< June 08	June 10 >

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 Becky G discography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fulanito (Becky G and El Alfa song)[edit]

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

Song that hasn't achieved any level of notability yet. Attempts to draftify due to lack of sourcing have been reverted. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: unquestionably created too soon, but both artists are well known and successful Latin music singers, so this may well chart in various places from tomorrow, I'm waiting to see what happens – I accept that even charting wouldn't necessarily be enough to keep the article if it has no prose. Richard3120 (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've warned the editor to follow our notability standards when creating articles though, as they've placed little to no care into multiple articles like this now. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too soon. The song was not even performed nor even announced as part of an upcoming album. Furthermore, nothing indicates that the song performed all that well to even receive significant chart positions within the next few days. Toyota Impreza (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP: TOOSOON. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I see that the song has charted but there's no additional coverage of the song. A redirect to Becky G discography may be appropriate since the criteria of WP:NSONGS still hasn't been met and the most notable chart positions are listed on that page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Becky G discography - The song was released only 12 days ago, and it currently fails WP:NSONGS with no significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. There is a possibility of charting high on the main charts later, so it should be redirected for now. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Posey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not seeing enough independent coverage to pass WP:BIO. Looks like the previous AfD scraped by via PORNBIO (15 years ago), which has since been deprecated. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is a Brad Posey, for whom there are plenty of references like [1], [2], [3]. But I doubt if he is the subject of the article. Will like to ask other editors to comment on this. Chirota (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article makes claims that the sources do not at all support. Neither source in any way could show he has a large following. IMDB is totally not reliable, and in no way an indication of notability, and we cannot use his own self created portfolio to show notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't know how the AVNs work but according to the version of the article back when it was first nominated, it seems like the video was the one that won rather than him? So I'm not sure about WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR. Unless somebody who is more knowledgable about the space can verify his contribution to the industry, it's very difficult for a layman like me to add much. As is, it seems like it fails WP:GNG but if he is as notable as others thought he was, there should be notable mentions of him somewhere. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:00, 10 June 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 List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Bunny[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, the best solution would be to merge into List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters, which needs a good deal of cleanup itself. There are a couple sources that make it silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but no reason to have a stand-alone article. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 20:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no objection to merging anything that's rescuable. Nothing here warrants this being kept (fails GNG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, she is known as bugs bunny's ex-girlfriend, sure, she is forgotten, but, she does deserve to have an article, i say we don't delete it, anyone can stumble across this page, it tells people about bugs girlfriend before lola.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4e90:2560:e902:c6d9:a7c4:d1f (talk) 02:00, June 13, 2021 (UTC)

Dear anon, fandom/wikia level of arguments are not enough for Wikipedia (what you are saying is WP:ITSIMPORTANT. That's just not good enough here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gangarampur High School[edit]

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

Fails Wp:GNG, can't find Reliable sources. 1друг (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 1друг (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wp:GNG, Delete this article quickly. Trap133 (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Junior Fed Cup Final[edit]

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

I found one independent source which published a painfully brief write-up of the event but this is WP:ROUTINE coverage and nowhere near enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT to any degree. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nonnotablee; I cannot even find a place where to merge (the word "Junior" spoils the fun). Lembit Staan (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEVENT/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:18, 10 June 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 South Shetland Islands. MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rock[edit]

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

Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of whatever formation this belongs to. Does not need a stand-alone article but could be a reasonable part of some list that is redirected to. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>South Shetland Islands, as part of group and best AfD. Djflem (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources cited except for a database entry. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. And rocks do play some role in navigation. Apcbg (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Narayanpur High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

@Nomadicghumakkad There are many wikipedia articles of school's including Gangarampur High School which are same as this, if those can be here why not this?--Tow7864 (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tow7864, I know this feels unfair. I encourage you to read WP:OTHER which will help you understand why such arguments shouldn't be made at first place. To add, what I know is that policies related to educational institutes changes somewhere between and they now have to adhere to WP:ORG. I think it was different in past when this other page was made. If this other page is not improved, sooner or later, someone might nominate it too. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, Nomadicghumakkad How I can nominate these articles? Why you are not delete them too?

