The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alpura (company)[edit]

Alpura (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Too promotional and the sources are primary. Rodney Araujo Tell me - My contributions 19:29, 19 September 2021 (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/2021 September 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just scrolling through the first 3 pages of a google books search revealed multiple independent RS with significant coverage that would easily pass WP:NCORP. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed.4meter4 (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the nomination cites fixable problems rather than reasons for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per the above, once the promotional material is redacted and once secondary sources are added (like these ones [1][2]), this could be an excellent article. Sources like those obviously do meet SIGCOV requirements. Patiodweller (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Slott[edit]

Ed Slott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Bio of a financial planning expert with major COI concerns. Although the subject is an author and prolific commentator I am not finding in depth coverage in RIS to support this. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This is a challenging one. PROQUEST/newspapers.com is getting thousands of hits; simply because he is widely quoted in major newspapers (literally hundreds of articles in major American newspapers). However, I am not actually finding much coverage of him directly even though he is frequently quoted for interviews in IRA and tax related news coverage. He's clearly an established expert given the large body of articles for which he has been quoted as an expert (The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, etc.). The only thing I can find is interviews like [3]. Then we have AARP, promoting him as the nation's leading expert in retirement financial planning and promoting his writing [4]. Here is a decent review of his most recent book [5]. Given that so many major outlets are quoting him and going to him for an expert opinion and he appears to have a large impact on retirement planning in America, I am going to say this is a keep per criteria 1 of WP:AUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per 4meter4's analysis. Seems to have made a notable contribution to his field, as confirmed by multiple reliable sources. Significant coverage is the gold standard, but WP:ANYBIO is still relevant. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 4meter4, though I personally feel the interview for being WP:PRIMARY and the Forbes Article being written by a contributor, per WP:FORBESCON these aren't of much value while considering notability. But the other references are sufficient to establish his notability. The Public training section should be shortened. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Community Network[edit]

Vancouver Community Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG Ward330 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:WEB per multiple independent refs in the article and those located in google books. Not clear the a competent WP:BEFORE was done by the nominator. Here are a few examples from google books: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc.4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per above references - also I did a quick Proquest search, which finds other significant coverage. Nfitz (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet entrepreneurs[edit]

List of Internet entrepreneurs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

List article does not meet WP:NLIST- lacks clearly defined inclusion criteria supported by sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Search results return lists of Internet entrepreneurs by certain categories, especially by wealth, success or country. Among them are [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18], but I don't know if they're good enough for the article to meet WP:NLIST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One sourced, easily a magnet for non-notables to be thrown onto the list with no scrutiny. The category system works better for a list like this. Nate • (chatter) 00:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Astig. A clearer criteria for inclusion/focus to the list could be sorted out through editorial consensus on the talk page. 4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We should keep lists which can aid navigation or provide information and I would say the list fits in WP:LISTN. It is not indiscriminate and the list is defined. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crombie REIT[edit]

Crombie REIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional article. Does not meet WP:NCORP since sources are largely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sawada Katsuo (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator has been blocked for spamming. I am not closing this nomination so that it can be evaluated on its merits (or lack thereof) - just because they are a spammer doesn't mean they're wrong. MER-C 17:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A company that is a component of a stock market index such as the S&P/TSX Composite Index can be expected to be notable. As well, there are several good references in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatically, see WP:LISTED. We need references, I've check for analyst reports but the first quick check hasn't turned up anything although it is "covered" by analysts. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eastmain.4meter4 (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it is a component of a major stock index.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Catechism (Hardon)[edit]

The Catholic Catechism (Hardon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is completely unsourced, and I could do little better. I found one book review of which what I could read was fairly negative. Besides that there were a few mentions in blog posts which appear to have been more about the authr than about the book. The rather purple claim that it "remains a standard work on Catholic orthodoxy even to this day" I could not verify; indeed, it's not all that clear that many people cared. Searching on this was somewhat hindered by numerous false hits if one didn't specify the exact title, and by Google's wish to give me something even if it didn't really match the search, so perha[s someone can salvage this, but thus far the only real source for the article would appear to be the book itself, maybe. Mangoe (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book seems to have a lot of citations on Google Scholar. It's possible that there might be in-depth coverage in some of them, but I'm not quite able to check through all of them quickly. I'd be surprised if this doesn't wind up meeting WP:NBOOK, but I don't have affirmative evidence that it does. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Moderately well-known even to non-catholics such as myself. I'm unhappy that this proposal includes the comment "I found one book review of which what I could read was fairly negative": whether a review is positive or negative is not material to a book's notability. I think it's fairly clear that the book meets criterion 3 of WP:NBOOK: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." RomanSpa (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's also worth noting that the book was commissioned by Pope Paul VI himself, which might on its own create notability. RomanSpa (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meet WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews, article has been updated to reflect this. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved since nomination by the addition of references to significant coverage such as reviews in reliable secondary publications so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NBOOK after improvements.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:NBOOK.4meter4 (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it has many reviews and citations, and the negativity of a review does not impact notability whatsoever.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Oliver (actor)[edit]

