insider and Time sources are just brief quotes, but show that the company's employees are recognized and sought out as thought leaders by the media. There's absolutely no precedent or consensus for saying that if a press release spurs coverage, and the media does additional reporting, including interviews, that somehow disqualifies the resultant article in a notability discussion. That's a lazy argument to make, and completely ignores the role of media relations in getting media coverage. Something has to get the reporter's attention. I will argue this meets WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:ORGIND. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Frost and Sullivan article meets the criteria for establishing notability, thanks for finding that. Your comment (which you've repeated in various forms at multiple AfDs) that media does "additional reporting, including interviews" puts the onus on you to show what the "additional reporting" in those articles actually is because nowhere in any of those articles is content "clearly attributable to sources unaffiliated with the company" and in fact, the context of the articles makes it clear that the journalist is merely regurgitating company information without any *independent* anaylsys/comment/etc. If you disagree, please point to a paragraph which contains in-depth "Independent Content". Overall for this company, it may be that it is WP:TOOSOON. For example, I cannot locate any other research from any of the other technology analysts nor but that's not to say that it won't happen in the future. HighKing++ 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will keep repeating my point if you keep repeating your argument rejecting journalists' articles printed in reliable third party sources, in direct contradiction of our guidelines. Requiring business article editors to locate a press release (assuming one even exists) and then do a side by side comparison with a published article in a reliable third party media source, and try to reverse engineer the material, is quite frankly a ridiculous hurdle to impose on your fellow editors. It's the ultimate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Is there an in-depth article about the company in a reliable publication or not? Did the reporter choose to spend his time on this subject, or any of the other firehose of press releases from hundreds of thousands of companies that he or she could be writing about? That's the standard I use. But in this instance, I'll humor you. From TechCrunch, it takes no time to find ActiveFence is not the only company building technology to help platform operators, governments and brands have a better picture of what is going on in the wider online world. Factmata has built algorithms to better understand and track sentiments online; Primer (which also recently raised a big round) also uses NLP to help its customers track online information, with its customers including government organizations that used its technology to track misinformation during election campaigns; Bolster (formerly called RedMarlin) is another. Some of the bigger platforms have also gotten more proactive in bringing tracking technology and talent in-house: Facebook acquired Bloomsbury AI several years ago for this purpose; Twitter has acquired Fabula (and is working on a bigger efforts like Birdwatch to build better tools), and earlier this year Discord picked up Sentropy, another online abuse tracker. In some cases, companies that more regularly compete against each other for eyeballs and dollars are even teaming up to collaborate on efforts. That's unlikely from a press release. It's original reporting, and is part of an article about ActiveFence. From Globes, the very first paragraph It wasn’t just routine online chatter. The mayor of a city in the US Midwest appeared to be under imminent physical threat by far-right extremists and federal authorities had to be alerted. This is a call researchers for an Israeli company had to make recently as part of their ongoing work monitoring and detecting harmful and/or illegal content on the internet such as hate speech, child abuse, fraud networks and disinformation campaigns. It's unlikely that this content comes from a company press release, so I'm not going to go looking for one. I'm too busy saving notable articles from new accounts casually slinging harmful accusations at veteran editors while the other veteran AfD participants humor him by ignoring his behavior and voting delete as expected. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so you're starting to get it. Because yes, it takes a ridiculous amount of time to go through references which somebody pulls from the first page of a Google search and lobs them here and says they all meet NCORP. Yes, it is a ridiculous hurdle to impose of fellow editors. Yes, it does mean an in-depth understanding of our guidelines. Perhaps this amount of effort is new to you? I still think you're trying to get references to "fit" the guidelines here and there without appreciating that WP:SIRS requires each reference to meet all of NCORP. So ... why do you think that the extract from TechCrunch contains in-depth information *about the company* seeing as when you remove the bits that are about the other companies, we're left with what exactly? Not enough to meet CORPDEPTH because what is remaining adds up to basically nothing. Similarly the article from Globes, what in-depth information are you seeing in that extract that is about the company? Again. Basically Nothing. HighKing++ 16:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP The coverage discussed above is more than a trivial mention. Looks to be a new and growing company and therefore this is a keeper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.15 (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't for promoting "up and coming" companies, sourcing is needed to prove reliability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HighKing, unless there are more sources that are not here. The Frost and Sullivan piece is the only plausible source here in terms of notability, and it still kind of... sucks. Realizing the inadequacies of current methods of fighting online threats, ActiveFence empowers a proactive approach to addressing these challenges (seriously? "empowering" an approach?); to make such a feat possible, ActiveFence has developed an ever‐evolving database that captures malicious activities on the internet. It's written in such a fluffy and corporate-speak tone that I simply cannot consider it a high-quality source, even if it is technically independent. I'm also okay with draftification; if this is a truly rapidly growing company, new sources indicating notability can easily be added and the article readded. Ovinus (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It uses weasel words, so I'd tend to discount that as a source. Without it, we have not much of anything left for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- After reading the above consensus, And Reading HighKing's statement I was super tempted to vote as a DELETE in here then I checked the sources there are few sources which smells puff pieces but a couple of em like [6] this reads legitimate so I am not sure about the deletion. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 12:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey suryabeej, in relation to the source you say "reads legitimate" - the giveaway is in the first sentence where it says "the company announced Thursday". A quick search on your favorite search engine would then turn up this PR announcement from the company which is practically identical. Fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are a cluster of trivial mentions about a random tech award and a few brief mentions about an early funding round. You can incidentally also tell from the quotes in the TechCrunch piece that it is largely a regurgitated press release, not original journalism, making it more like a primary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT per HighKing. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 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 Thallumaala. Anyone is free to merge any, if not all, content to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 04:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thallumaala (soundtrack)

Thallumaala (soundtrack) (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 soundtrack album of a film does not meet WP:NALBUM requirements. Almost all the cited sources are non-independent/promotional/unreliable. Proponents of the article should pick WP:THREE GNG-compliant sources that cover the album independently that can prove its notability.