Delete. sorry but fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wp:GNG, Wp:ORG. Quickly delete this. --Trap133 (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 23:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Vincent Cator[edit]

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

Unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Thomas Vincent Cator[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

support deletion. can't find much about a composer with this name.Tec Tom (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
support deletion Per nom can't see enough upon searching for refs on google news. Peneplavím (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination not at all convincing. Decent Newspapers.com hits, including several articles that describe him as a "nationally known operatic composer". There are also many, many hits for "T. V. Cator", although several of them may pertain to his father. Geschichte (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreeing per rationale provided by Geschichte. Chirota (talk) 10:48, 10 June 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 03:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GPS2SMS[edit]

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

non notable fgnievinski (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. fgnievinski (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search shows that this does seem to exist (albeit barely; main results are two apps and maybe three other programs), but this article is completely unsourced, and there is no proof that GPS2SMS has ever been used for its listed applications (the only application I could find is a Reddit thread asking about it for bicycling). AdoTang (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, As the person who imported it from the Dutch Wikipedia, I don't even remember why I imported it. And since nobody else as contributed to it or improved it in any way, I'm not opposed to removing it. Kamnet (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The original Dutch article had a link to a SPAM website, which was removed in 2012. The subject is not a technical term, it doesn't describe a technology. It's basically a mobile app asking for donations. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given that this is basically just a term for a simple technical concept, I feel that this approaches WP:NOTDIC territory. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above comments. Cinadon36 07:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Racing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability HeinzMaster (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HeinzMaster (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 17:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article re-created after a previous AfD does not appear to have substantially improved its sourcing. The only source given in the article is a bare directory listing. A WP:BEFORE search only discloses context-free racing results. This is enough to establish that WP:ITEXISTS but not enough to demonstrate notability under any standard. In other words, delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 16 June 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quran code[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unlike the Bible code, I am just not seeing any significant independent coverage of the claims here, the previous nomination in 2017 went for delete, and I don't think the situation with regards to sourcing has changed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's obviously complete pablum but the for question here is: is it notable pablum? The references do not give me confidence that it is and WP:BEFORE does not disclose much in the way of better sources. The originator of the "theory" wrote some self-published and apparently small-press books about it in the 70's but, unlike, say, his contemporary Von Daniken, that writing does not seem to have made much impact in the wider culture. The other references are all to personal blogs and websites and message boards. Even the book cited as criticism is published via an advertising agency. This is all non-RS material. The truly staggering amount of WP:OR involved does not help matters. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I learned of this theory forty years ago and it’s fairly well known. A Google book search for ‘code 19 quran’ brings up a number of works discussing the theory, though in how much depth I don’t know. A general search for the same term shows abundant sources, though how many of them might count as reliable I can’t be sure. Mccapra (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I agree with Mccapra. The topic should easily pass WP:GNG. Although I consider it to be somewhat fringe. But ~~Muslims around the world take it very seriously.~~ Many populist scholars have written a great deal about it. Mosesheron (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello all, I created this article also in the German wikipedia, and I wanted to translate this article into English. 1.The Bible Code and Quran Code are to separate things. The Bible Code is based on steganography that is looking at word/text/letter spacing, the Quran code is based on check sums, different enumerations and looking if those kind of enumerations correlate. "The other references are all to personal blogs and websites and message boards." Those blogs, website, and message boards are not mine. I have also included other websites and books, which are not from Rashad Khalifa, please mention that. "Even the book cited as criticism is published via an advertising agency." Which book do you mean? The book of Bilal Philips is not created by Rashad Khalifa, but by a traditional Islamic Scholar who is a critic of this code. To say that the majority of the article is not original research is wrong, I even took time and referred the counting with an Quran software, and I want to portray those examples as Claims in Wikipedia. It is a Neutral Point of view, if there is critic, than you can contribute, by writing constructive critic, with suitable references, and not just mere opinions or just deleting almost all the examples trying to explain the Quran Code Conceptions to the reader. Rilum (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the majority of the article is not original research is wrong I couldn't have put it better my self. I know that the double negative is probably not what you intended to say but you accurately summarized the problem nonetheless. You still don't seem to grasp that, when you publish on a Wikipedia page research you did by counting the things you thought were pertinent, that is unmistakable your original research. If the article survives this discussion. you should refrain from further such editing. Furthermore, "NPOV" doesn't mean "add pages of stuff and tack on a paragraph of criticism." Eggishorn (talk)