Gary Oliver (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep his significant roles qualify him WP:NACTOR#1. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally wouldn't describe a role in a TV show for one or two episodes as "significant"; the role of Joseph Stalin might be significant in Bitter Harvest, but I don't think that significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions is met by the roles shown. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is primarily active as a stage actor; mainly regional things but also the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal National Theatre. I added multiple critical reviews for productions he has been in from respected publications. These are enough to pass criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR in conjunction with the Bitter Harvest film. I would also argue the recurring role on Game of Thrones and the portrayal of Herod in the religious miniseries about Jesus might lend some notability too towards NACTOR criteria 1.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Western Flyer. ✗plicit 23:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Charles (musician)[edit]

Steve Charles (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Autobiography. This lead guitarist and vocalist is not independently notable from his country music band, the Western Flyer. Much of the content on this page is unsourced. Mottezen (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or possibly Redirect to Western Flyer. Definitely an autobiography as seen in the article's early edit history, and besides, who else cares that he once lived in Stow, OH or what he got credit for in college. Outside of Western Flyer, he is only ever mentioned briefly in the credits for other people's works and articles about them, and his behind-the-scenes career has gained no significant and reliable coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An obvious vanity page. No significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Western Flyer; there just isn't anything here demonstrating notability, although I'd be willing to change my opinion if someone provided sources saying otherwise. jp×g 01:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Western Flyer. Not independently notable.4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dick van Dijk (darts player)[edit]

Dick van Dijk (darts player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BASIC. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A search through LexisNexis yielded the following secondary independent in-depth coverage that makes this darting world champion easily pass WP:GNG (the archives of those newspaper's websites unfortunately don't go this far back):

"Dick van Dijk zit Van Barneveld op de hielen" (Dick van Dijk is on Van Barneveld's heels) – De Gelderlander (6 November 2003)

"Darter Van Dijk wereldkampioen" (Darter Van Dijk world champion) – NU.nl (1 October 2005)

"Dick van Dijk grijpt in Perth wereldtitel darts" (Dick van Dijk takes darting world title in Perth) – Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant (3 October 2005)

"Voorop: Dick van Dijk is opvolger van Barney" (In front: Dick van Dijk is successor of Barney) – Brabants Dagblad (3 October 2005)

"Darter Dick van Dijk voor zware opgave" (Darter Dick van Dijk at the beginning of a tough task) – De Telegraaf (20 October 2005)

"Dick van Dijk slaapt in ander bed bij zijn 'thuiswedstrijd'" (Dick van Dijk sleeps in a different bed ahead of his 'home game') – De Gelderlander (5 May 2006)

Tristan Surtel (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Heart Gallery[edit]

Paper Heart Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Defunct gallery with minimum PR and no indication of notability – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. – S. Rich (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete minor coverage, nothing in depth to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 23:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Defunct gallery fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Territory dependent on the Patriarch[edit]

Territory dependent on the Patriarch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no source which defines the subject, and the notability of the subject is dubious. Veverve (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- I would suggest Eastern Catholic territories dependent on patriarchs. This is essentially a list article, so that it does not require sources: the sources will be within the articles listed. Part of my reason for wanting a rename is that there appear to be three patriarchs involved, Jerusalem, Antioch and Babylon (Baghdad). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: This lists five patriarchs. And I do not see why the exact same information one can find on this website should be put on Wikipedia, as it would not provide any added value especially since the article does not reliably define the subject of the article. Veverve (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is certainly a source. However, as I read the linked articles, there are three Catholic denominations (rites), each with its own patriarch, who directly exercises jurisdiction over a non-diocesan territory. I thought this was worth ONE article. I did not find this clearly expressed on gcatholic website. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete At a minimum this needs some citation for the lead sentence, and yes, there do need to be some sources for the various entries. As it stands, it fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joca (footballer, born 1998)[edit]

Joca (footballer, born 1998) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL. Footballer whose professional play only consists of 71 minutes (no cup matches). Plays on the fourth tier without having broken through there either. Geschichte (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and GS above. Nowhere near GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose passes NFOOTY, and has active semi-pro career.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you so concerned with NFOOTY? Have you not seen the 100+ AFDs that support this deletion proposal? Geschichte (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There doesn't seem any credible denial of the claims by nom and GS. As far as WP:NFOOTY, at the top of that guideline's page, it's noted that NFOOTY is merely a rule of thumb; passing it does not mean that an article must be kept. Given the facts of this case, deletion is the way to go. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Science Show[edit]

