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

The result was Merge and redirect. Those arguing to keep this article have not demonstrated that the subject meets GNG. Citing general principles, such as WP:PRESERVE, without demonstrating why they apply in this specific case, does not contribute to this discussion. As this topic does not meet WP:CRIN, that essay is quite irrelevant to this discussion also. I'm closing this as "merge and redirect" given that a reasonable target has been presented, some sourced content has been shown to exist, and no convincing argument has been made against a merger specifically. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherton Cricket Club

Netherton Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD removed without reason. This cricket club does not play in an ECB Premier League so fails WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines and cannot be considered to be otherwise notable with no historical notability, failing WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:CRIN is an essay and so has "no official status". The club is over 100 years old and so is certainly historic. Detailed sources seem easy to find such as Netherton Cricket Club 1866–1966 One Hundred Years of Cricket and so we have good material for further work per policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Other applicable policies include WP:BURO, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Netherton Cricket Club 1866–1966 One Hundred Years of Cricket is published by the Netherton Cricket Club according to Netherton%20Cricket%20Club%201866%E2%80%931966%20One%20Hundred%20Years%20of%20Cricket&f=false - so as a self-published primary source, does not count greatly towards notability and meeting GNG - where is the significant coverage in independent reliable sources?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Hundreds, if not thousands of cricket clubs in England are over 100 years old. But what makes them historically notable? And as Nigel Ish points out, that source is self-published so doesn't add to GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Andrew Davidson, WP:CRIN is an essay, not policy. Dudley Chronicle article on 11 August 1927 says it is "one of the oldest clubs in the country". NemesisAT (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Again, this may well be, but how does this imply wider notability? StickyWicket (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is an example of WP:SIGCOV, which goes towards establishing notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• On balance, delete - it's old, but hasn't done anything notable in that time. Being old by itself doesn't make it notable - and 1866 isn't old in cricket club terms. If it was 1766 I'd consider this more, but by the mid 19th-century clubs were cropping up all over the place. Given the issues with cricket notability guidelines, we're trying really, really hard to cut things down, not open them up. If this were a football club playing in a lower county league and was formed in, say, 1930 (the respective difference in age - although I may be slightly too generous in the comparison), we wouldn't think twice about deleting it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local club without substantive independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 15:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the references add up to passing GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Netherton, West Midlands. That article only has a passing mention of the club, and some of the content in the article could be moved there. I'm on the fence about if this club is notable enough for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. It is already mentioned in Netherton, West Midlands, and a little more information could be added there. --Bduke (talk) 23:49, 15 August 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Marine Group

Synergy Marine Group (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 significant coverage to have a wikipedia article. Could not find any useful sources. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the recent improvements made on the article, I wish to withdraw my nomination. Im with the opinion that the article now satisfies GNG criteria. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft delete (that is deletion should be treated as a WP:PROD deletion). Except for possibly the second citation from Times of India (which could be a press release, it's hard to tell), I don't see any significant coverage of this company. The statements made in the article are credible assertions of significance, which protect it from speedy deletion, but it seems that a company of this size and reach is likely notable should have more coverage. So I'd say, soft-delete it for now, allowing it to be restored later if further sources are found. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good effort, but those references aren't any good. All but two are trivial mentions, and of those two that aren't, one is about another company and the other one, which actually has decent coverage, has no byline at all, suggesting it's a press release. WP:CORPDEPTH is required. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I did a Google news search and found many many more news. I have added a few more sentences and citations. The company is notable.Webmaster862 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Webmaster862: see, that's the problem. Those sources have no bylines either, suggesting press releases or fed to the publication by the company, and the new one from hellenicshippingnews says at the bottom "Source: Synergy Group". Yes, there is coverage, but not independent coverage. And the book citation? Come on. That doesn't even mention the company, it just has the keywords "synergy" and "group". ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete : As per nominator. Iamfarzan (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my vote to Keep as per WP:HEY. Iamfarzan (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I have removed advertisment like portions from the article and added some reliable sources. I think they are giving enough significant coverage, if not alone then combined together. Alphaonekannan (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I had made the wish to withdraw this nomination at the top. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 16:26, 25 August 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TMRO

TMRO (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. The Wired article contains less than one hundred words of content dedicated to the subject. The Twin City Live source is a permanently dead video with less written prose than the Wired article. The Star Tribune article is mostly WP:INTERVIEW material and is therefore a primary source. Searching for sources that aren’t already being cited yields trivial mentions from NBC News, BusinessInsider (WP:BI), and Space.com but there are no in-depth sources that would demonstrate WP:SIGCOV or even provide useful information for writing an Encyclopedia article without WP:ORIGINAL research. The Space Frontier source says that the subject received the “2010 Best Presentation of Space Award”. The Space Frontier Foundation does have a Wikipedia page, but it only contains bare URLs to sources that, at a glance, don’t appear to demonstrate WP:N. I don’t think this article would qualify for WP:WEBCRIT despite the award, but either way WEBCRIT states that “In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria,” and I’m not seeing independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability. Jami Higginbotham, Cariann Higginbotham, Jared Head, and Ryan Caton don't have Wikipedia articles so there isn't really a place to merge the content. It's also worth noting that even if the hosts or guests were notable this show doesn't WP:INHERIT that notability. If someone is able to scrounge up some sources or if the award is notable enough to save the article it needs some cleanup considering only two out of the fifteen paragraphs in the body of the article even contain references. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My-King Johnson

My-King Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The only SIGCOV I've found of Johnson are articles saying he'd be the first gay D-I player—Except he wasn't. Johnson was dismissed before playing a game at Arizona. Afterwards he went to New Mexico Military Institute. It appears he does not play anymore. Fails 1: WP:GNG as only one piece with SIGCOV; 2: WP:NCOLLATH as he did not play and won no major awards; & 3: WP:NGRIDIRON as he never played pro. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete says the article's creator. I jumped the gun on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: Given the extent of coverage noted below, I don't think you jumped the gun. Cbl62 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NGRIDIRON Suonii180 (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as his career never materialized, but passes WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable sources:
  1. "My-King Johnson to be first active openly gay scholarship player in major-college football". ESPN. AP. February 25, 2017.
  2. The Blavity Team (March 1, 2017). "My-King Johnson is First Openly Gay Man to Get Major Football Scholarship". Teen Vogue.
  3. Rosendall, Richard (May 10, 2017). "Gay High School Player Wins Courage Award". GLAA.
  4. Rosenblatt, Zack (August 12, 2017). "Arizona Wildcats football: On My-King Johnson and Jalen Harris, Ricky Hunley, kickers, recruiting". Arizona Daily Star.
  5. Lev, Michael (May 3, 2019). "My-King Johnson, Devaughn Cooper dismissed from Arizona football team". Arizona Daily Star.

  His name is in the headlines and he's covered in depth in these articles. Additional reporting can be found in The Guardian, the Washington Post, and on Telesur: his scholarship was national and international news. pburka (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@pburka My opinion: 1. is WP:SIGCOV; no. 2. is pretty much the same topic; no. 3 I'm not sure about, it is different but appears short.; no. 4 is under the "blog" section; and no. 5 appears to me as routine coverage. My opinion of GNG for sports bios is 3 independent sources, different topics (I would count the 50 articles about him coming out as 1) with SIGCOV. All the SIGCOV I see is the same topic, him coming out as gay. No 3. you listed may be SIGCOV, but to me it seems too short. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I understand the nom's concern about lack of on-field accomplishments, but he was the first openly gay scholarship player at the Division I FBS level. More importantly, the media coverage is sufficiently overwhelming (and here for good reason) that the subject clearly passes WP:GNG. Here are examples of the WP:SIGCOV: (1) this (international feature coverage in a major English newspaper), (2) this (more international coverage in the UK), (3) this (national feature coverage in ESPN.com); (4) this (national feature coverage in The Washington Post); (5) this (national feature coverage in The Nation), (6) this (national coverage in SI.com), (7) this (national feature coverage in Teen Vogue), (8) part one/part two (in depth feature coverage in Arizona's leading newspaper), (9) part one/part two, (10) this (national coverage at Fox Sports), (11) this (national coverage from NBC News), (12) this (national coverage in The Advocate), and (13) this (national coverage from CBS Sports). If those aren't enough, see also (14) this, (15) this, (16) this, (17) this, (18) this,(19) this, (20) this, (21) this, (22) this, and (23) this. Cbl62 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It appears that they meet WP:GNG, but I think they should also be considered in the context of WP:BLP1E. BilledMammal (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, too, but the coverage is not limited to one event. While his Feb 2017 commitment to UA as the first openly-gay scholarship player is understandably a focus of much (but not all) of the coverage, the coverage extends to his high school career, his initial commitment to UCLA, his later commitment to Arizona, his redshirt freshman season at UA, and his removal from the team for rules violations. I also don't think he falls within prongs 2 and 3 of BLP1E. Cbl62 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, if the coverage is because of him being gay, that's not a "one-time event." It's an immutable characteristic, so it would literally be his whole life. Smartyllama (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fails NGRIDIRON but clearly passes GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 18:21, 25 August 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 Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Laptop and hard drive. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Biden laptop controversy