The article may be selectively merged into the film article by removing bloated and unnecessary info. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect: Most the content is written like an advertisement, it's better to redirect the page the to main article Thallumaala. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I created the article and performed a thorough analysis of the subject before it was published. The album is a phenomenal hit all over the country and secured top positions in hit charts. I thought a separate article will be fine as the soundtrack album found a separate ground from the movie. As the album is Non-English in lyrics and style, a considerable number of sources are in regional language, but I tried to pick the most reliable ones. You can have a look on web regarding the relevance of the album, and why it should have a separate article. Thank you Sneha996 (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sneha996 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Language is not an issue. Please pick specific sources which support the album's notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Objection: 26 out of 39 sources are from The Times of India, Malayala Manorama, MediaOne TV, News 18, Asianet News, Zee News, The Week, Madhyamam, Mathrubhumi, Flowers TV, Club FM, Radio Mango and Spotify. One is an English translation of an article from Malayala Manorama, one is from Time News, a subsidiary of Malayala Manorama. All these are trusted sources, You can check their reliability. Some sources are from prominent online news portals like doolnews.com. Most of the YouTube links are official song videos of the movie. There are a few sources that are of minor importance, but well written articles. I'll remove them if they are not proper sources.
Please consider this Ab207. Sneha996 (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sneha996 Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. You are focusing only on reliability while ignoring the other two (significance and independence). All three aspects should be satisfied at the same time. We need at least WP:THREE sources like that. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This, picked at random, appears to be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic", coverage of just one song from the album. Oculi (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just an update on song release with trivial coverage. To constitute significant coverage, there should be some constructive criticism, author's own analysis on the song/album etc. Ab207 (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'd consider the source mentioned by Oculi as reliable and in-depth enough. Given that the article is WP:REFBOMB with a lot of the sources talking about the songs' music videos, the necessary sources should stay in the article. SBKSPP (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 16:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: This article should be redirected to the main article of the movie Thallumaala. The references are not enough for a stand alone article. The article creator has added youtube links etc of the songs like advertising the songs as references in the article which is not appreciated and is an advert Jehowahyereh (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already expressed your vote at the beginning of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What? Where actually did I expressed my vote other than this? Please check clearly Jehowahyereh (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't express a different vote, you expressed your vote in BOLD twice, which is considered voting twice. Feel free to make comments but don't offer a bolded vote more than once, even if it is the same vote. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is a strange finding. From where did you get that idea. So what's the value to anyone's vote. I just voted once Jehowahyereh (talk) 05:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was my fault. I got your Redirect vote mixed up with Jayanthkumar123's Redirect vote. My apologies. I undid my strike of your vote. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charts: Here are some links that indicate the album's position in various music charts, both regionally and globally. It can be seen that the album secured top positions for a considerable period of time. These may indicate the album's independent notability. The links provide information from authentic music platforms like Spotify, iTunes, JioSaavn, Gaana, Apple Music, Shazam etc.; I guess WP:THREE is passed here. Links: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] Sneha996 (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Redirect: Not all films want an individual separated soundtrack article even it is hit or not. I think it have to be redirect to Thallumaala. Contributor008 (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect- as the sonundtrack fails to show enough reliable charting to have a standalone Article. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 12:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge/redirect to Thallumaala per WP:ATD. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NALBUM. The reviews of the soundtrack are from sources about the film itself. The lack of significant coverage of the album indicates deletion or merge/redirect are our only options.4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 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) 16:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Ewa

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

Likely fails WP:NBIO as someone being arrested and being published in the news as a kidnapper does not mean it qualifies under WP:NBIO and also since it just happened a couple of days ago like also likely fails WP:TOOSOON. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nominator's concern clearly falls under WP:BLPCRIME. Article is a biography of one arrest. RS coverage seems to be exclusively about the arrest and high profile perp walk. Not finding RS of this alleged notorious social media kingpin before the event. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Clearly WP:NOTNEWS.Onel5969 TT me 11:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The event of kidnapping did got some coverages but that doesn't makes the event notable enough to have a standalone article on Ewa, a case of WP:TOOSOON. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 12:13, 3 October 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) 15:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Finidori

Jean-François Finidori (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)

Article about former footballer, who had a very brief professional career, which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Online searches in English and France yield only routine and trivial coverage like match reports and transfer announcements. Jogurney (talk) 15:33, 27 September 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 P. G. Wodehouse characters. If further sources are found to substantiate independent notability, a redirect allows this to be reconsidered easily Eddie891 Talk Work 20:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pongo Twistleton

Pongo Twistleton (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 isn't significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and this fails the WP:GNG. A review of the sources finds either trivial mentions or material that can only support a plot summary, and this is WP:NOT within the scope of Wikipedia as written. Jontesta (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters - Non-notable fictional character that has nothing in the way of reliable sources that give any kind of significant coverage that isn't merely being mentioned in plot summaries of the stories he appeared in. The character is already listed and described at the main list of characters, so a redirect is a reasonable WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rorshacma. This character doesn't have any non-plot information to meet the WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Redirect is reasonable as a compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unfortunately I am very short on time at the moment, but I think a careful analysis of secondary sources would reveal significant coverage. I just had a look at Who is Who in Wodehouse and Pongo has a one page entry there (https://archive.org/details/whoswhoinwodehou0000garr/page/196/mode/2up?q=Pongo). I think other Wodehouse secondary sources would also establish notability WatkynBassett (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of P. G. Wodehouse characters. I am sorry, but WatkynBassett comment above is just a WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. Well, if there are, someone needs to find them first before we can consider keeping this. The linked source appears to be just a plot summary with zero analysis and as such I don't see the need for this to be anything but a redirect to a list of characters.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect- as there are mere mentions available on reliable sources like these [14] needs more Independent and in depth sources to show notability. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 12:41, 3 October 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 Mythology of Fringe#Massive Dynamic. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Dynamic

Massive Dynamic (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 isn't meaningful coverage in reliable third-party sources to build an encyclopedic article, as per WP:GNG. A review of the sources finds trivial mentions in the context of a few character biographies, and those characters are already covered at List of Fringe characters. There's no coverage to support a separate article here outside of WP:PLOT or WP:PRIMARY information. Jontesta (talk) 14:39, 27 September 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 Hogwarts staff#Horace Slughorn. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slughorn

Slughorn (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)

Entirely WP:OR. There is no third party coverage of this concept as a whole, and any coverage of the term is focused on trivial mentions, insufficient for notability. An editor has synthesized this original research from several different dictionary-style definitions, most of them unverifiable except for one, which is already covered at another article. Mostly a holdover from 2006, when Wikipedia's standards were much more lax. Jontesta (talk) 14:31, 27 September 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) 14:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hermitage Moorings