Mr Science Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Searching on Google only yields blogs and distribution platforms. Searching on Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News Archives, and the Internet Archive yield no relevant results. Searching on Newspapers.com yields multiple sources discussion a show with the same name, but it appears to be a live show hosted by a different person (Tim Perkins in Florida not the West brothers in Australia). There are very few results when looking at "What links here" and the show doesn't appear to have won any awards so it doesn't pass WP:WEBCRIT. It also doesn't appear that James West is notable so I don't know if it's really worth redirecting or merging any content there. I'll do a WP:BEFORE and probably open an WP:AfD for that article as well. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Rename. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean Catholic Territory Dependent on the Patriarch of Jerusalem[edit]

Chaldean Catholic Territory Dependent on the Patriarch of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no source which defines the subject, and the notability of the subject is dubious. Veverve (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- The article actually says it is dependent on the Patriarch of Babylon, and run since 1970 by officials with various titles, initially vicar-general. It is not a diocese, but might become one. I would suggest Chaldean Catholic Territory of Jerusalem. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Yes, I agree with Peterkingiron - needs a rename. This nameing is awkward - seems to be an official catholic religious area, for which there are references, including - see link here Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in the discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hex (Poison Girls album)[edit]

Hex (Poison Girls album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NALBUM. There have been no significant reviews that I have been able to locate in Newspapers.com or Rock Backpages. I have added the Newspapers.com one to the article, but it essentially just says that the album was "essentially one song" in an article not written about the album.

Rock Backpages only has 7 articles about the band, of which only one mentions the album and confirms the songs.

Trouser Press devoted a couple sentences to the album, saying that it "makes no grand statements" and that that liked its guitar. This is not a non-trivial review of the album.

AllMusic never reviewed the album, so I am confused as to why it would give it 2 stars. As disclosure, I removed a rating from Trouser Press that failed verification as the source never rated the album as was stated in the Wikipedia article.

Based on what I have been able to find, this article does not meet the bar of "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." (1), never charted (see official charts having 0 results) (2), was certified gold (3), won a major award (4), performed on a notable medium (5), been on rotation that I can confirm with sources (6), or been "a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network" (7). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Though this was released in 1979, it was still selling well enough 2 years later to make the Independent Albums chart. It would certainly have received coverage at the time of its release, and there is coverage online, including a Pitchfork Review of a reissue, a Tinymixtapes review, as well as coverage in Matthew Worley's book No Future, and the aforementioned coverage in Trouser Press. --Michig (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Not enough for WP:NALBUM. Spudlace (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michig. Google books also has quality RS which can be used to meet WP:NALBUM and GNG. See [19], [20], [21]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources provided by Michig and 4meter4. Meets WP:NALBUM criterion 1. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Mountain Road[edit]

Jersey Mountain Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Uncited, non-notable local road. Bitmapped (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. It is likely that more are available offline for this long-established road, named after an obsolete name for a local mountain. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The cited sources establish only that this road exists; they don't provide any reason why the road might be notable. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(highways)#Secondary state highways and county highways, I would not object if this page were redirected to a list along the lines of List of county roads in Hampshire County, West Virginia, if such a list exists or is created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The cited sources do not establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Metropolitan90.4meter4 (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mule Creek Junction, Wyoming[edit]

Mule Creek Junction, Wyoming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unpopulated named intersection area does not have significant coverage to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. The article is mostly a general overview of regional history and roads in the area, very little of which is specific to Mule Creek Junction. –dlthewave ☎ 15:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This intersection is much better documented than both. It has historical markers: "Several historical and scenic markers at the rest area describe the setting." I added references to an innovative toilet system at the rest stop and to a former diner at this location. I think notability has now been demonstrated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historical markers are common at rest areas, but they're often more about the general area than the specific location. Do we know what the ones here cover? –dlthewave ☎ 18:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot see how this area meets WP:GEOLAND. My searches have not turned up anything. Lightburst (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete In point of fact one can look at the various markers through the wonders of Google's picture collectors. One is a standard Blue Star Memorial Highway marker, and the others are the sorts of regional interest stuff one often finds at a rest stop. None of them says anything about a settlement here. It's just a crossroads. Mangoe (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This used to be an inhabited location, and there are 159 newspaper results from Wyoming about it from 1929 onwards. In 1956 it is referred to as "a small community in Niobrara County". In 1964, it was a "little community of 30 people". There's also a mention in 1985. An anti-rustling task force was organized there in 1997, and in 1999 it was referred to as a hamlet which had a store, restaurant and bar (which burned down that same year). jp×g 23:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to have been a formerly inhabited place that was destroyed by a fire in 1999. Added some sources to show it meets GNG and GEOLAND. Is notable if nothing else for its rest stop. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, was at one point a populated place.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JPxG.4meter4 (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Dragon[edit]