Hunter Biden laptop controversy (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 article is redundant to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory among others. soibangla (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is an independently WP:NOTABLE controversy that is out of the scope for Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, as it is currently named. This controversy is reported by RS to involve 1) the Democratic party which - on behalf of Joe Biden - denied an allegation that is possibly supported by laptop data, 2) a group of 50 former intelligence professionals who made the widely publicised but unsubstantiated claim - during the 2020 election - that this laptop is part a Russian information operation and 3) elements of the mainstream media are allegedly suppressing this story due to lack of access to primary data - just like they did with another topic we all know about - and 4) Federal officials delaying "actions" so as not to adversely effect the outcome of the 2020 elections in favor of alleged Russian's goals. I created this article in good faith because I read the sources referenced here and also read the comments of multiple editors on the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory talk page who do not believe its claims are verifiable or neutral. I would agree to a merge this page with that page if it is renamed as Biden–Ukraine controversy, or something similarly neutral, and reworked to reflect more up-to-date sources. CutePeach (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What did the Democratic party deny that is possibly supported by the laptop data? 50 former intelligence professionals who made the widely publicised but unsubstantiated claim...that this laptop is part a Russian information operation significantly misrepresents what they actually said. Here you say I am new to this subject yet this obvious POVFORK article was created. Consequently I now recommend WP:SPEEDY soibangla (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The group of former intelligence professionals said it had "hallmarks" of a Russian information operation, which is reflected accurately in the article. What the WSK oped says is that they had no way of knowing this and were likely just trying to prevent another Comey type fiasco, and I laud them for that, but elections are over now. Time for WP:COMMONSENSE. We have no idea if/how the Russians are involved and what data from the laptop feeds into whacky conspiracy theories, and what makes up a legitimate political controversy. Good night now. CutePeach (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

former intelligence professionals said it had "hallmarks" of a Russian information operation is not what you just said here: this laptop is part a Russian information operation soibangla (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Russians releasing this video from this laptop in which he says he lost another laptop with even worse videos - to Russians who wonna blackmail him - is just too many wheels inside wheels, which not only makes no sense, but also isn't supported by RS. The FBI - which now has possession of the laptop - hasn't issued any statement in this regard, so we have no idea if/how the Russians were/are involved. Until then, this is just a controversy and there is no conspiracy, man. CutePeach (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your new article is predicated on a report by an unreliable source and echoed by a handful of dubious/unreliable sources. This is not sufficient basis for a new article. soibangla (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/merge - The content in this article is DUE in the same exact proportion as content on the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory article. It just uses more controversial sourcing (Newsweek, NY Post, etc), and has a title that appears to make this conspiracy theory more plausible than is warranted. I would even go so far as to say this article is a POVFORK of Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory. I don't believe it has notability independent of that theory, and it is never mentioned outside of that theory in our RSes. Ergo, should be redirected to that article, and any non-redundant DUE NPOV content that is of high quality should be merged into a new section of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC) (vote updated to rd/m 17:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete Redundant with Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, and possessing a stilted title that makes for an unlikely search term. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant to other articles and a POVFORK. The opening is NPOV, but the section about the right wing whining that the story is being covered up is quite POV. Rather than focus on the 50 former intelligence officials who tagged this as a "Russian information operation", the focus goes to Holman W. Jenkins Jr. criticizing them, even while he celebrates a deprecated source in WP:DAILYMAIL and one that probably should be deprecated in WP:NYPOST. Nothing is presented about the refutation of allegations, such as Biden campaign denials that are readily available. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu Sorry, I am new to American Politics on Wikipedia. Are you saying that if a Filipino party denied an allegation made against its leader, then we on Wikipedia could put it as fact in article titles and content, before the Filipino government has conducted an investigation on the matter? What about Zimbabwean or Syrian political parties? I can understand how adding the Biden campaign denials to this article would improve it, and I would encourage you to do so, but I don't get how deleting the article - cutting off our nose to spite our face - somehow makes it better. I certainly don't get how such an argument is based on policy. Please see WP:POVDELETION. CutePeach (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - POVFORK of Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. I don't think there's much here worth merging, it's already covered using more reliable sources at Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Laptop and hard drive. This previously contained BLP violating content, which I removed per WP:GRAPEVINE; the remaining article body is centred on an opinion piece discussing these allegations, which come from two disreputable low-quality tabloids, as Muboshgu points out above. The coverage in some of these tabloid attack pieces is getting pretty nasty, they should be treated with extreme caution per BLP. Jr8825 • Talk 16:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Laptop and hard drive. Per WP:POVFORK. The contents of Hunter Biden laptop controversy duplicates the contents of Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, but with a more right-leaning POV and WP:UNDUE problems, giving too much weight to an opinion columnist. I disagree with deletion, I think this should be a redirect, I find the search term plausible. I disagree with merging, the material is already covered at Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, and is covered with the correct NPOV/WEIGHT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POVFORK. The article overlaps with material already presented elsewhere. See discussion at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy. TFD (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (merge if applicable, I guess) - this isn't a separate topic from Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory and it has little potential for enough growth to require forking the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. There's already appropriate discussion of the laptop there. History of this page will remain accessible if anyone sees anything worth merging. --BDD (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article has been changed so drastically from the Stub I started it as [1] that it does indeed read exactly like a fork of the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article, which is misleading for new editors joining the discussion. Gone is the statement sourced from Business Insider saying the laptop data was claimed to incriminate Hunter and harm his father's candidacy. Gone is the CNN report quoting Hunter saying the laptop could have belonged to him, which potentially proves the provenance of the data. Gone is the report of Hunter naked in bed talking about another lost laptop that the entire world saw but which Wikipedia some Wikipedia editors consider too controversial conspiracy for the chaste eyes of our innocent readers. I personally don't actually believe the data on this laptop incriminates or hurts the Bidens all that much, but I don't believe it is a conspiracy theory to say the laptop is his and was possibly handed to Trump allies by a regular dude (and not some Russians, which is in reference to a different earlier lost laptop) - yet some editors here are reacting in a knee jerk fashion as if I and the sources I provide claim otherwise. This is yet another example of how the entire world gets to gets to see the emperor naked (quite literally in this case), while POVPUSHING Wikipedians spin yarn. CutePeach (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this subject. Others are not. soibangla (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been topic-banned in one area, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive291#CutePeach. Diving into another contentious topic area and then being extremely combative and belligerent towards others who hold a different point of view does not bode well. Zaathras (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge two articles keeping this name. More NPOV name. There is a conspiracy theory (Biden engaged in corrupt activities) and there is other stuff that may be true [2], so this name is much more suitable. A lot of people use Motte-and-bailey tactics here: if the former is a conspiracy theory than everything tangentially related to it is also fake news. Alaexis_¿question? 19:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  One topic is a notable political smear relating to a US election and involving 2 US Presidents, the other is about the (currently unproven) dodgy dealings of a private businessman which have had only brief, passing coverage in quality sources. If that private citizen was anyone other than Biden's son it wouldn't be considered remotely suitable for a separate article because of BLP policy, not least the section on attack pages. There's WP:BLPCRIME to consider as well. The vast majority of coverage on this comes from tabloid smears and disclosures of alleged hacked material – including sensitive personal details – which are not suitable for an encyclopedia. Hunter's biography can include the information that's reported by RS, but I don't believe there's enough of it to warrant a separate article with this title, and a neutral article can't be produced from the little material there is (again, because of BLP/attack pages). This title is not a substitute for the article on Joe Biden and Ukraine, as it's only related to one aspect of that affair, despite the fact it was essentially forked from it. Concerns about the conspiracy theory article's name are a separate issue, and are a topic for its talk page. Jr8825 • Talk 20:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree with that. It was an important story in and of itself. It has been covered by reliable sources and it is also a media story - what gets and what doesn't get covered. As The Boston Globe puts it [3]:

So pretending that the conspiracy theory is the only thing that is notable here is not right. Alaexis_¿question? 21:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was before the laptop story so it's probably better to merge everything into one article with a more neutral title. Alaexis_¿question? 21:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden's conflict of interest in Ukraine is covered in the article on the conspiracy theory, and is only tangentially related Hunter's Biden's alleged laptop – the sources I read said the conflict of interest was caused by Hunter simply having the Burisma job in the first place. If elements of the "laptop story" are mentioned in reliable sources, then my view is that coverage belongs in Hunter Biden's article. My assessment is that it hasn't had enough coverage to warrant a separate topic – and that there's not enough material to write a neutral article (as I mentioned above). Jr8825 • Talk 22:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, it is a stretch to say there is enough material to justify an article. A section on the main article is enough. Zaathras (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:POVFORK issues with weak sourcing. KidAd • SPEAK 22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory per WP:POVFORK. Creator is new to American Politics on Wikipedia ... and should learn from this. starship.paint (exalt) 06:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge to the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory article. That article already MORE than adequately covers the topic, and we don't need a redundant article. It's a lesser part of the greater topic, and doesn't need its own article. --Jayron32 17:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory article. It is currently a big BLP violation, so I have blanked it for now. This AfD can then determine its fate. -- Valjean (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the existing article. There are not enough strong sources to support a standalone article. I believe this should be a notable enough topic for RS to cover, but for some reason they don't want to. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Laptop and hard drive, per WP:POVFORK. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Does it seem to others that there is a prompt and solid consensus for a redirect and deletion? soibangla (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Closing AFDs early is sometimes controversial. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Could potentially be closed early per the snowball clause. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory Nitesh003 (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Panties

The Devil's Panties (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 exists, but the coverage and significance are not enough to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable webcomic, it exists, has a few fans, presumably, but no WP:SIGCOV sufficient to pass GNG. At best, this can be mentioned on some list of webcomics. The author does not appear to be notable, so no valid redirect target other than such list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is a pretty old article, and the webcomic's been running since 2001 -- which means it means my personal standard of whether I think something is notable. Whether Wikipedia thinks it's notable is a different question. I'm going to look for some sources -- so far, I've found some from Buzzymag, Comic Strip Fan, and SPBURKE. I haven't heard of these websites before, so I don't know about their reliability. jp×g 08:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also got Bleedingcool. There is a Kotaku article, which I know is well-regarded, but I'm not sure if it has SIGCOV (not the primary subject of the article). jp×g 08:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzymag and SPBURKE are interviews and not independent. ComicStripFan is a fan site, not reliable. Bleeding Cool and Kotaku are not substantial.

• Delete, cannot locate significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources that show notability. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: I don't think this passes notability. The most sources I found that could be considered independent and substantial are this book review, this interview for Dragon Con, and maybe some other interviews like this, this, and this. That might be enough, but probably not. I'd also say that if it is kept it drastically needs rewriting. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep that's actually a fair number of sources. A lot of them are interviews or based on interviews, but that's not exactly a shocking way for an author to be covered. I don't poo-poo interviews as sources as much as others when considering WP:N, so that's probably part of it. But even if you don't like interviews for WP:N, the publishers weekly review is above the bar for sure and ComicStripFan is certainly reliable in its area. I wouldn't use it for things outside of comic strips, or even for BLPs related to comic strips, but for this? Sure. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article's quality should be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion per our policies. Based on the sources discussed by HenryCrun15 and Hobit, I think this passes the WP:GNG. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This one's borderline, but ultimately for me I agree with HenryCrun that the sources aren't significant enough to meet our inclusion threshold. It's a notability case made of a house of very flimsy sourcing trying to buttress the shaky claim to fame. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable, for reasons outlined by others above. ––FormalDude talk 01:31, 8 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 00:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantina Pirkas

Konstantina Pirkas (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 indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NACTOR. I am unable to find significant discussion of her in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article does not even point us to anything that would have been a significant role in a notable production, even one that we can critique and show was either not significant or not in a notable production. While academics of theatre/acting can be notable for such, we would have to have substantial publications, or being the head of a university, or being editor-in-chief of an academic journal related to acting/theatre that is considered a significant publication, none of which we are even close to seeing indicated. This is the largest failure of actress notability I have ever seen for an actress, and one of the most extreme failures of academic notability I have ever seen for an academic. Of course if we applied a rule like the football notability rule to academics, the academic equivalent might be met here, but that is not at all our rule, so clearly no notability guidelines are met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 19 August 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) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dragon of Despair

The Dragon of Despair (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:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirect to Jane Lindskold#Bibliography. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've added some reviews to the article and removed a blatant copyvio. It should now meet WP:NBOOK, though I will refrain from !voting (note: other articles about related books might need the same attention). Isabelle ^🔔 17:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In my search, I noticed that the book was reviewed by Kirkus, Publisher Weekly and Library Journal. I can't find the original link of the last source. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with muliple reviews as noted above, and here is a listing of another review by Vector. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NBOOK and WP:N as shown above. -- Biel8729 13:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've expanded the article and also added two newspaper reviews. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, now clearly passes WP:NBOOK.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:05, 22 August 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 Leb i sol. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Kokan Dimuševski

Nikola Kokan Dimuševski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independently of his band. If found non-notable, possibly worth redirect to Leb i sol. I am aware language barrier has made it difficult, but I couldn't find sources to establish his notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Leb i sol, as has already been done for at least one of their albums. I also can find no coverage outside the band, nor reliable reviews of any of his solo works. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:59, 25 August 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 already speedily deleted by User:Fastily. Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Coffey

Adam Coffey (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 WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE lacks significant coverage. TheChronium 15:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 15 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amiruddin Shah

Amiruddin Shah (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 lacks reliable indepth news coverage. TheChronium 15:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of sourcing available, eg The National, Reuters, NBC News, Hindustan Times, plus the film based on his life. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sources listed by Nikkimaria (in particular Reuters and NBC) demonstrate GNG is met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:57, 19 August 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. In addition to being fewer in number, the keep arguments often cited things that do not establish notability, such as presence on databases and non-RS sources. RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rapper Shaz