Those counts are not from me! They are mostly from Rashad Khalifa and Submission.org I included the software references in order that the reader can PROOF or CHECK for himself if those proclaimed counts are wrong. The count of certain initials is controversial, everyone can decide for him/herself whether those counts are right or wrong. I gave those references in order to give the reader a certain "help" to verify those counts for himself. I did not publish those counts by myself, those are claims, research done by others already. Most of the counts can be seen in Rashad Khalifas book "The computer speak: God's message to the world", see this link: https://submission.ws/downloads/the_computer_speaks.pdf . Page 108 following. Submission.org corrected some countings of Rashad Khalifa: https://submission.org/verify_updated_count_ALM_ALR.html "Disclaimer: A thorough recount of the Quranic initials, conducted in 2002, by Submission.org, using both manual as well as two different computer counting programs, has confirmed Dr. Rashad Khalifa's counts of all the Quranic initials except for a few counts in the initials "A" (Alef) and "L" (Laam). However, the recent recount of Quranic initials remains divisible by 19 and is a part of the Mathematical Miracle of the Quran. The latest details of the recounts can be reviewed and verified using Quran Inspector. Research on the "A"(alef) and "L" (Lam) counts is ongoing. This article represents the research that these new recounts are based on. This is by no means the end of the research but rather the continuation of it, as more sophisticated tools become available to us. So far, there has been no proof of any count that is different from what we presented here in this article in May 2002. God willing, this recount will be updated if different and correct findings are confirmed." cited from the link. 2002, and in May 2002 I was 4 years old, and no, these articles or websites are not my personal ones! And sorry for my mistake: To say that the majority of the article is original research is wrong. Rilum (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(contrib) 20:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can an admin tell us how this compares to the previously deleted version? --JBL (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Even though this topic is a fringe theory, it has a chance at passing the notability threshold if written properly. The problem at the moment is that Rilum has no idea what wikipedia articles should look like and the current version is totally unacceptable in article space. In summary, something must be done. In draft space, maybe someone will be willing to help Rilum to write it properly. If draftification is not chosen, second best is deletion plus redirect to Rashad Khalifa. The description at Rashad Khalifa can be smartened up a little without making it much longer. It should include the fact that Khalifa used the 19s to declare himself a Messenger of God. Zero^talk 01:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Rilum has no idea what wikipedia articles should look like and the current version is totally unacceptable in article space." To say that even if the "controversial stuff" was deleted and looking at the current state of the article, is not justified, and also an offensive expression. Rilum (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Honestly speaking, I never knew this "theory" despite being a Muslim lol. A number of books discuss this as I'm able to see over the Google books, whatever it is fringe or whatever, I don't care, but these much discussions warrant that it passes the GNG criteria. However the article requires a mighty cleanup and AfD has nothing to do with cleanup. Just place some maintenance templates like "cleanup-rewrite" and that's it.─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 02:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Templates like that usually stick around for years with nobody doing anything, though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with this but I've cleaned up a few articles that I could only because they related to my field of interest. Such templates are helpful as well. I do not see any problem except the need of "mighty cleanup". I've exams at the university otherwise I'd have given it a try.─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 02:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole article is rubbish, because it is composed by WP:OR. --91.20.5.186 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn’t. It’s an account of a theory that has been around for a long time. There us nothing original about the article. Mccapra (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garey High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
What, precisely, makes some high schools notable and others not so? (I’m genuinely curious. And, for the record, I have no affiliation whatsoever with the school. I just happened to notice its redlink.) –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 13:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- RedSoxFan274, the standard to apply is WP:GNG, and since schools fall under organizations/corporations, WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RedSoxFan274, more helpful reading at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't currently meet GNG Lirazelf (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly enough sourcing available to meet WP:GNG, as with any other American high school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless Necrothesp actually identifies some reliable, useable sources we have nothing. A copy of a news letter sent out by the princoipal in no way shows notablility, and that is the only source we have here. We have decided high schools are not notable just because they exist. The burden is on those who wish to keep the article to identify some actual usable sourcing, and they have not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added sources and content, enough to meet GNG. (Please note that only for-profit schools and universities are required to meet WP:NORG, including WP:CORPDEPTH. See WP:NSCHOOL:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.
Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The available sourcing is extremely trivial and lacks the direct, in-depth content about that they would need to make this a notable topic. It should be pretty obvious that local articles about the school changing it's don't cut it for anything have to do with notability. Nor do random trivial things like what the ethnic makeup of their school. I'm not seeing anything other then extremely WP:MILL, passing mentions similar to those though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adamant1, You seem to have confused the notability requirement of WP:CORPDEPTH with that required for WP:GNG. Only for-profit institutions are required to meet COREDEPTH. Here's the WP:GNG description of the notability requirement for significant coverage: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The articles cited on the history of the school are more than trivial or passing mentions, and most actually are the topic of the source material. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Grand'mere Eugene and WP:HEY. For better or for worse, schools (unless they are for-profit) need not meet WP:NORG. See WP:NSCHOOL. While the sourcing here would indeed fail NORG (particularly WP:AUD), the in-depth local press coverage is enough for GNG purposes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grand'mere Eugene: You should note that before the sentence about a school being for profit or not WP:NSCHOOL says that "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy WP:ORG, general notability guideline, or both." You can probably interpret what constitutes "mainstream education" in a couple of ways, but I would define it as being the main educational institution of that type in a particular area. if you notice the article says "The school was situated in the south part of the district so senior high students could avoid having to to travel to Pomona High School" and, Personally, I don't consider a school in an outlining area of a school district, that was mainly built to benefit the driving time of seniors, a "main" high school for the district. So for me it would have a higher bar of notability then the main high school in the district would.