Hermitage Moorings (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 organization; fails WP:NCORP. I was unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources; there are a few mentions of the location, but not of the organization. Despite the edit summary, this is not a copyvio (CSD G12), as potentially infringing text is not present in the article, though the creator has an apparent conflict of interest, and so I would recommend draftification if not deletion. This is borderline eligible for A7, though not unambiguous (possible historical significance is not to be overlooked immediately); previous deletions have occurred under A7/G12 (not sure if content is the same) and the page has been recreated by the same account. Complex/Rational 14:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't belive it should be deleted because it still can be found helpful. There aren't many information about it but this thing can be changed in some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cafeluta (talk • contribs) 11:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia requires references, which this articles doesn't have. Catfurball (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it As much as i hope for it not to get deleted, unfortunately the whole page is just a messy advertisement and has more issues than i can count...so let's get it over with.Wikiwow:) Wikiwow:) (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- tried finding RS unfortunately failed to find enough. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 13:09, 3 October 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) 13:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Australia national soccer team season

2020 Australia national soccer team season (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 "season" existed (all games were cancelled). To the extent that it is notable that games were cancelled due to COVID-19, there is no reason why this cannot be noted in the prior or subsequent season page. Macosal (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Makes sense per Macosal's rationale. I've added the information to the following year. --SuperJew (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no matches were played, and so this isn't a notable topic. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:17, 3 October 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 merge to Pietro Lorenzetti. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monticchiello Altarpiece

Monticchiello Altarpiece (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. Although I couldn't access it, the article is based on 1 catalog entry, which seems to me to violate WP:NOTDATABASE. Moreover, why do we even have an article on something theoretical, i.e. all just someone's assumptions, speculation. In particular, the "Possible reconstruction" is misleading. While the painter is famous, that doesn't automatically make all his works notable. A cursory Google search turns up mirrors or copies of this article. P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the painter.TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pietro Lorenzetti, could easily be a one or two line listing in his article here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waiting for fuller research and for someone who can access the link. This must have a reason for linking these paintings together. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They were probably cut up at one point from a larger alterpiece. It wasn't uncommon for art to be split up among soldiers after a conquest; who knows in this case. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pietro Lorenzetti article which has no mention of this altarpiece. Lamona (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect that anyone commenting here would base their opinions on sources, such as the ones found by clicking on "scholar" above. Why do we link to searches when nobody seems to take any notice of the results? And a "cursory Google search" for a work by a medieval artist? Don't people realise that the World Wide Web didn't exist 700 years ago? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to the creator Pietro_Lorenzetti, Lacks in depth sources. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 13:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Q.E.D. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Clearly there ain't strong in depth sources available to state the Notability factor of the Art Work but the Artist is Notable thus its should be Merged or Redirected. Infact the only Source [15] This which is there in the Article doesn't opens. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 09:12, 4 October 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 DZBB. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 13:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Kwentuhan

Super Kwentuhan (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 in question. The article was unreferenced for more than ten years. Google, GNews and News Archives did not give any results.

Note that there's a 2022 revival of the program called "Usap Tayo: Super Kwentuhan with Mark and Susan" which won at the Catholic Mass Media Awards. Has a different set of hosts though. Lenticel (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm fine with with the Redirect proposal as per WP:ATD --Lenticel (talk) 13:09, 1 October 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! 08:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parvathaneni Harish

Parvathaneni Harish (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 subject of this article fails GNG and does not fit into any SNG. Being an ambassador doesn't automatically makes a person notable, they are not considered inherently notable. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete , Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Lack of coverage. Only top level Diplomats of chief secretary level are notable. No major work. Venkat TL (talk) 10:29, 28 September 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 13:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blah Blah Blah (Itzy song)

Blah Blah Blah (Itzy song) (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. I changed this to a redirect to the artiste; page creator reverted without leaving an edit summary to justify their action. Seeking a broader consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: JTBC and OSEN considered reliable per WP:KO/RS. YTN is on Naver which also has a KO/RS entry. I think the Yahoo Japanese source falls under WP:RSP's Yahoo! News entry. And there's also this from Bandwagon. Itzy Japan is primary and ktown4u is a sales site, but those aside I think the rest is enough for now. And I'm sure this thing'll chart significantly in a few weeks, their previous singles have been consistently very high in Korea, Japan, and the Billboard Global 200 chart so I wouldn't be surprised by repeat results. I think this is less an issue of notability and more prematurity/WP:CRYSTAL, though I'm not so sure that's actually an issue here either. QuietHere (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by QuietHere. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable for sure see this Youtube Charts for reference [16]. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 13:28, 3 October 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. There is consensus that the subject - the Cadbury family - is notable though the article needs work. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cadbury family

Cadbury 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)

A non-encyclopedic article, inconsistently sourced and simply an indiscriminate, trivial list which is essentially a family tree. Some of the family members listed have Wikipedia articles and some of whom do not. In other words, just cruft. As such, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO in and of itself. Geoff | Who, me? 12:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but prune off the unarticled branches, as appears to be the norm in other family articles. The family is notable:
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I concur that this article has critical flaws, and needs to be transformed into prose, but it is unquestionable that the Cadbury's are one of the most famous and notable families in modern English history. Curbon7 (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an article but definitely not in the current state. While I agree with the nomination sentiment that this is not an ideal article in its current format, I think as a family, there will be sufficient history to write prose about as suggested by Curbon7. The family tree element could probably be formatted into a much smaller visual configuration. I don't quite think we're in a WP:TNT state, but rather it needs reinventing, which is achievable. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Family is quite obviously notable enough to meet WP:GNG, being a household name. Tk4y06 15:31, 28th September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - I would agree that as it stands this does not make a good Wikipedia article and a great deal of work is needed. However as others have said the Cadburys are a very notable family and it is logical for their to be an article on them. So I think improve is the better option than delete. Dunarc (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Cadbury Family is one of the most famous family's in Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markwhite2828 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The Cadbury family are renowned as chocolate makers and for using the profits of this for philanthropy. Though this is essentially only a genealogy, it is a little more useful that the usual dabpage which would be called Cadbury (surname). The number of blue-links in the article speaks for itself. Th is kind of list article is best for not being overloaded with detail and references, the place for which is on the articles on the individuals and their company. I have not met any of the family, but know people who do. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clear case of notability although the article needs some cleanup. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 13:30, 3 October 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. The nominator has not proposed any deletion rationale. Re-direction can be undertaken WP:BOLDLY. (non-admin closure) SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unrecognized state

Unrecognized state (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 propose to redirect to the list of states with limited recognition. Government in exile, rebel group or micronation is not called 'unrecognized state' in sources. Privybst (talk) 11:51, 27 September 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 14:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Yadav (Indian politician)

Abhishek Yadav (Indian politician) (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)