Latin Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and nothing else was found on a WP:BEFORE search. The Film Creator (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found nothing that shows this movie passes WP:NFILM. I also didn't see coverage that shows that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Education Otherwise[edit]

Education Otherwise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

None of the sources cited were reliable and the article seemed to be written like an advertisment (despite being for a charity.) The first paragraph is directly copied from their website, educationotherwise.org. I couldn't seem to find any reliable sources with any significant amount of information about them, so their notability is doubtful too. Aalaa324 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article leaves a lot to be desired, but this is a significantly notable organisation, with plenty of coverage in printed media. Rathfelder (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What printed media? Do you have any examples?

Cited by Government Committee (PDF)

Referenced by local authorities

The go-to organisation for articles in the press

and The BBC. etc. etc. Lame Name (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having worked to get the initial article into an, admittedly poorly, but often reliably, sourced, acceptable form it is disappointing to see it reduced to its current state. This seems to be in part due to a few minutes of edits by Imaginationeducation who's only contributions seem to have removed substantial elements of this article, including referenced content, apparently because it was "out of date". Lame Name (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Unsigned above appears to be User:Aalaa324 Lightburst (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Rathfelder makes a good case that we have RS to V this charity's notability. We have surmountable problems here. Lightburst (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 23:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Davis (attorney)[edit]

Cameron Davis (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BASIC. I couldn't find much on Google regarding his role as Great Lakes Czar in the Obama administration, suggesting that the role isn't very notable. The sources provided in the article are either non-independent or unreliable. Only one pertinent source (Huffington Post) appears to meet WP:RSP.

His role in the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, a unit of local government, is non-notable per WP:NPOL. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional article about a lawyer simply doing his/her job. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. As a Czar he has significant coverage where he is the main subject. The best of which is James Janega (June 21, 2009). "Guardian of the Great Lakes: Obama Names Cameron Davis to organize restoration effort". Chicago Tribune. p. 3a.; a substantial article on Davis. Additionally, he has been criticized in media in that role in major publications like: "Obama's Many Policy Czar's Draw Ire From Conservatives". The Washington Post. 16 September 2009. p. A6 S. The Czar position was controvercial and has gotten significant coverage. This book provides some context to his role in the Obama administration which was divisive This book analyzes Davis's contributions to an article in The New York Times. There is a profile of him in this book. Here are a few articles he was interviewed for: [22], [23], Other coverage, includes [24], [25], [26], [27], Additionally, there are a lot of primary government sources in google books, and there are many articles in Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, and The New York Times in which he is interviewed for his opinions or policy making in regards to water management/ environmental issues extending back to the mid 1990s. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we have notability WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Just a jumble of archived PDFs for sources. KidAd • SPEAK 00:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gitali Devi[edit]

Gitali Devi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It was rejected 4 times by reviewers (User_talk:Bhargab.01), and moved to main space without improvements, and issues with WP:NBIO and WP:NM ~AntanO4task (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable still (I already declined twice as Draft:Gitali Devi) - Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO, WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - little to no coverage from third party sources.-KH-1 (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No RS coverage, no indication of notability. The bio on what I presume is the subject's Instagram page suggests that the article writer is her social media manager. Image licencing looks sus too - if he's the SM manager, then the copyright of the image (which is rather obviously a selfie) does not belong to him, and thus is not "own work". W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{t | c} 07:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG defcon5 (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is not any sources, can't pass GNG. ZEP55 (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Portuguese monarchs by longevity[edit]

List of Portuguese monarchs by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of Portuguese monarchs by age at accession to the throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Absolutely obvious WP:CFORK of List of Portuguese monarchs, which already includes all of this information; and not sorted according to an arbitrary criterion which fails WP:LISTN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The other list has the exact same issues: that content is also covered at the main list. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I agree, why have 2 lists of the same thing but in a different order.Masterhatch (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unnecessary content fork. Mccapra (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No encyclopedic purpose to such a list unless the criterion has actually been discussed significantly in IRS, which it has not. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the nom. The article is just a useless WP:CFORK with some WP:TRIVIA sprinkled in. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of vice presidents of India by longevity[edit]

List of vice presidents of India by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Trivial cross-categorisation ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which is also statistical trivia. The only cited sources (most of the footnotes are not actual sources) are for non-topic mentioning statements of unrelated facts. The rest fails WP:V, WP:LISTN, and probably violating WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I created this page, but now I realize that it is just trivial information. Per recent deletion discussions of "list of president/prime minister" of various nations, this should be deleted. Though, I should note that this probably doesn't violate WP:OR, as all the facts are indeed verifiable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Masterhatch (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. Mccapra (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivia. Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:Listcruft.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of state by longevity (batch 2)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