Rapper Shaz (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:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, lacks reliable coverage TheChronium 15:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Authentic presence (Authority Control) (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) Article contains reliable sources from National Publishers (India) source 1 source 2. --Fchlieck (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any significant reliable sources (as needed per WP:GNG). The only one that isn't behind a paywall only trivially mentions his name [4]. The others don't provide significant coverage, similarly [5][6]. ([7] doesn't even mention him). The keep arguments (WP:ITEXISTS, sourced to Facebook and some publisher's website) are entirely unconvincing, and I can't find anything else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Subject has signed deal with Sony Music ATV and Beatstars Publishing 1 2 (Refer the badges on the profile) I've improved the article, instead of deleting it should be moved to "Stub" to let people add more content with reliable sources. Grimeindia (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Sony Music/ATV is the world's largest music publishing service. There is a world of difference between the company representing today top artists like Kanye West or licensing the Motown, Beatles and other iconic artist's catalogs versus emerging artists like this rapper "signing a deal" with the company as a client service. It is available to anyone who wants to sell their music. To sign an agreement to pay them a percentage of one's earnings in exchange for there services is not a significant achievement in itself.ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The above links are either passing mentions or non-independent sources that do not contribute to notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No significant coverage. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 07:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I marked it for speedy that was removed by an ip address. fails GNG. DMySon (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see four reliable sources, three of which are ongoing coverage by The Hindu. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:BASIC as per <1> | <2> | <3> Also, the article should be kept per WP:IGNORE (artist has credits on major databases) --💤ER✌A ^(TALK💬) 17:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per DMySon and Ab207.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 19:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails NMUSIC. Probably TOOSOON.-KH-1 (talk) 01:38, 24 August 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 12:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Herpetology

Contemporary Herpetology (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 exists, and noe of its several founders is notable. Merge/redirect to him as an WP:ATD might give the impression he was the only founder though, rather than on a term. Doesn't appear to have the coverage/significance to meet WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now get the question answered. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/likely delete A little confused. Is the nom meant to read "it no longer exists"? I note the Editor in Chief's affiliation misspells "Ithaca" ;) Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's enough in the first couple references to warrant a merge/redirect, I think, though I'm not sure what the best target would be. Joseph Bruno Slowinski is one possibility; it could also form the start of a "Journals" section in Herpetology, which is a thing that article could benefit from anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's perhaps better to say "it existed". According to the journal's homepage only a handful of articles was ever published, the last one in 2009. I therefore find it difficult to believe the claim that the journal was included in The Zoological Record or Current Contents. The claim that it still is indexed in these databases is patently incorrect. The journal article that is supposed to source this claims seems to have taken its info from the journal's website and therefore is not independent. MIAR does not indicate listing in any other database. Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply not notable at all. --RamotHacker (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. close enough to notable,and we should be inclusive for sources likely to be cited at WP. That is no lognerexists is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Randykitty. This electronic journal was very minor. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and start a "Journals" section in Herpetology per XOR'easter. A redirect can be used to that page. I think DGG is correct that preserving content on sources likely to be cited on wikipedia to verify content is valuable to our readers. However, equally this journal sits on the borderline of notability, and the delete arguments are convincing. A merge seems like the best solution.4meter4 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per 4meter4. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't see any evidence of this being even borderline notable, I don't see any notability at all... Please see WP:ILIKEIT. The Category:Herpetology journals currently has 11 entries (and there's probably more journals that have no article). Should that all be listed in a "journals" section in the herpetology article? Or should that section only contain non-notable journals, with the notable one listed under "see also"? (Just to be clear, I oppose a merge, too). --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete I'm on the fence, not even sure that a mention in a Journals section in Herpetology article would be worth it. In any event, this page should go. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if we accept that journals aren't automatically notable, then surely this one falls below any notability line we would draw? If their website's index is comprehensive, then the journal published just 23 papers in its 10-year existence. It isn't mentioned anywhere else that I can find. Mentioning it at Herpetology#Journals seems seriously undue, since this must be the several hundredth most important journal in the field (though I, of course, am not a herpetologist, so what do I know). If folks want to maintain mention of it on a Wikipedia page, maybe someone should start a List of herpetology journals? Otherwise I can't think of an obvious place to host more information on the journal, even if we can find it. Ajpolino (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Randykitty. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 11 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constructor (software)

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

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

Exists but doesn't meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now answer the question of its notability. Considered Graphisoft merge/redirect as an WP:ATD, but isn't even mentioned there. Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 15 August 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (Anjora)

College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry (Anjora) (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 exists. Though we tend to keep secondary/tertiary education providers, they do need to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. I couldn't establish that it does, but am aware there is a language barrier. I couldn't identify a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 August 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celerra

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

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

Please see comment by another user at Talk:Celerra. This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years, and although it exists and has minor coverage, it doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logs: 2009-07 ✗ deleted ← 2007-06 move to → EMC Celerra

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 August 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. Consensus here is that NAUTHOR is barely passed. Weak keep is still keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silvester Brito

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

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

He exists, but I couldn't see the level of significance or coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion. The main mentions of him are on Wikipedia mirror sites. There are no articles about him. Yuchitown (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I found and added to the article five reviews of three of his books, so there's a case for WP:AUTHOR. However, three of them are in the same journal as each other, so they're not as independent as they might be. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. per David Eppstein, fails WP:NPROF but should be enough for WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 17:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, passes NAUTHOR, albeit barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:00, 22 August 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. There seems to be sufficient consensus that the thorough analysis of available sources is not quite enough to satisfy GNG at this time. The article can always be restored later if the subject receives significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources; as required by GNG. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Bogart

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

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

Claim to notability seems to all be based no one role. Successful actress, but I couldn't see the coverage or significance to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now make a decision. Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: My guess is that this subject is borderline on notability. Primary notability probably comes from the General Hospital role (which was actually significant), and from her more recent Lifetime movie work (the article is out-of-date, and doesn't look to have any roles Bogart has done since 2017). But my guess is that this is the kind of career that is not going to generate much in the way of independent coverage... So likely borderline on WP:NACTOR, but I'm guessing the subject will be a "miss" in terms of WP:BASIC... I will try to remember to monitor this discussion, but I'm not ready to !vote at this time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no coverage on her. One ref is dead, the other is woeful. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 23:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be known for other things, like yoga instructor, "influencer" with over 10,000 twitter and instagram followers. Not convincing enough on way or another for me to !vote. may need more research on the topic before deleting. Gaff (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Took a look online to check for significant coverage, found numerous articles and interviews. Perviously failed WP:SIGCOV, but I think with the added references now meets notability guidelines. Weber1982 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't think the WP:INTERVIEWS that were added count as secondary reliable sources. They offer very little WP:INDEPENDENT commentary on the subject. Overall, subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Her roles have mostly been one-offs/bit parts. Not notable -Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bit-part actor. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not accurate – she's not a "bit-part actor": those don't headline Lifetime TV movies. More accurately, she's a character actor who has been working for two decades: those generally don't merit Wikipedia articles, but they aren't "bit-part actors". That's insulting. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "those generally don't merit Wikipedia articles" - they sometimes do, sometimes do not, but many character actors are well-known. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double voting, this vote should not be counted. And "bit-part" part is not factually correct. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this vote was not crossed, I fixed this myself per Wikipedia:Be bold. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant role in major soap opera, several recurring roles on TV and main roles in Lifetime channel films. She also had film roles, including lead role in The Last Run opposite Amy Adams and Fred Savage. So she meets WP:NACTRESS. Sources were added, there is enough coverage. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really isn't – 3 of the 4 sources you added are mere passing mentions. Nothing that has happened in this discussion moves me off what would likely be a "weak delete" vote. This subject is just not going to clear WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, she satisfies WP:NACTRESS and is certainly not a bit-part actress as was stated above. [8], and here is not a passing mention [9]. Here is another source - I think the fact that such reliable website writes about her is the indication that she is notable [10]. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, had a role in a major soap opera and has received significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She may be borderline at WP:ENT but, when you look at the interviews with her, she would meet WP:GNG.
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTRESS. All of the sources in the article or mentioned above are either trivial mentions of the subject which are not in-depth and are brief mentions; are unreliable self-published websites; or they are interviews which do not count towards notability because they lack independence and are too closely connected to the subject. There are zero sources in the article which are both independent and in-depth which is what is required to meet GNG. Likewise, contrary to what others are claiming, she also fails WP:NACTRESS as we have no proof that any of the other roles beyond General Hospital are notable. This is evidenced by the lack of independent sources saying so. Promotional publications and press releases are not independent RS. We need independent critical reviews of her performances to prove criteria 1 of NACTRESS; otherwise it's just personal opinion not backed by evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is that such websites as Deadline write about actors' new roles if they are notable, and the proof that her roles are significant is that it is mentioned that the actress got role (and there was written more than here [11]), and in subsequent news the fact that she appeared is cited, so she is known by these roles. She also appeared in recurring role in Emmy winning series, and in above mentioned film she had a star billing (billed before Vyto Rugynis). There are also actors that have one significant roles and are notable. And I would also argue that critical reviews are needed for criteria 3. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spoilertv.com and Deadline are promotional sources and are not considered independent coverage because they are essentially repeats of WP:ROUTINE press releases which are not independent of the shows and actors they are helping to promote, or are regurgitations of WP:TABLOID type content. In other words they are not useable materials for proving notability under Wikipedia’s policies at WP:SIGCOV or WP:Verifiability.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mentioned it to show that Deadline wrote more about her than this website. She also appeared had a star billing in several films, including aforementioned film and film with Kathleen Quinlan [12] (her name is on poster, that probably shows it is significant role). Kirill C1 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deadline, along with Variety, THR and Wrap is used precisely to demonstrate notability, otherwise there would be no reliable sources to provide notability for actors. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are tons of entertainment publications of quality. Variety is one, so is Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, as well as general newspapers. Deadline is typically not a good source. The issue here though is the sources are not in-depth enough to prove notability. Further, a film poster doesn’t prove anything. Lots of non-notable films get made. This particular film has no wiki article, and I’m not sure was ever released into theaters. I can find no independent sources reviewing the film or which indicate that the film itself was notable, let alone any of the actor’s performances. Again we need an independent review of the film demonstrating the role the actress portrayed was significant to pass that guideline. Trivial mentions don’t count. Read WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, it's not like there are only three cinema publications of quality. Second, I have written that Quinlan stars in it (and also Lin Shaye). There is another film that has reviews and were Bogart's name is on poster. If the role is starring, it is significant per se and if it is in notable film it satisfies the criteria, there are significant supporting roles and even roles in episodes may attract coverage. There are multiple sources that combined demonstrate notability. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Source analysis. Given the pushback here; I have decided to give a detailed source analysis which clearly shows we lack enough RS to justify keeping the article per wikipedia's notability criteria. All of the sources and the external links from the article are included, as well as all additional sources presented so far at this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