Wrt WP:NPOL, the subject is not a(n) (inter)national or a state-level legislative body member; neither does he seem to have significant press coverage in the sense that independent in-depth coverage is absent. The only coverage he sustained was that of general news coverage and almost all of them insist that he is a relative of the Mulayam Singh Yadav's family. Were he not, he would not have received such coverage indicating the coverage would be due to the family association and in WP terms, inherited notability. Such case, the article fails WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NBASIC (unless of course in-depth coverage could be uncovered which I suspect doesn't exist) ({{Notability}} tag was disputed and removed and I presume a draftification would be WP:DRAFTOBJECTed and thus WP:AFDed) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Panchayats are a level of local government in India, not a state or national legislature, so the bar he has to be measured against is WP:NPOL #2 — but the quality and depth of the sourcing here isn't getting him over that bar. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 27 September 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 The Amazing Race (American TV series) contestants. Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Sweeney (baseball)

Tim Sweeney (baseball) (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)

Lacks notability; played baseball in minor league only. Bgsu98 (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references (though no SIGCOV) to a coach of this name, but I can't tell if it is the same person (appears to be from Pennsylvania). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested seems the best option. I can't find much for his baseball career. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly wouldn't oppose a redirect! Bgsu98 (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this in a brief search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also found this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of The Amazing Race (American TV series) contestants, the sources cited are an interview, routine coverage about a transfer, and one decent source. Still a GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:16, 4 October 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. It looks like the article has undergone substantial changes since te nomination to remedy some of the nominator's points. Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pranav Pandya (AWGP)

Pranav Pandya (AWGP) (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)

Thanks to the stupid WP:DRAFTOBJECT rule, seriously problematic articles can only be draftified once, and then need an AfD or some lame problem tags.

First award, fake. The UK parliament doesn't give this award, some obscure private organisation does.

Second award, probably fake, no actual evidence for this and unlikely that NASA would give awards for being a "reformer of Indian culture".

Third Award, some "Federation of Indian Association" would have named him "Hindu of the Year". This claim is repeated on many pages[17]. Strangely, this award seems not to have been given to anyone else, ever[18]

AfD is not cleanup, but how untrustworthy and dubious does an article have to be before draftifying or WP:TNT is the only solution? Fram (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Fram that he doesn't got first 3 awards or honors but without any award and honor he is notable. As he is the head of religious organization AWGP which is the International Religious Organization and also member of the International Movement Yug Nirman Yojna. Contributor008 (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn't you correct this after I moved it draftspace for exactly this reason (dubious awards)? Fram (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Sorry, Now I have corrected it. Contributor008 (talk) 10:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's good that the dubious awards have been removed, but the sourcing here is actually exceptionally good including 2 academic articles (one from the Journal of the American Academy of Religion) and an article from The Hindu. Jahaza (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jahaza Pandya has been the subject of multiple scholarly and news articles. W42 13:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- the sources available meets GNG clearly. Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 14:52, 3 October 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 Withdrawn. Withdrawn my the nominator. (non-admin closure) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robe violette et Anémones

Robe violette et Anémones (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 painting does not appear notable and my BEFORE failed to find any WP:SIGCOV coverage, at least in English (maybe there's some in French? No French Wikipedia article for this, however). Per WP:NOTINHERITED, not all paintings by an otherwise notable artist merit a stand-alone article, and this article is a WP:SUBSTUB - a single sentence stating that "Robe violette et Anémones is a 1937 painting by Henri Matisse". (It was previously unreferenced, a reference has been added but it's just a catalogue entry). WP:NOTCATALOGUE comes to mind too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and France. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a couple of references regarding the collection of this work. It is also worth noting that it was the cover image for the book of the 2001 exhibition The Triumph of French Painting: Masterpieces from Ingres to Matisse (ISBN 9781857592337) which toured from Baltimore to the Royal Academy in London. AllyD (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and maybe the nominator will close this good faith AfD after AllyD's reference additions and discovery of the paintings use on the book cover (thanks for nomming this so the new references had a chance to be located - AfD's seem much better than prod's when an artwork may likely be notable). Now it needs an image to top off a good collab. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a very well-known painting by Matisse, and it is indeed notable. Try searching under its title in English, and you will find a lot of citations in art history books.[19] The article needs improvement based on the available sourcing. AfD is not clean up. Sources exist, meets WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing. I concur that there are sources in English under the English name (which wasn't and still isn't present in the article). I'll add the English name there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 28 September 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 withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by forest area

List of countries by forest area (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)

Data now available at https://fra-data.fao.org/ so why bother copying it here in future years when that link could just be added to other articles? If anyone wants to make the effort to copy it it would make more sense to copy to Wikidata as researchers could then do queries on it. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- seems clearly notable, and provide visibility for an otherwise obscure data set living in another space -- Wikipedia platforms this kind of knowledge in a way the FAO cannot.Sadads (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how the given reason for deletion is valid under the deletion policy (the point of WP is to collate data from reliable, secondary sources anyway; keeping one page updated is nothing compared to say updating every population figure every census) and the topic is notable (covered by an Our World in Data study and there is data from Global Forest Watch, for example). The latter even has slightly different figures from the FAO so it can be added as a second source. eviolite (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea to have a second source. For info - Wikidata allows for up to 3 values for a piece of data Chidgk1 (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that a list is available elsewhere does not seem like a valid reason for deletion. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with everyone else that this seems like a poor deletion rationale. The vast majority of things on Wikipedia are available elsewhere on the internet. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Utterly bullshit nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Don't see a strong reason for deletion. Shankargb (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK you can obviously Close this as nobody agrees with me. Info for future editors But just in case anyone is thinking of requesting deletion in the future I just wanted to add the following info: 1) The approximate OWID map might be enough rather than these figures to an unbelievable number of decimal places. 2) Maybe one day listeriabot will be allowed to extract from Wikidata to English Wikipedia as it does to many other language Wikipedias. 3) I agree with the point above implying that a Wikipedia article is more likely to be at the top of a Google search, but Google also obviously searches within articles - so the map and link to FAO could be included in forest with a couple of sentences of text to explain. The map would likely be seen by more people then as obviously that article is more read. 4) This article is in 23 languages but is numerical - so it is not simply one update a year but 23 - if Wikidata was updated and extracted using listeriabot it would just be one update a year and could maybe be automated. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:41, 28 September 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 05:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Learning Code

Ladies Learning Code (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)

Essentially all of the sources are their own press releases, and the content of the article reads as if this too is a press release. The article is 5 years out of date--I made a search for additional and especially current sources and found nothing except press releases and notices of meeting--the only possibly usable one was [20] from the Toronto Sun, but it too is a collection of statements from supporters.