List of German presidents by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of presidents of Greece by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of prime ministers of India by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Trivial cross-categorisations ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which are also statistical trivia and which fail to cite a single source, thus mot meeting either of WP:V or WP:LISTN, and probably violating WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nom. Fails WP:V, WP:LISTN, and likely with serious WP:OR issues. The various related articles, such as List of heads of state of Greece, are all we need and of a far higher quality, not these redundant WP:TRIVIA regurgitations. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all passes WP:NLIST and scrapes by WP:GNG in my opinion 2001:8003:24D1:A000:2CEB:C26A:6ECD:B209 (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC) — 2001:8003:24D1:A000:2CEB:C26A:6ECD:B209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note The above IP had an incorrect and misleading signature. This was corrected. Additionally, on the substance of the comment; opinions that something meets GNG are not worth anything if they are not substantiated by actual sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All pass WP:SYNTH, WP:NLIST, WP:NOTSTATS. Recent precedent shows consensus that these types of lists are definitely encyclopedic. Green Hook 1224 (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC) — Green Hook 1224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  @Green Hook 1224 Can you provide link to that discussion? — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's simply too many of these list articles, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pratishtha Sharma[edit]

Pratishtha Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

She has done dance performances at places and founded a dance college. Coverage is shallow. Not notable for article. Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Efforts have been made over the course of the past 30 months to get the sourcing of this article improved. I reviewed all the sources provided back in 2019 and found nothing usable; and nothing of note has been added since. It seemed to me then that it was possible that better sources might be found in Hindi, but again nothing has been located in all this time, so it seems that Sharma simply isn't notable. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong but we will need much better quality sources for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hindu Article [28] has merit. If similar two more sources were to be found, this could be kept. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per nom and User:Chiswick excellent comments. The so-called Bharat College of Performing Arts is simply a yoga studio accepting children as young as 3 years old according to their own website. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. I discounted the 'close' argument, which seems to me to fall into 'assume bad faith' territory. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet[edit]

Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This article would be enough to stablish notability if it hadn't appeared in the Daily Mail. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. A dalliance with a female groom may be fit for a rag like the Daily Mail, but hardly constitutes notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as out of process. This AFD was launched less than 5 minutes after unrelated edits elsewhere. Absolutely zero chance WP:BEFORE was even considered. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment user:Stalwart111, you are making allegations of what is going on in someone else's head (on several pages) and misjudging it. As has been recommended to WIkiproject Notability before, the aim when assessing CAT:NN is partly to make sure AfD is never inundated, and so I keep an eye on numbers in the system, and delay nominating until there is more space for them, and then put them in together. Monitoring and assessing CAT:NN is a difficult balancing act. We won't always get it right, but are trying our best. This deserves to be judged on its merits, or lack thereof, not on what you guess has been going on in a stranger's brain. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What nonsense! The majority of your nominations are completed less than 2 minutes after edits elsewhere. With a massive 5-minute gap, this one is an anomaly. There's no way you're completing anything close to what WP:BEFORE requires and your nominations are just disruptive. Eventually someone will have the guts to block you. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Very little of the article is actually about the individual in question.2601:241:300:B610:D158:6D5E:6128:D10C (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets because the Daily Mail is not good enough coverage.--Creoda (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Dunford Wood[edit]

Jesse Dunford Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is partly a procedural nomination. The person exists. He is a chef, but all - or almost all - of the references do not even mention his name. When you do a Google search on his name, you get very little of any value. Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per nom, only one reference mentions this chef. General notability is not satisfied here. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is potentially some quality RS in google books: most notably this French language book where there is a profile of him: [29]. Snippet views/ blocked pages prevent getting a closer look at what looks the most promising. (such as [30]; [31]; My university library search yielded some of his recipes in The Independent and The Guardian, and I did find some interviews in culinary magazines, but we usually don't consider that independent enough to count towards RS at AFD. His 2017 cookbook Modern British Food: Recipes from Parlour may have reviews somewhere to count towards notability. Basically, I found a few good leads but nothing that definitely establishes notability. Not convinced yet that there isn't RS out there to be confident in a delete vote either.4meter4 (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think he's notable, the French book mentioned is more like a travel guide, the author picks favorite things and writes a bit about them. The rest don't seem more important. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Nocera[edit]

Joe Nocera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

promotional biography of a newspaper columnist, sourced to his own work. The purpose of his job is to give his opinions; the purpose of WP is not to repeat them. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He meets WP:AUTHOR with 3 Gerald Loeb Awards and a Pulitzer Prize for Commentary finalist spot, among other national-level awards. At least some of his books look like they meet WP:NBOOK. No objection to heavy pruning. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs with most awards, having a Pulitzer Prize is notable . Being merely a finalist for one is not. The Loeb awards are specialist awards for business journalism given in multiple categories, and therefore less important than thePulitzer Prize whcih represent the peak of the entire profession of journalism in the US. Previous practice at WP confirms it: Looking at he lists of award winners, I notice that only about 1/5 of the people listed have a WP article, and in almost all cases it's for other accomplishments, such as editor in chief of a major news service.