Source	Independent?	Significant Coverage?	Reliable?	Pass/Fail	Notes
"Andrea Bogart". Hollywood.com. Retrieved 2016-05-28.	N	N	Y	N	Essentially a credits list likely provided by the subject, their publicist, or taken directly from IMDB
Michael Fairman (December 17, 2011). "Andrea Bogart talks about her exit from General Hospital!". Michael Fairman On-Air On-Soaps. Archived from the original on July 1, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-28.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview source is directly connected to the subject and therefore lacks independence. Self published tabloid website run by actor Michael Fairman with no editorial oversite; not considered reliable RS per WP:Verifiability and WP:TABLOID
"Emily Bergl Upped To Regular On Showtime's 'Shameless'; Andrea Bogart To Recur On 'Ray Donovan'". Deadline Hollywood. March 13, 2014. Retrieved 2016-05-28.	N	N	Y	N	Press release of new role; most likely paid for and provided directly from Bohemia Group and Intelligence Artists Agency. Lacks independence and not RS per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestravelguide/2020/03/23/from-cocktail-classes-to-an-arts-salon-try-these-virtual-hotel-experiences/?sh=37755e44657a	N	N	Y	N	Trivial mention promoting the subject's yoga classes which directly link to her self written self promotional Facebook posts; very brief and clearly self promotional
NCIS Exclusive First Look: Who's Tony Chatting Up on the Beach in the Bahamas...?	?	N	Y	N	Very brief mention of the actress highlighting a picture of her in a bikini. Likely provided directly by the NCIS producers and paid for to promote the show; even if independent not significant RS
https://2paragraphs.com/2017/06/who-is-wife-heather-in-the-wrong-neighbor-on-lifetime/	N	Y	N	N	https://2paragraphs.com/about/ is an essentially pay to promote media content engine; it therefore lacks independence and is not considered reliable RS; most likely paid for by the subject or her agency
This Lifetime Original Will Make You Appreciate Your Noisy Neighbors	Y	Y	Y	Y	Independent film review in Bustle (magazine). This source is good.
HAWAII FIVE-0	N	N	N	N	Much like IMDB or wikipedia, site can be altered by anyone with an account.
Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 15 at IMDb	N	N	N	N	See WP:IMDB
Eades, Chris. "Andrea Bogart Is "So Grateful" For Her Time on GENERAL HOSPITAL". Soaps In Depth. Retrieved 5 September 2021.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS. Also fails per WP:TABLOID
Steinberg, Lisa. "Andrea Bogart – Cheer Camp Killer". StarryMag. Retrieved 5 September 2021.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS. Also fails per WP:TABLOID
Turano, Sammi. "Seduced By My Neighbor's Andrea Bogart Interviewed". PCM World News. Retrieved 5 September 2021.	N	Y	N	N	As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS.
https://www.nerdsandbeyond.com/2019/09/23/andrea-bogart-on-this-weeks-episode-of-in-love-with-michael-rosenbaum-and-chris-sullivan/	N	N	N	N	Unreliable website; paid for PR which lacks independence; not in-depth enough to be significant
https://www.tvovermind.com/andrea-bogart/	N	N |	N	N	Trivial fluff website; not clear if the site is independent or accepts money to promote subjects; not likely to reliable; WP:TABLOID applies
https://deadline.com/2015/09/powers-enrico-colantoni-andrea-bogart-snowfall-1201562096/	N	N	Y	N	lacks independence and significance as a WP:ROUTINE press announcement; content likely provided by and paid for by the subject or her publicist or the network; WP:NOTTABLOID
https://www.spoilertv.com/2014/03/ray-donovan-season-2-andrea-bogart-gets.html	N	N	Y	N	lacks independence and significance as a WP:ROUTINE press announcement; content likely provided by and paid for by the subject or her publicist or the network; WP:NOTTABLOID

• • There is certainly a problem here - half the sources are deemed unworthy only because they are 'likely' to be not independent. Deadline Hollywood is a good source, and is used in great many Wikipedia articles. Casting news are frequently used in Wikipedia article as source, and you can not properly write career section for actors without them. My main concern is - if the sources are needed to cover the topic (in this case the actress) and interviews are not good, the news about actor specifically are not good enough, recaps and sneek peeks of TV shows are not good enough, random news about actors are not good enough, and the mentioning of the role actor played is not significant enough, then what could theoretically be used to establish notability? We can just disqualify all the possible sources and delete most articles. Then, the rule says that sources can be combined, and together they may be enough to write the article. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • While I do not agree with the description of the sources and the approach seems too critical to the sources ('likely provided', 'likely paid'), the person still has enough significant roles and hence passes WP:Nactress. There are several reviews you can find in the Internet. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Кирилл С1 You are fundamentally misunderstanding the basics of evaluating sources at AFD, and the basics of understanding how we prove notability at AFD. I strongly urge you to read WP:GNG. We are not interested at AFD in proving anything but notability as defined there. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Ultimately, I don't think you have a strong grasp on what makes a quality source per wikipedia policy, as evidence by your defense of sources that are clearly not reliable or independent.

Not all sources that are permissible for use in building article content are equally usable or valuable towards proving notability. For example, GNG states: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Deadline Hollywood routinely prints press releases, and we explicitly exclude those from counting towards notability per GNG policy. Likewise, interviews are directly "produced by the article's subject" and are also not usable towards proving notability. This doesn't mean that we can't use those sources in writing articles, it merely means we can't use them to justify keeping an article at AFD. The problem is not with my analysis but with your failure to accept wikipedia's written policies at WP:GNG. My analysis is not unusual, but standard/typical practice here at AFD for evaluating source content when we are measuring it against notability standards. As it stands, there is only one quality source currently in evidence which can be used to prove notability because there is only one source that is independent, reliable, and demonstrates significant coverage. Typically we require a minimum of three sources that demonstate independence, reliability, and significant coverage to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To give you examples of quality sources for actors and entertainment in general: Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, books written by someone other than the subject or someone closely connected to them that are not self published, etc. are all quality sources in entertainment. They write original content, don't print press releases, have editorial oversight, and don't accept payment from the people whom they are writing on. This demonstrates independence and reliability.