If there were to be an article, it would make more sense for it to be on the overall organization,, Canada Learning Code--some of the statistics here are from that, and some from this section, and some from related allied sections.

I am always conflicted when I list for deletion articles on excellent projects such as this -- they generally deserve to become notable , and I do share the feeling that perhaps an appropriate part of our role is to help them. But it isn't: we're not a directory, not even a directory of everything good that is in some way related to our own initiatives. I tend to deal with it by letting pass the ones that are written as real articles, rather than collections of buzzwords, and focussing on the ones like this where every major contributor is a single purpose account. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I wouldn't consider the Toronto Sun terribly reliable. I have one story on the CBC [21] about the group, one brief mention in the Toronto Star [22], but this is a bit more about the lady that founded it [23]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could also redirect to Canada Learning Code, but that article doesn't seem to exist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - Seems like a worthwhile organization but unfortunately the coverage that exists doesn't seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV bar; the sources above seem maybe just barely below it. This also goes for Canada Learning Code, couldn't find non-routine coverage of that either. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems to have the minimum notability and media coverage for inclusion into Wikipedia. However, better citations still needed. Assirian cat (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sources are mainly press releases which lack sufficent independence from the subject. None of the sources rise to standards that we apply to organizations at WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 5 October 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. While this on a pure nose count could plausibly be a "no consensus", I note the discrepancy between the support for the respective arguments between those arguing "keep" (in many cases, bare assertions of being notable without explanation of why), and the in-depth analyses provided by many who argued for deletion. I also did not fail to notice that many of the accounts arguing to keep are quite new. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maropost

AfDs for this article:
Maropost (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:NCORP. The sources in the article are insufficient, as shown below:

WP:NCORP assessment table
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Betakit ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Yes Seems plausibly reliable No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
Betakit ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Yes Seems plausibly reliable No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/325640162/maropost-marketing-cloud-announces-integration-with-interact No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://www.retaildive.com/press-release/20190224-maropost-launches-maropost-for-commerce/ No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://www.prunderground.com/maropost-signs-email-marketing-partnership-with-digioh/00215281/ No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://www.prunderground.com/maropost-forms-partnership-with-hawke-media-hawke-media-ceo-erik-huberman-excited-to-leverage-maroposts-simplified-automation-platform/00214079/ No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://www.prunderground.com/maropost-forms-partnership-with-foundr-the-worlds-go-to-learning-resource-for-leading-businesses/00216201/ No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
Betakit ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Yes Seems plausibly reliable No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://martechseries.com/sales-marketing/customer-experience-management/maropost-announces-partnership-and-advanced-integration-with-konnektive-crm/ ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release No This is a PR blog No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://betakit.com/maropost-acquires-australias-retail-express-in-50-million-cad-deal/ ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Yes Seems plausibly reliable No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/news/retail-express-acquired-maropost-55-million-deal/ ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Yes Seems plausibly reliable No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://betakit.com/maropost-acquires-swedish-ai-startup-findify-for-over-4-45-million-usd/ ? Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Yes Seems plausibly reliable No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://www.prunderground.com/email-marketing-automation-the-ultimate-growth-tool-from-maropost-and-getuwired/00248870/ No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://www.entrepreneur.com/en-in/entrepreneurs/this-canadian-entrepreneur-brings-the-next-big-thing-in-the/367478 ? This reads like a PR blogpost No This is an opinion piece by an Entrepreneur contributor Yes This does cover the company fairly broadly ✘ No
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/maropost-named-high-performer-g2s-130000764.html No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/fast500-apply.html Yes Deloitte is plausibly independent of this company Yes Deloitte is probably reliable in this space No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists is trivial coverage ✘ No
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0363-9_20 Yes This is a book from an academic publisher Yes This is a book from an academic publisher No This does not mention Maropost at all and was published 11 years before the company was founded. ✘ No
https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2019/10/01/1923386/0/en/Maropost-named-a-G2-Leader-in-Marketing-Automation-and-Personalization-Software.html No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I am likewise unable to find multiple sources that describe this company in-depth from independent reliable secondary sources. As such, I believe that this article should be deleted for failure to meet the relevant notable criteria at WP:NCORP in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, India, and Canada. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page has the minimum level of notable sources to pass GNG and remain in Wikipedia --Dark Juliorik (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable company and appears to be sufficiently covered to meet WP:GNG. --Bigneeerman (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom. This is a for-profit corporation. Per WP:NCORP, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. As such, for-profit companies are not evaluated by GNG, but instead by the higher sourcing standards for notability. I'd ask those who claim that this passes a particular notability standard to explicitly state the sources they believe get the company over the hump so that others can evaluate their reasoning; I've already analyzed the sources in the article above and I don't really see any specific pushback against that analysis either based on contesting it directly or finding sources not mentioned in it that contribute towards the company's notability. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- The article needs some work and more sources, but the company is clearly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 不和の林檎 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide sources that you believe show that this meets WP:NCORP? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' I didn't find any reliable source which makes it notable.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG at least. I've added several reliable sources (launch of da vinci platform -MartechSeries and a Bloomberg article) and a line about Maropost Ventures (sources are with passing mentions but it's enough to mention a venture arm of the company). Assirian cat (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just added a good source to Foundr.com. I think the subject has enough highligting in RS for being kept on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsans2 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see a lot of new editors not considering the source table put together by the nominator and contradicting his assessment without offering any concrete examples of sources they believe estabish notability. Just stating "passes/meets GNG" without providing any examples that establish notability is not a helpful contribution to a deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment lean delete per nom's source assessment. Some additional sources have been added since then, but they don't appear to be substantive.-KH-1 (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per revised source analysis below.-KH-1 (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks for relisting the discussion, which is quite okay, I would say. For instance, this newly added Bloomberg [24] source is a good one in establishing the subject's notability. Tsans2 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards Keep though many of the sources within the article fail the criteria of NCORP being either based entirely on funding announcements or connected to the company (failing WP:ORGIND). But, several sources might meet the strict criteria (I've already added some into the article). For instance, the first is the article commenting on Forrester Research annual B2B Summit (November 2021), where Forrester analyzed marketing automation technologies needed for emerging companies and included Maropost with its competitors (Thryv, Act-On, Keap in its session “How To Integrate The Six Most Essential Technologies At An Emerging Company”. The second is Forrester Research report (2016) “When To Choose A Niche Email Vendor Continuous Improvement: The Email Marketing Playbook” where Maropost was covered [25].
    Analyst reports were specifically mentioned by me, as they are meeting the criteria for establishing notability. Getlatka SaaS database estimates Maropost to have a $1.7B valuation (supposedly based on its own metrics like Forbes/Inc. does). And Bootstrappers says the same [26] As such and together with the other press coverage there are sufficient references and the topic passes WP:GNG/WP:NCORP Loewstisch (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to the claim that valuation makes a company notable per se, WP:ORGSIG notes that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. Notability for corporations need to be demonstrated by significant secondary coverage in independent reliable sources, not by its size or how subjectively important we think it is.
    With respect to the sources you claim provide WP:NCORP levels of coverage, please see my sourceassess table below. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nom. I've compiled an updated source analysis to describe all sources in the article and in this discussion, including those that have been added after I first nominated this. The source analysis is as follows:
Updated NCORP assessment table
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Bloomberg Yes Bloomberg seems independent Yes Bloomberg is reliable for business news Yes Article subject is covered significantly Yes The coverage is not a mere interview or quotes from a primary source.
Foundr No This is a marketing blog This doesn't appear to be a reputable news organization. Yes The subject is significantly covered. Yes The coverage is not a mere interview or quotes from a primary source.
Los Angeles Business Journal Local business publication, may be a trade magazine. Local business publication, may be a trade magazine. No Maropost is mentioned once, within a fragment of a sentence. – The little coverage of Maropost here is possibly secondary, but there is too little coverage to make that determination well.
Startup Daily No Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability maybe? No Maropost is mentioned once, and it's in a fraction of a sentence. No This seems to be a regurgitation of a press release.
Food&Drink Business (Australia) No Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability maybe? No Maropost is mentioned once, and it's in a fraction of a sentence. – The little coverage of Maropost here is possibly secondary, but there is too little coverage to make that determination well.
B2b SAAS Reviews No Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability No This appears to be a blog. No Maropost is mentioned once, in a fragment of a bullet point. – The little coverage of Maropost here is possibly secondary, but there is too little coverage to make that determination well.
Forrester Yes Forrester appears to be independent of Maropost – This appears to be WP:SPS, though I'm not sure how we handle business intelligence sources. I can't read the full review. I can't read the full review.
Bootstrappers No Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability Does not appear to be an established WP:NEWSORG with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Yes sure Yes appears that way
Betakit Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release. Yes Seems plausibly reliable No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage Yes why not?
Betakit Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release. Yes Seems plausibly reliable No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage Yes why not?
EinNews No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage No This is a press release
Mediapost Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability No This looks like a blog Yes why not? Yes why not?
MarTech No Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability No This is a blog Yes sure Yes why not?
Retail Dive No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage No This is a press release
PRUnderground No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage No This is a press release
PRUnderground No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage No This is a press release
PRUnderground No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage No This is a press release
Betakit Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release. Yes Seems plausibly reliable No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage Yes why not?
MarTech No Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability No This is a blog Yes sure Yes why not
Betakit Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release. Yes Seems plausibly reliable No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage Yes why not?
smartcompany Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release Yes Seems reliable enough No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage Yes why not?
Betakit Appears to not be independent content and looks based upon a press release. Yes Seems plausibly reliable No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage. Also, this is a duplicate of a prior source. Yes why not?
PRUnderground No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage No This is a press release
Entrepreneur This reads like a PR blogpost No This is an opinion piece by an Entrepreneur contributor Yes This covers the company fairly broadly Yes why not?
Marketwired (via Yahoo! News) No This is a press release (see Marketwired) No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage No This is a press release
Deloitte Yes Deloitte is plausibly independent of this company Yes Deloitte is probably reliable in this space No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage No This is a list
Essential Dynamic HTML fast Yes This is an academic textbook Yes This is an academic textbook No This source does not mention Maropost at all; it appears to be included in error No There is no coverage of this, so there is no secondary country
Entrepreneur – This reads like a PR blogpost No This is an opinion piece by an Entrepreneur contributor Yes This covers the company fairly broadly Yes why not?
Globe NewsWire No This is a press release No This is a press release No Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are trivial coverage No This is a press release
WP:ORGIND explicitly notes that Examples of dependent coverage that is not sufficient to establish notability include press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials as well as any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources; arguments that such materials establish notability is contrary to firmly established community consensus and frankly should be discarded by the closer as such. And, as noted before, WP:ORGCRIT is explicit in that the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability and that sources need special considerations that are not always in play when doing a simple GNG analysis. As such, as this does not appear to pass WP:NCORP, I am still in support of deleting this article in light of WP:DEL-REASON#8, which is to say that this article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline for corporations and organizations. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Categorically fails WP:ORGCRIT per the cogent source analysis above.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 5 October 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! 05:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gus McLeod