But I would not have noticed this article were it not almost all of the contents were long sections advocating his views, sourced to himself. It is, for example, not encyclopedic content that he supports fracking, or to give a list of the universities whose athletic policies he has criticized. This is spam, and puffery to increase the number of links. My decision whether to bother nominating borderline people for deletion is the degree of promotionalism and puffery and over-coverage in the article. There are far too many articles in WP about people who really shouldn't behere to try to remove them all. (If they are truly very notable it's another matter--then it can be enough to emove the promotionalism --unless the supporters refuse to let it get removed DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I agree with Hydronium^~Hydroxide in keeping the article as Nocera has notable achievements but perhaps pruning it. I think points brought up by DGG should be addressed. Tale.Spin (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Prune the article for superfluous content, and what of encyclopedic value is left? Doesn't seem like much at all would be left. Regardless of whether or not the man is notable, is there anything of value to readers to say about him? The article reads like a list of tangential facts about the person rather than anything that distinguishes him. If it would not be acceptable to publish an article consisting only of some notable person's name and picture with a blank article, I presume It should not be acceptable to publish an article with a notable person's name and picture followed by a lot of unimportant or fluff content. 23:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC). (comment by User:Cameron Brow)

• Keep First off, there are dead links and sources that are authored by the subject. Those need to be removed or reduced. Furthermore, there are reliable sources, independent of the subject that establishes notability, which includes the Pulitzer Prize nomination and the other award sources. The subject is clearly a highly respected figure in his industry. It should be a keep for now, but there should be more sources independent of the subject added later on. Multi7001 (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This seems like an obvious keep to me. Nocera has been a noted writer and columnist for decades. He would probably be notable even if he'd only ever been editorial director at Fortune. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certain competitive awards are so notable that even being a finalist makes a subject notable. (The Oscars and Grammys come to mind). I would consider the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism in the same league. WP:ANYBIO includes nominations for this reason. Passes criteria 4c of WP:JOURNALIST per being selected as a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. 4meter4 (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QuickSun Technologies[edit]

QuickSun Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only cites two sources. One is not independent, and the other is just a simple listing of information. Fails our notability standard for organizations. Coolperson177 (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolperson177 (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolperson177 (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly non-notable at this time , DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete can't pass GNG. ZEP55 (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Fails NCORP and GNG. TheChronium 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Muthukumara Samy Temple, Vennandur[edit]

Sri Muthukumara Samy Temple, Vennandur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Small insignificant temple with no sources available online. Given sources are fake. Venkat TL (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GNG is not met. Why are the sources fake? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete- Appears to fail WP:GEOFEAT. Cannot find significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:lacks coverage WP:SIGCOV fails GNG DEFCON5 (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former heads of state by longevity (batch 1)[edit]

List of heads of state of Bulgaria by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of presidents of Brazil by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of vice heads of state of Bulgaria by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of presidents of France by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of French prime ministers by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Trivial cross-categorisations ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which are also statistical trivia and which fail to cite a single source, thus mot meeting either of WP:V or WP:LISTN, and probably violating WP:OR (along with some outrageously unencyclopedic stuff) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Batch nomination; the same concerns apply throughout, and frankly I'd be really surprised if there's any of these "List of [former heads of state/other political office] by longevity" which is appropriate encyclopedic material instead of being mere trivia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We don't need 2 lists of the same thing but in a different order. Masterhatch (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nom. Fails WP:V, WP:LISTN, and with serious WP:OR concerns. The various related articles, such as List of heads of state of Bulgaria, are all we need and of a far higher quality, not these redundant WP:TRIVIA regurgitations. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NLIST and scrapes by WP:GNG in my opinion 2001:8003:24D1:A000:2CEB:C26A:6ECD:B209 (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC) -- 2001:8003:24D1:A000:2CEB:C26A:6ECD:B209 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Note The above IP had an incorrect and misleading signature. This was corrected. Additionally, on the substance of the comment; opinions that something meets GNG are not worth anything if they are not substantiated by actual sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All pass WP:SYNTH, WP:NLIST, WP:NOTSTATS. Recent precedent shows consensus that these types of lists are definitely encyclopedic. Green Hook 1224 (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC) — Green Hook 1224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  The above SPA comment has the additional problem of being entirely without evidence to support its claims. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - my goodness, how many of these frivolous list articles are there? GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Valley Camp & Resort[edit]