To give you examples of poor quality sources: tvovermind.com, www.spoilertv.com, deadline.com, www.thefutoncritic.com, 2paragraphs.com, tvline.com/ are all sources with little or no editorial oversight; most routinely print press releases; most routinely accept money from the people they write on or their agents. In other words all have problems with independence and reliability.09:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"You are fundamentally misunderstanding the basics of evaluating sources at AFD, and the basics of understanding how we prove notability at AFD." No, I am not. I participated in and have read enough discussions to see that some guidelines are interpreted differently, that are different approaches to establishing notability. Filmakers whose work was reviewed in reliable sources were proposed for deletion, even academy-award nominees were proposed. There are different perceptions what significant is. If we read that the purpose of Wikipedia is creating widely accessible and free encyclopedia, and giving access to the sum of all human knowledge, we will doubt that deleting the article about the actress who co-starred in films with Jason London, Amy Adams and had recurring TV roles. "We are not interested at AFD in proving anything but notability as defined there." - but if we understand that the actor is notable by looking at his roles, do we need to look at the sources so thoroughly, especially since there are more sources in the article than in many other articles about actors. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since when Deadline Hollywood is poor quality? It is not worse than Wrap, or DenofGeeks, or Screen Rant. In truth, there are more reliable sources than 4 mentioned, and even more top sources. It was written by you that the news about her was likely provided by network - how so, if the news consists of two casting pieces about project on different channels.Kirill C1 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources are referring to Deadline - "according to deadline" while reporting news [13] [14], [15], also Slashfilm, Space.com, Vulture, and others. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the deadline pieces are press releases. Cast announcements are press releases. We can't use press releases as proof of notability at AFD. Further WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are not valid arguments at AFD. At this point I am not going to respond any further because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR obstructionism.4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I disagree with this view in a "narrow" sense – reports like this in Deadline Hollywood do somewhat contribute to "notability" in that they can be used to establish "significant roles" under WP:NACTOR. But they are almost always "passing mentions" and are not "significant coverage"... Again, the important metric in the case of WP:BLPs is WP:BASIC, which easily trumps WP:NACTOR as the actually relevant standard, and again I agree with the broader argument that this subject has not received enough "significant coverage" to actually pass WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per 4meter4's source assessment and my own research that was not able to find much more, e.g. Los Angeles Times, 2019; VH1, 2013. The criteria for WP:NACTOR does not appear to be met, including significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, and relatedly, WP:BASIC notability also does not appear to be supported. Beccaynr (talk) 21:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very little available in terms of independent analysis and content from RS, obviously fails NACTOR requirements too. I very much agree with the comments from 4meter4, Beccaynr and Qwaiiplayer above me Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HIV Cohorts Data Exchange Protocol

HIV Cohorts Data Exchange Protocol (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 GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile (West) and Marico Water Management Area

Crocodile (West) and Marico Water Management Area (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 exists, but what makes it notable? I couldn't establish that it has the necessary coverage or significance. Has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. I wasn't convinced that there was a suitable WP:ATD merge/redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derozer

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

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

Borderline, but I don't think it passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Its articles in other languages and its Google search failed to show the significance or coverage we look for. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years - I hope we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demenzia

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

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

I may be missing something due to language barrier, but I couldn't find evidence that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. They don't seem to have charted, and most sources I could find, in the article and with a Google search, were primary sources, festivals, myspace - nothing clearly showing the coverage or significance needed for N. Boleyn (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found one reliable publication: [16], but it is just a brief new album announcement. Otherwise I can find no significant coverage, and the band hasn't gotten beyond fan-created directory sites like Metal Archives and Spirit of Metal. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Polion

Elias Polion (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 WP:NATHLETE. No major coverage and achievements. TheChronium 15:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, falls short of guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 01:09, 18 August 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) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Jamar

Kofi Jamar (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:NMUSIC and WP:GNG TheChronium 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, subject has been nominated for a major award several times passes #8WP:MUSICBIO. -Xclusivzik (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, aside subject passing criteria 8 of WP:MUSIC for several nominations at the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards & 3Music Awards, subject is also featured on different notable newspapers and magazines including The Ghanaian Times, ModernGhana, Daily Graphic, News Ghana, Yen, TooXclusive, Joy FM, GhanaWeb and more. See here . The article just need expansion since it is a stub. Richloveburner (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources found by Richloveburner. It looks like this easily meets gng. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:53, 29 August 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 21:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CoSMoS

CoSMoS (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 have the coverage or significance to meet WP:NOTABILITY. 1st AfD was closed without a decision due to lack of participation. This has been stuck in CAT:NN for 12 years now - I hope we can now have enough participants to resolve this, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although it was pointed out in the previous AfD that references to CosMos existed in this book, the author of that book worked at her internship in the University of York under Prof. Jon Timmis who is listed as involved in the Project at York. It therefore cannot be considered as intellectually independent. Also, this article descibes CosMos as a "4 year project" which received funding between 2007 and 2011 - yet the official webpage describes it significantly differently. It appears that it isn't a "project" per se but an umbrella term to capture activities used to build out understanding/tools/case studies of complex systems. The website describes it as follows:

• Drawing on our state-of-the-art expertise in many aspects of computer systems engineering, we will develop CoSMoS, a modelling and simulation process and infrastructure specifically designed to allow complex systems to be explored, analysed, and designed within a uniform framework.

At least some of the case studies and tools still continuing up to 2015 at least, based on the last "workshop" listed on the website. I believe that the project did not achieve notability in its own right and some of the case studies, participants and tools may have a bigger claim to notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and HighKing. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 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 Multishow ao Vivo: Ivete no Maracanã. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deixo

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

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

I don't think it meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG, but am bringing it here in case I have missed something due to language barrier. Possible WP:ATDs are redirect to Multishow ao Vivo: Ivete no Maracanã (album) or Ivete Sangalo (artist). There is no source for it being 'a big hit' in Brazil and the source about it charting in Portugal is a dead link. No.42 in a European chart also would generally not be considered charting. Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Multishow ao Vivo: Ivete no Maracanã. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:53, 21 August 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. The arguments that the article has been substantially improved remain uncontested. Sandstein 15:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the President of Pakistan

Line of succession to the President of Pakistan (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 "line of succession" mentioned. Largely unsourced. The result of previous discussion (held in 2006!!!) was merge. Peter Ormond 💬 14:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge  samee  converse  08:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I've added info sourced from gov webs and constitution, including current order of succession. Now Article is with par to many other succession articles, and can be improved significantly. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, with thanks to ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 for substantial improvements to this article. RomanSpa (talk) 16:45, 15 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Plus

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

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

A non notable TV channel. The sources are also not reliable Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This seems to be a small part of a business plan that considers the network as a bait and switch to get you in the door; no source or schedule to be found, and it looks like they only exist because the platform they're on auctions channel slots to the highest bidder. Going by their website, it basically seems to be a 'free preview' channel guiding you to their Android app and YouTube channels, where they either ask for a subscription to said app to watch their movies, or have their acquired films on several YouTube channels filled with plenty of money-making ad breaks (and hideously-placed watermarks making you want to try the Android app instead). Never mind that said company claims perpetual rights for these films on the front page of the website, so it's sketchy they even have the rights to them in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 03:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No in depth coverage in sources, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Ravensfire (talk) 14:28, 16 August 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IRIS (management festival)

IRIS (management festival) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A school's annual festival. The article does not indicate why something like that should be notable. The tone is generally promotional, and the cited sources cannot be relied upon to provide independent coverage (see Paid news in India). Sandstein 14:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 14:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:46, 23 August 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. Note that the article has already been moved to Pandora's Box (Chinese TV series). bibliomaniac15 22:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora's Box 2021 (天目危机)