Gus McLeod (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 questionable. Lots of statements without any supporting sources or citations. Bgsu98 (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well he has been twice on television, and he has written a book. Sounds kinda notable to me.Wjhonson (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is notable [1], [2] and meets the notability criteria. Fifthapril (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He appears to meet the notability guidelines and have sufficient citations and RS references to merit an article. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lang, John (December 26, 1999). "Amateur pilot answering the call of the Arctic plans to challenge north pole in biplane". The Star-Ledger. p. 36 – via NewsBank.
  2. ^ Ruane, Michael E. (April 5, 2000). "Death and Daring". Washington Post. p. B1.
  3. ^ McCord, Joel (May 2, 2000). "After frigid flight, aviator met with warm reception; Pilot reached North Pole after journey in open plane". Baltimore Sun.
  4. ^ Boin, Sonia (May 6, 2000). "Polar pilot tells of pain, near-death experiences". The Frederick News-Post.
  5. ^ McCord, Joel (April 6, 2000). "Weather slowing North Pole explorer; Snow in Ontario stalls open-cockpit pilot". Baltimore Sun.
  6. ^ Andes, Jennifer (April 27, 2000). "Pilot makes Pole trip - in open cockpit - Aircraft, ashes of friend left behind in Arctic". The Seattle Times. p. A7 – via NewsBank.
  7. ^ Bonner, Paul (June 4, 2000). "Adventurer to bare polar tale on TV". The Herald-Sun. p. B1 – via NewsBank.
  8. ^ Dunkel, Tom (January 8, 2004). "Adventure Mode". Baltimore Sun. p. 1D.
  9. ^ Talcott, Christina (January 6, 2005). "After a Record-Setting Voyage, Trying to Inspire More to Soar". Washington Post.
  10. ^ Dillard, Demetrius (July 13, 2022). "Martin Museum presents veteran astronaut Tom Jones in latest speaker program". The Avenue News.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guy of Nantes