Hidden Valley Camp & Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This hotel doesn't seem to have received any significant coverage in any WP:RS. I can find listings in Tripadvisor, Airbnb, Facebook etc. but every hotel has this and it's insufficient to pass WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a hotel directory. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - an unremarkable hotel with no significant coverage. I was tempted to tag as A7. firefly ( t · c ) 11:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it come under a commercial organisation for purposes of A7? I know A7 criteria are quite strict so I didn't think hotels/buildings could be deleted under A7. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would likely meet A7 ((Db-inc)) for corporations/business. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per as the nominator. Non-notable hotel. No reliable sources. Does not meet with WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD guideline. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 11:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Hog Farm _Talk 06:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koprivna, Oštra Luka[edit]

Koprivna, Oštra Luka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable village. Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND guideline. References are not reliable. No notability. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 11:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 11:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 11:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Honesty and with respect, this nomination seems to me like a waste of time. The village is "Populated, legally recognized place" and is as such presumed to be notable. Even abandoned places are considered notable and often places without legal recognition. Here we have officially recognized settlement with over 500 inhabitants (per the 2013 census, and I have no idea why Tajwar claims that the official census data is unreliable source).--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Taj: I understand that you're relatively new around here. However, this is one of multiple frivolous nominations that you've brought to AfD recently. There are many various notability guidelines, and many are complex; I urge that you give a thorough read of the respective WP:SNGs, which can be found at Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines, before you do more nominations that are, quite frankly, wastes of time. This locale is a legally regocnized populated place, meaning it passes WP:GEOLAND. Curbon7 (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep yet another mundane gazetteer entry per WP:5P1. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly a recognised settlement per WP:GEOLAND. May I respectfully suggest that the nominator familiarises himself with Wikipedia notability guidelines before nominating anything else for deletion. On the strength of current nominations, he doesn't have a great deal of familiarity with them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for German-Polish Cooperation[edit]

Foundation for German-Polish Cooperation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No references for now. Non-notable. Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:ORG guideline. I've searched on google but didn't find any reliable, independent, secondary source. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found references by searching for the German and Polish names of the foundation. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eastmain: My language is Bengali. So I can't find references by searching for the German and Polish names of the foundation. Thanks ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 11:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  From WP:OR: " the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language" -GorgonaJS (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tajwar.thesuperman I don't read German, but I can still search for something using GScholar, for example, using a German name of the organization, and then google translating the results... just a hint about how to improve your BEFORE next time you want to AfD a topic where some sources may be in a language you don't speak. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I also found references by searching for the German and Polish names of the foundation. Polish sources are reliable. -GorgonaJS (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It n ow has sufficient references. Rathfelder (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current article is still poorly sourced, but a search for the Polish name "Fundacja Współpracy Polsko-Niemieckiej" reveals some reliable academic RS: [32], [33]. Given that two academic articles seem to focus on this NGO in depth, plus there are various mentions in passing, I think it passes NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hin Dat railway station[edit]

Hin Dat railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable. Doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:STATION#Stations guideline. I've searched 'Hin Dat railway station' on google but didn't find any reliable, secondary, independent source. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 10:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All railway stations are automatically notable. You need to consider the references that are already in the article, not just what you find with Google. The two Japanese-language books (I have added translations of their titles) look like very useful references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are three sources already in the article. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed Foursquare, which is not a reliable source. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All railway stations are automatically notable as per Eastmain's argument. I believe this situation is also clear since it is a railway 'station' NOT a railway 'halt', a point of which was raised in the nomination for deletion of Aviation Academy railway halt six years ago and even then, consensus was to keep the article.Bahndosi (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As far as I know, railway stations are not automatically notable, and a 2019 RfC indeed found no consensus to support the claim. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The station is very much WP:MILL, and I have not seen any piece of information about it that goes beyond the general directory listing. The Japanese-language book sources are inaccessible to me, and I would appreciate if Bahndosi could provide some context as to what degree of coverage they provide that is specific to this station, and confirm that he/she actually used them as sources (rather than just slapping them on as citations without actually having read them). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article has now only 2 sources which have no link. ➤ Tajwar ^Chat? 14:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:OFFLINESOURCES, from what I can see it is not unreasonable that the books could possibly have significant coverage of this station, so will be Wp:AGF that they do. Jumpytoo Talk 19:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. WP:MILL is subjective, personally I value individual station articles and feel they improve Wikipedia. I feel having an article for every railway station is an easy way to create consistency and avoid repeated discussion over what stations are and aren't notable. NemesisAT (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Northeastern Line (Thailand)#Stations_list, which has the exact same information with much less padding. A section on "notable stations" in the article on the rail line implies that this one isn't one of them. And it really isn't hard to tell the difference: notable stations as a rule are notable buildings. Mangoe (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All railway stations are regarded as notable by longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:STATION (an essay on notability) says delete if not a major station or on a busy line. (If not, merge to the line article.) WP:RAILOUTCOMES tells that rail stations routinely survive AfD. However, the best advice is found in in the 2019 RfC mentioned by Paul_012 is that rail stations and halts should routinely survive NPP provided two notability criteria are met. I am going with this last one, it has very good considerations. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Saraswat[edit]