Pandora's Box 2021 (天目危机) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Lacks coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and is likely WP:TOOSOON TheChronium 14:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 14:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This show airs in 3 days. I feel this AfD is TOOSOON; it is very likely this show will have significant coverage after the show airs, was it really necessary to sent it to AfD now? And there seems to be some coverage pre-air from skimming on Google News (China Daily Phoenix). I am leaning keep but holding my vote until it airs. Jumpytoo Talk 19:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard gave good sourcing below, so I'll confirm my vote to keep. Jumpytoo Talk 22:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree with Jumpytoo. This show will air on August 18 so there will be more references and information once the drama is released. As well, many Hollywood movies have articles made in Wikipedia long before the movie itself is aired, therefore, I don’t see why this article should be deleted. This can be a living article where new information, when each episode is aired, can be updated. This is consistent to the spirit of Wikipedia. So, my vote is to keep this article. C9HappyHarp Talk 20:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • C9HappyHarp, the Hollywood movies you are referring to are probably notable under the WP:NFF guidelines, which allows for future films if the production process is notable. This article, as it is now, does not have any production details, thus not notable yet. You may want to incorporate details about the production of the drama. Additionally, the article should be moved to Pandora's Box (2019Chinese TV series) per disambiguation guidelines (while the current Pandora's Box (TV series)] be moved to Pandora's Box (1992British TV series) since the current article title of the latter will now be a partial disambiguation). – robertsky (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment AfD is WP:TOOSOON. Nominator should have considered sending the article into Draftspace for incubation rather than deletion. – robertsky (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cunard's finding has been included into the article, and the show is released. – robertsky (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Pandora's Box (Chinese TV series) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Additional disambiguation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. 夏奕宁 (2019-06-10). 张喆; 张亮亮 (eds.). "上海电视节丨《天目危机》：软科幻超烧脑点燃观剧新体验" [Shanghai TV Festival丨"Pandora's Box": Soft Science Fiction Super Burning Brain Ignites New Experience of Watching Drama]. The Paper (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-16. Retrieved 2021-08-16.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "On June 9, the suspense soft science fiction series Pandora's Box held an advanced screening event in Shanghai, unveiling the mystery of the first Chinese film screening at the Magnolia Award at the 25th Shanghai TV Festival. The producer/supervisor Kenny Chau (周其良), director Jiang Lei, starring Ray Change (zh:張睿 (演員)), He Dujuan, Liu Xueyi, and Yasuaki Kurata of Pandora's Box also came to the scene to share with the audience the creative story behind the stage, about Pandora's Box. The huge amount of information, the texture of Japanese dramas, and the special discussion of character setting also made the hot search on Weibo."

  2. 冯宇轩 (2021-08-11). "意识远比想象更强大 软科幻悬疑剧《天目危机》正式定档8月18日" [Awareness is far stronger than imagination. The soft science fiction suspense drama "Pandora's Box" is officially finalized on August 18]. zh:三湘都市报 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-16. Retrieved 2021-08-16.

     From Google Translate: "Based on scientific concepts, the play proposes theoretical clues such as "Schrödinger's Cat"... In addition, there are a large number of scenes depicting the world of "consciousness" in the play. The huge amount of information makes people overwhelmed during the viewing process. It is both sci-fi and brain-burning. The creative method is novel and it is also a visual feast. ... In addition to the strong cast and movie-like texture, the high quality of the plot is also a highlight of "Tianmu Crisis". For such a high-quality original IP, the excellent team in front of and behind the scenes also made the show even more powerful, and it is highly anticipated by netizens."

  3. 陸劇星球 (2021-08-03). "苗僑偉張孝全懸疑劇《天目危機》勁燒腦！盤點八月12套必睇內地劇" [Michael Miu and Joseph Chang's suspense drama "Pandora's Box" is brain-burning! Inventory of 12 must-watch mainland dramas in August] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-08-16. Retrieved 2021-08-16.

     The article provides one paragraph coverage about the subject. The article notes from Google Translate: "The TV series Pandora's Box is a suspenseful brain-burning drama. The story tells a physics student who is enthusiastic about science. Because his mother was involved in a traffic accident, he was trapped by others. In order to get out of control, he stepped into the crime of a gangster. The world of spider webs; this film is led by powerful actors such as Ray Chang, Liu Xueyi], Joseph Chang, Michael Miu, etc. The audience is looking forward to it!"

  4. 张心哲 (2019-06-10). "悬疑软科幻剧《天目危机》首发片花 张孝全烧脑演绎" [Suspenseful soft science fiction drama "Pandora's Box": first clip. Joseph Chang's brain-burning interpretation] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2021-08-16. Retrieved 2021-08-16.

     The article notes: "As far as the exposed films are concerned, the whole plot is ups and downs, and the composition, music, and narrative style are all very cinematic."

  5. 白雨晨 (2021-03-23). "奇幻剧《司藤》等热播引关注" [The fantasy drama "RATTAN" and other hits attract attention]. zh:今晚报 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-16. Retrieved 2021-08-16 – via Xinhua News Agency.

     The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Among them, there are 15 sci-fi dramas that have been filmed and produced and are waiting to be broadcast, including ... Pandora's Box produced by Huanrui Century, ... ... For example, the suspense science fiction drama Pandora's Box starts with physics, and ..."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pandora's Box (simplified Chinese: 天目危机; traditional Chinese: 天目危機) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The TV series meets Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films since:
  1. it commenced principal photography by 2019 (according to the 10 June 2019 article in The Paper which noted it had an advanced screening event on 9 June 2019),
  2. it is scheduled to start broadcasting on 18 August 2021 in two days,
  3. and it passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with:
  1. moving Pandora's Box 2021 (天目危机) to Pandora's Box (Chinese TV series) and
  2. moving Pandora's Box (TV series) to Pandora's Box (British TV series)
  per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Additional disambiguation as noted by Metropolitan90 and robertsky. Cunard (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support of page moves - I agree that nominating a show that premieres in three days as toosoon seems unnecessary as the primary argument for its deletion becomes negated before closure. But I do think moving both series to the names as discussed above should be done. matt91486 (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to KL-ONE. – bradv^🍁 02:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krypton (programming language)

Krypton (programming language) (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 programming language. All primary search results return either a variation of this page or pages that originated from this. Article has not grown in the near 20 years since it was created. I can't find anything that would determine notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into KL-ONE. Krypton is a derivative of KL-ONE (reading the linked reference) so a brief mention there would preserve the knowledge. rsjaffetalk 22:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsjaffe: I am uncertain if it is a derivative or simply a language that used principles from KL-ONE. The ref part you may be referring to says "KRYPTON developed mainly out of work on KL-ONE"; assuming it's an actual derivative, whilst not wholly unlikely, isn't necessarily obvious. The prose of this article is 1 sentence just stating that it is/was a language, so I am unsure what knowledge is preserved. If I thought a merge would benefit, I'd have done that instead of an AfD. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading the article, it looks like the Tbox is a KL-One derivative but the Abox is not. However, the article is not at all clear about the relationships, so I kind of agree with you. I'm going to alter my recommendation to merge with Ontology language where it would fit in the list in Ontology_language#Traditional_syntax_ontology_languages. rsjaffetalk 18:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into KL-ONE as suggested above.--Bduke (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Sufficient knowledge exists to be included in wikipedia, but they are not significant enough to warrant a standalone article. BilledMammal (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, but change target from my original suggestion. After looking at documentation again, its relationship with KL-ONE is less certain, but it certainly is an Ontology language and would suitably be an entry in the list Ontology_language#Traditional_syntax_ontology_languages with the reference as a footnote. So merge into Ontology language. rsjaffetalk 18:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with KL-ONE. Per page 17 of this journal work, page 2 of this journal article and page 7 of this one, Krypton is a hybrid successor of KL-ONE with an Abox and Tbox component. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, topic is best covered within KL-ONE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 4 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.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LivHOME