Guy of Nantes (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 sources (and since 2007 there has been no sources), little proven notability, unsure if this is a hoax. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. InvadingInvader (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The de.wiki article has an extensive literature section, and the fr.wiki article cites sources. In addition a Google search satisfies me that this is not a hoax, with mentions here, where he appears as both Guido and Wido, mentions in this work where I can only see the index, and in footnote 3 here where he also appears as Wido. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BEFORE fail. Srnec (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not gonna slam on the nominator for no doing a WP:BEFORE, but the sources extant in other language versions and his holding of notability-conferring positions demonstrate that this is thus a notable subject. Instead of dunking on the nominator, the nominator should be congratulated for bringing to attention an article in sore need of improvement. Curbon7 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of our articles on French noblemen and historical politicians look just like this; mostly or completely uncited with just a link to a different language version. It's quite sad honestly. Curbon7 (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article is not unsourced, as it quotes from primary sources. The problem is that the precise references for the quotations are not given, but that should be capable of being remedied, probably from fr.wiki. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 2 October 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! 03:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oakdale Public School

Oakdale Public School (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 like a fairly un-notable article, fails GNG. GoldMiner24 Talk 03:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Education, and Pennsylvania. • Gene93k (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A National Register of Historic Places listing means that the RS documentation is out there to be retrieved. As it is the case with many NRHP listed buildings, a substantial portion may be offline (on paper), like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette citation in the article. There is already enough online for the article to satisfy WP:NRVE. • Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NRHP notability equal to/surpasses) Wikinotability. Djflem (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NRHP listing = meets WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NRHP listing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a nationally recognized historic building. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - buildings listed on the NRHP are automatically notable. The very detailed application for listing is the only requirement, and that is linked to the building's registration number. Nominating editor should withdraw this. You made a good faith mistake. 174.212.227.112 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 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! 03:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jean Irving

Mary Jean 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)

Fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Limited sources are largely promotional. Novemberjazz 03:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are only three distinct sources here (four footnotes, but one of them is merely a reduplicated repetition of one of the others), but just one comes from a real WP:GNG-worthy media outlet, and even that one is just covering her speech at a conference rather than anything notability-making about her career — the other two are primary sources that are not support for notability at all. But presidents of companies aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to clear GNG on media coverage about their work, which is absent here. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Article created by a now blocked editor with multiple deletions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:27, 30 September 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! 03:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Race with Ryan

Race with Ryan (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. Besides this Nintendo Life review, there are no reliable, independent, secondary sources talking about this game. The other Nintendo Life article does not provide significant coverage and will most likely fall in WP:ROUTINE. Sparkltalk 03:02, 27 September 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 Annoying Orange: Kitchen Carnage and Redirect Annoying Orange: Splatter Up. Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying Orange: Kitchen Carnage

Annoying Orange: Kitchen Carnage (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)

Also listing:

Annoying Orange: Splatter Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These mobile games do not meet WP:GNG. No reliable reviews, interviews, or coverage about them. A possible redirect could be to Annoying Orange#Games, but there's still so little or no content to be merged from. The whole section in the main article is unsourced in fact. Sparkltalk 02:23, 27 September 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 (nominator withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Ovinus (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Singer (baseball)

Jeff Singer (baseball) (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)

According to the article, never actually played in a Major League game. Neither [27] nor [28] are independent of the subject as they are heavily based on interviews. The rest of the sources are low quality. Ovinus (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep he's got a feature article on mlb.com and in the Philly Inquirer [29] and the Courrier Post [30]. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not voting because I worked on this page so I'm a bit biased, but I will note that Singer was a phantom ballplayer and we do have articles for many of these players in spite of them having not played a game in the Majors. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on the articles provided by Oaktree b, the MLB.com article, and this article, I believe Singer meets WP:NBASIC. Hatman31 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Also, in terms of sources from before he was called up, there is this from the Athletic (a national outlet), this, this, this, this, this, and this (arguably non-independent, but could help flesh out his article). The ability to sort Google searches by date really comes in handy for this kind of thing! Hatman31 (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources presented, and also because news sources that interview the subject are still independent. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 28 September 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! 02:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florentino Ballecer

Florentino Ballecer (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:NACTOR. Article has no references for more than ten years. No substantial references from Google, GNews, Gbooks, GScholar and News Archive. I was able to verify that he is indeed a film and sarsuela actor but that's about it. Lenticel (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Philippines. Lenticel (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; we have no verifiable evidence that Ballecer played "significant roles" in any of these films. Btw, @Lenticel: what convinces you that this isn't a hoax? I can't find anything reliable at all. Ovinus (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ovinus: He exists, I found mentions about his interactions in the biographies of known sarsuela artists like Atang de la Rama and Nicanor Abelardo. However, I think his work at that industry wasn't enough for notability. --Lenticel (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:58, 1 October 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 Corey Feldman#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 01:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angelic 2 the Core

Angelic 2 the Core (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)

Okay, so this one seems to be a bit of a notability edge case. More of a request for a checkup than a definite "this needs deleting" AfD, but with the asterisk that I'm here because this very well could get deleted at the end of this discussion. The only source I'm 100% sure on is the Sputnikmusic review (It's a user review, see the WP:RSMUSIC entry). The People piece is partly about the album and ostensibly exists because of its release, but fundamentally is a retrospective on the artist's film career without any interest in the album past the opening paragraphs. Complex is basically just an album announcement, it is technically coverage by a reliable source but it's not much. No clue about Cracked, I have doubts but am unsure either way. The only other coverage I could find was two interviews from Yahoo and Icon Vs. Icon which I'm not quite sure if they clear Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. There's also Anthony Fantano's review but of course WP has a lot of feelings about Fantano so I don't even really wanna touch that one. Doesn't appear the album charted/got certified anywhere. As I said, I don't know if what's here so far is enough so I'm abstaining from voting (though if it comes down to deleting then I support a redirect to the artist's page) and so I leave it to my fellow editors. QuietHere (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Albums and songs. QuietHere (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Corey Feldman#Discography because it's possible that someone could search for the title. The album was so blatantly ignored by the public that the creator of this article had to stretch for media sources that just barely mention it, if at all. The article says the album was universally panned, but that's not really true because it got no professional reviews. Therefore there is no reason for the article's author to say that it belongs in the awesome worst albums of all time, just because a single non-professional reviewer gave it one star out of five. Alas, I was better off before I saw this AfD because now I know the album exists and I'm morbidly curious about its decrepitude. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Corey Feldman#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Corey Feldman#Discography – fails WP:NALBUM. There's actually more reliable content about this album in the Corey Feldman article itself than in this album article. The SputnikMusic review is a user review so is not acceptable, Cracked is a clickbait site like Buzzfeed, most of the others are primary interviews promoting the album or advertising its forthcoming release. Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's pretty much settled at this point so I would like to reaffirm my support for redirecting to Corey Feldman#Discography, especially because I can guarantee this will be a useful search term given how popular (in a very ironic way) the album is online. QuietHere (talk) 16:58, 1 October 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. While there is some disagreement, the consensus here is that sources don't provide adequate WP:SIGCOV. Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Sandbox (blockchain platform)

The Sandbox (blockchain platform) (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)

Very subtle case of WP:PROMO. I keep an eye on Metaverse to ward off the heaps of crypto spam we get over there. I get it, WP:AGF and all, but this one came to my attention after an account with no history editing tech articles mysteriously tried to shoehorn a link to this article there.