Dheeraj Saraswat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable lyricist. Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: lacks coverage; couldn’t find secondary sources. Fails WP:GNGdefcon5 (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:1E. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:1E.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep: withdrawn by nominator and no !votes to delete. XOR'easter (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

R. Radhakrishnan[edit]

R. Radhakrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No independent WP:RS available and article has no sources. Fails WP:BIO. - SUN EYE 1 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, Other users have added awards and sources and updated more of his works since the nomination. - SUN EYE 1 04:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article can use some help but easily passes WP:PROF#C5 The Banner talk 08:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Shouldn't there by independent WP:RS in the first place. As per WP:NACADEMIC, Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable., are there any reliable sources? - SUN EYE 1 10:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. The University of California, Irvine, is reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Phil Bridger It is not independent to pass WP:BIO and most of its content is very likely written by him, it even has a section called "My Wikipedia site is: R. Radhakrishnan" and the " Research Abstract" section starts with "I am now completing a couple of booklength manuscripts...." - SUN EYE 1 12:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The standard for WP:PROF#C5 is "reliable", not "independent". It's even explained in black and white in section (a) of that criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 10:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm recusing from this one because I work for the same university, but I added several more book reviews to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is "Chancellor's Professor" considered a named chair? JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That one I do have significant knowledge of (I have both held the title and chaired the committee that reviewed candidates for the title). There's a description at [34]. It's not an endowed chair because it doesn't come with any money (it's just a job title, like "Distinguished Professor"). In practice it's at a level significantly above full professor, roughly corresponding to fellows of major societies (one of the markers the committee looks for in its evaluations). It's a step below Distinguished Professor, though. At the University of California, faculty are ranked at "steps" within each major rank (assistant professor 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, associate 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, full professor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or above scale). At the full professor level the normal time to progress from one step to the next is three years, but progress is not automatic; each step involves an evaluation of recent scholarship and teaching, and if these aren't good enough it's possible to get stuck at some steps and stop progressing. Chancellor's Professor is separate from the step system but wouldn't normally be given until a faculty member has reached at least full professor step six (so, 15 years from promotion to full), and Distinguished Professor is currently equivalent to full professor above scale (one more step past the highest numbered step, step nine); both of those steps involve whole-career reviews like those to associate or full. We also have titles like "University Professor" that are even higher-level than that. You'll have to judge for yourself how that compares with WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that is a lot more ranking gradation than I would have ever anticipated. It sounds like in addition to now being distinguished there's a good chance he's also a fellow of a major society if that's a criterion for promotion? JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, we go to all this effort and for what? Nobody outside the system can be expected to understand it. Anyway, re the fellowship, not necessarily. If he were a fellow, that would have been persuasive evidence that he was also at the level expected for Chancellor's Professor, but he's in the humanities and they don't have as many fellowship-offering societies as the science and engineering disciplines, so more likely other evidence would have been used to make that decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It appears that since our article was written he has become a Distinguished Professor; see his name in the list at [35]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Keep then. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per C5. JoelleJay (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per The Banner. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is established in the sources. Multi7001 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NuWave[edit]

NuWave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear notable. After an initial search, I could not find any independent sources. ––FormalDude talk 07:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 07:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - however, it is disturbing that formaldude seems to be doing this out of spite because I caught a poor edit made by him about adding a product the company produces. Nonetheless, there are few non-promotional citations and probably chould be deleted. SanVeneto (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SanVeneto: I'm not doing it out of spite, but your comment on my talk page did cause me to look into the article further and come to the conclusion that it should be taken here. ––FormalDude talk 03:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadeesh V Viswam[edit]

Jagadeesh V Viswam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Most sources I could find are sources related to the subject, eg. social media, and other probably-independent sources I could find cannot establish notability per WP:NBIO or WP:GNG —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 07:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 07:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 07:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage defcon5 (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. strictly self-promotional Rogermx (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]