LivHOME (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 WP:NCORP. None of its claims of services are cited, and everything below the lead reads like an advertisement: "augment its strategic, national growth efforts", "enrich the lives of LivHOME clients". While I can't read the full WSJ article, the first 4.5 paragraphs mention nothing about it, and the business journal just writes about the aquisitions, not about the company itself or what they've done. Catholic Online is not reliable, and the archived 'advance web' page mentions LivHOME once, about the author. No sources indicate notability, and websites that mention it all seem to talk about it's acquisitions. Of the websites on google that talk about it, none are reliable, and some are self-published. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 03:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 03:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NemesisAT: pinging NemesisAT since they objected to the previous PROD, so they might want to join in. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 03:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, agreed that the article was/is too promotional, but I feel it is notable thanks to the additional sources I've added. I've also deleted some spammy links. I don't see why Home Health Care News should be considered unreliable. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Company has since re-branded to "Arosa". My search for sources was not comprehensive, I imagine there is scope for expansion thanks to all the acquisitions the company has made. NemesisAT (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as follows:

• Home Health News relies entirely on a company announcement, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
• HomeCare Magazine is a press release, fails WP:ORGIND
• Bizjournals is based entirely on a company announcement, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
• Home Health Care News is based on an interview/PR by the company in relation to the companies "grant program", no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
• Home Health Care News next reference is based entirely on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
• Market Intelligence reference is a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
• WSJ reference contains a quote from a co-founder and also relays a story by an employee. There is no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND
• Catholic reference is a Press Release, fails WP:ORGIND

Having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 13 August 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 nomination withdrawn because somebody finally did what needed to be done. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Tsarouchas

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

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

WP:BLP of an actor and comedian, not properly demonstrating that he would pass our notability criteria for actors or comedians. As written, this literally just says that he exists, the end, and then reference bombs his existence to a stack of nine separate citations without actually saying anything about his career that would even be measurable against our inclusion standards for actors or comedians -- but after having reviewed the stack, I still can't add much useful content: two of them are brief and unsubstantive blurbs that aren't about him doing anything notability-boosting; one is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person; and the rest are covering him in non-notable contexts like having been cast in a failed pilot that never advanced to series, having been in a film that doesn't have a strong claim to passing our notability criteria for films, or just soundbiting his thoughts on having Greek ancestry.
All of this, further, results from a recent restubbing of a highly advertorialized version that was completely unsourced, which in turn resulted from an earlier conflict of interest takeover of a semi-advertorialized version that was sourced exclusively to the IMDb profiles of his film or television projects, and if you go back to before the IMDb footnotes were added you just get right back to "completely unsourced" again, so there's no viable older version of this article to revert back to either.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and reference a new article properly, but especially in light of all the advertorialism that's infected this article in the past, it's better to just blow this up and start over rather than holding onto a version with this little informational value in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article definitely needs improvement, though combining the Greek, French, and this version, might lead to half-decent article. Looking at the references, some are a bit marginal, but there are extensive other sources doing a brief Proquest search. Nfitz (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The value in having any article vests in it actually providing information. The fact that it might theoretically be possible to write a better article about him than this does not mean it's necessary to keep this in its current form pending anybody actually attempting to expand it to provide any notable information — if you were willing to tackle expanding it now, then that might count for something depending on the strength of what you were actually able to add, but there's absolutely no value in holding onto it in this form if improvement isn't actually happening, because as written it literally just says that he exists, the end. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per WP:ARTN, notability concerns the subject and is not dependent on article content. It appears there is room for improvement and sources are available, so this article should be expanded, not deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a compelling argument if somebody actually commits to do some improvement now. It's granted that articles don't need to be perfect right off the bat, but they do still need to actually contain a basic notability claim right off the bat before they're allowed to exist — there's no value in holding onto a version that literally just says that the person exist, while containing no information as to why their existence might be noteworthy at all, just because somebody could theoretically add a proper notability claim 50 years from now. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Yes, this looks like a keep to me. Bearcat, you might consider reading perspectives on this topic at WP:RUBBISH. Fundamentally, this page doesn't meet any of the WP:DEL-REASONs, and so should not be deleted according to the deletion policy. Suriname0 (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep articles can't be deleted just because they aren't extensive enough yet. If the sources exist to make a better article then it should stay. If it's so bad to keep an incomplete page around then you could...y'know, maybe fix it up instead of trying to delete it? I'll give it a shot if no one else has time. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As my nomination statement very clearly explained, I tried to fix it. But the sources present in the article add nothing that bolsters notability at all, as they're all about things like being cast in a pilot that never got picked up to series, acting in a film that doesn't pass our notability criteria for films, glancingly mentioning his existence without being about him in any non-trivial way, or just soundbiting his opinions about having Greek ancestry. If I'd found one thing in any of the sources that constituted a proper notability claim for an actor, I'd have added it to the damn article and walked away — but there just isn't a notability claim to be located in any of the footnotes present. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that you're looking for notability as an actor, when a lot of the sources are about his standup comedy career. I put more information about his stand-up career, and also added info about specials and other work. I'm gonna keep working on it since I have a little time tonight. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Actually, looking back at your nomination I kind of agree with you. The version you nominated was just a single line with a bunch of sources at the end. I can see why WP:TNTing it made sense. I did a lot of work remaking it so hopefully it looks a little better now. (if this nom closes soon enough, I'll nom it at dyk since its basically a new page). BuySomeApples (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Dev

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

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

Sockpuppet creation. Subject did exist, but contents of article is fabricated from the sources. None of the text matches the attributions. Possibly can be cleaned up and would be willing to withdraw the nomination, but should not be in main space in present condition since bordering on hoax. I don't believe draftifying is appropriate here (not the purpose of draft space, misuses AfC and the sockpuppet creator is indef blocked). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Yes, there is misleading material in there, in summary, a vandalised account. Third reference gives quite a bit of information and validates some material. The Accession section is part BS. Fly in the sky, delete it. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - I accepted this draft, and either did not know or did not notice that the creator was a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If he was a real ruler of a kingdom, he passes WP:NPOL. Source can be found in Hindi language. We should wait more comments form other editors who has knowledge on the History of Suryavansh Sankara dynasty. VocalIndia (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It might not be a good idea to wait, per WP:TNT. Geschichte (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I would question whether a Rajah is a significant enough ruler to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 13 August 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fauzia Yasmin

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2012. Wikipedia has articles about many of her relatives, but notability is not inherited. Her website says she won two awards, but there's nothing about them in independent sources, and they are not well-known and significant enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Of the five cited sources, sydneybashi-bangla.com is a photo spread of her in a private home; banglamusic.com and Banglapedia don't mention her; and the last two are the websites of her and her daughter. Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script, found nothing more than brief mentions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the award from the Shilpakala Academy seems like an indicator of notability (and her main period of prominence is pre-internet, so the lack of online coverage is unconcerning), so I'd be pushing for "keep", but if the copyvio issues aren't dealt with immediately, it ought to be speedy deleted. Furius (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I've found for that award is her website. She may have received it, but we don't usually take a subject's word for it. The Shilpakala Academy is a significant institution (some may note that her husband was a director general of it). But I haven't found any other information about a "Gunijon Shambardhana" - not when it was established, who received it, why it was awarded, or what it consisted of - it isn't a well-known and significant award. It is supposedly from 2006, so one would expect some online sources. I have an extensive personal library on Bangladeshi topics, and have found no sources there either. Of course, mine isn't as comprehensive as a major research university library. Those in my area are scheduled to reopen to the public in the next few months. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination until I can search them if there's widespread belief that sources must exist. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a spelling error for "Gunijan Shambardhana" which delivers a few hits for various people on google... So does the other award. But I'm quite willing to believe that sources don't exist if they cannot be found. Furius (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete i spent almost 15 minutes to search for the sources (including in Bangladeshi language for ফৌজিয়া ইয়াসমিন) to verify for the subject's award Shilpakala Academy, but unfortunately, i returned with empty handed. In fact, Bangla Wikipedia article[17] is also tagged with sourcing concerns. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:17, 23 August 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 12:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search Party (band)

Search Party (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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