Anyway, I think the big problem here is that all the coverage of this project is either WP:ROUTINE funding announcements, rehashed press releases, and WP:ROUTINE business partnerships.

A little bit of digging reveals the Yahoo! Finance article to be a paid article, all of the VentureBeat articles are sourced exclusively to the company/CEO. The closest thing we have to WP:SIGCOV is announcements of partnerships, but I'd argue these straddle the line between WP:INHERITED and WP:ROUTINE.

I recommend all editors voting on this to read WP:FUNDED and WP:SERIESA. BrigadierG (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Cryptocurrency. BrigadierG (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed with nom. The nice formatting of the article doesn't help the fact that all the sources are poor quality, and these routine "fundraising" announcements from VentureBeat are useless for notability. The Vogue article focuses on Gucci, not this "Sandbox". Certainly no WP:NCORP-quality sources here. Ovinus (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The previous merge discussion clearly indicated this is a separate game, and judging by the sources, a non-notable one. Therefore it should be deleted per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the nominator. At first glance it looks well sourced with references from Vogue and Yahoo Finance, but they are just routine articles and not significant coverage. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Honestly, Dean Takahashi should probably be removed as a reliable source. He's a walking shill for crypto now. Between that and acting as a company mouthpiece for Quantic Dream, he's got almost no semblance of journalistic integrity anymore. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also worth noting that the primary contributor is a SPA with no other edits Special:Contributions/Doublecocoa. Clear case of SELFPROMO/paid editing. No one writes this as their first edit for fun. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Squinting past the crypto sources in a Google search , I am finding non promotional coverage as the game is a leading example of the metaverse. Fortune, WSJ, and reuters for example. I do agree the article needs to eliminate much of the promotional puffers, but this is a legit topic to be kept that can be sourced without touching dangerous crypto sources --Masem (t) 20:33, 27 September 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.. Consensus seems to be that this version of the article is superior to the current draft version. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sean D Cleary

Sean D Cleary (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:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet unelected candidate in a future election. As always, candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if they already have preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy. But this claims nothing of the sort, and is referenced merely to the standard and run of the mill campaign coverage in the local media that every candidate in every election always receives as a matter of course, which is not sufficient to claim that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass WP:NPOL.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins the seat, but nothing here is sufficient grounds for him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Dakota. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Not notable at the moment, as he fails WP:NPOL and appears to fail WP:GNG. As usual with nominees running in competitive districts, draftification is a good ATD so that we can quickly pull it back to main if he becomes notable by winning. Curbon7 (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Curbon7. Currently fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, but content can be easily restored to mainspace if/when he wins the general election in November. Sal2100 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as Draftify but Draft:Sean D Cleary exists. History merge? Other?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Draft already exists and is nearly identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs) 01:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and overwrite current draft, or history merge if that's too unorthodox (alas I'm not familiar with how hist merges work). Check out the difference between draft and mainspace page [31]; the mainspace version has more, including potentially valuable refs. Ovinus (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Expanded the article some. Cleary has received more than run of the mill coverage in the all of the largest newspaper and television outlets in ND, and that coverage has been picked up by national outfits. This hits WP:N's significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Juno (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No sources present in the article are demonstrating that Cleary's coverage is out of the ordinary in volume, depth or geographic range compared to other non-winning candidates. Bearcat (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, people who are candidates for the state legislature but have only won the primaries aren't kept, while members of the legislature are kept. That's what WP:NPOL says, I think, and what WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests. To get around this general principle we'd need much stronger national-level sourcing, that discusses the subject in depth. The nice thing about draftification, though, is that if/once this candidate wins they'll likely be notable and so the article can be published quickly. Ovinus (talk) 05:50, 27 September 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) 01:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Moreira

AfDs for this article:
Luca Moreira (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 another serious case of WP:SOAPBOX and also (likely) WP:PAID. This article is a WP:PIG, full of unreliable sources and paid articles to create the impression that this person is notable, but he isn't. I can analyze source by source, but I can tell you people, that this article can only "deceive" those who don't speak Portuguese. I can tell you this, because in the Pt.WP, this article was not only deleted, but also salted after several SOCKs tried to recreate it over and over. The person behind these attempts, created numerous accounts, and the master account (ironically called "Lucamoreira") had to be blocked and globally locked. This is even more serious, because all this accounts and this article are linked to the BreakTudo Awards. Several people, paid for this organization, tried to use WP to promote their awards and the people linked to them. It is easy to determine that the creator of this article is linked to this organization, by simply looking into their talk page. Every time someone tries to delete one of their article, the process is plagued by several new accounts (many of them SOCKs or MEATs) voting to keep the article. That happened here both times their main article, BreakTudo Awards, went thought a AfD (see the first AfD and the second AfD) and also in the Pt.WP (See that the main account trying to recreate it in pt.WP was a SOCK). Again, none of the references in this article are from reliable sources. Additionally, many of them are simply paid articles that use the same pictures and also the same/similar text. Also, don't be surprised if this AfD is "invaded" by several new accounts, desperately voting for this article to be kept. This is what happens whenever one of the BreakTudo Awards-related articles goes through an AfD. Moreover, it's important to notice that this article went through an AfD before, and was deleted (see here). Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 01:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per pretty blatant and persistent WP:NOTHERE by whoever *really* wants this article to exist. BrigadierG (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, noting the sock activity and sourcing concerns brought up by nom (whose evaluation of Portuguese sources I trust far more than whatever I can do with Google Translate). I did I run sources [2] and [3] through translate and they seem vaguely effusive, although the post-translation grammar is suboptimal. Ovinus (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with source assessment above. Oaktree b (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Journalism. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nominator’s source assessment. NMasiha (talk) 20:08, 3 October 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_September_27&oldid=1114153566"