Otherwise, we would by default have articles on every random low enrollment preschool out there, just because they receive a little state funding, and I'm pretty sure that's not in the spirit of the guidelines. As plenty of "head start" type programs are not for profit but are also clearly not notable. Which is probably why the "mainstream" part of the guideline is before the "for profit" bit. People, including you, routinely vote keep based on WP:NSCHOOL's for profit clause as if it's the only thing the guideline says or like there isn't any leeway, nuance, or considering of particular context allowed. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely not what mainstream means... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is that not what it means when the dictionary definition you provided literally says "used by most people"? Is a high school in the outlining area of a school district that was built to supplement the main high school "used by most high schoolers" in the school district? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is no. BTW, according to Mainstreaming (education) "mainstreaming in education is the practice of placing students with special education services in a general education classroom during specific time periods based on their skills." Also, "mainstreaming" can mean sending a child (sometimes "disabled," but not always) from an under served area to the main school in a district. Which, while I'm pretty sure neither are what the guideline is talking about, is (along with your meaningless definition) why I said the term "mainstream" is up to interpretation. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSCHOOL says that "All universities, colleges, and schools...must either satisfy WP:ORG, the general notability guideline, or both", with the exception of for-profit schools/commercial organizations. This is a school. It isn't for profit and it's not commercial. It meets the GNG. Ergo, it is notable. I don't even understand the dispute about "mainstream": this is a public high school, which obviously counts as a school. NSCHOOL is crystal-clear: for all non-commercial schools, meeting the GNG is good enough. Perhaps that should be changed; perhaps it shouldn't. But unless and until it is, I really don't see how anything other than a keep !vote could be justified here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, putting aside the "mainstream" thing if NSCHOOL is so clear that a school just has to pass GNG period like your acting then why does it even mention WP:ORG in the first place or visa versa? I'd assume there's zero way anything would pass NORG without also passing GNG. It also clearly says "or both." In no way does "both" mean "meeting the GNG is always good enough on it's own." Your acting like there's zero instance where WP:ORG would apply except in the case of a for profit school and that's clearly not what the guideline says. 100% it can (and probably should) be clarified so there isn't the ambiguity, but in the meantime that doesn't mean it's clear cut and not open to interpretation or context in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That wording has always baffled me too: in my view, it ought to be clarified. But nonetheless, it does quite clearly say "either", which means that meeting the GNG is enough. The February 2017 RfC is also quite clear that the GNG is applicable. Feel free to stop by my talk page if you're interested in chatting further about these issues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Adamant1, I admire your passion and search to clarify notability requirements for school articles. Extraordinary Writ has written about the GNG requirements, and I offer some examples and observations that I hope will contribute to further understanding.

First, as the history section of the article indicates, the building of Garey High School was only one of 4 construction projects in the Pomona Unified School District during the early 1960s. I left out that the decision was due to enrollment increases of about 10%, annually, district wide. The "Old Pomona High School", centrally located, needed to be replaced, and the new Pomona High was constructed in the north part of town. The Board deliberately planned to locate the second needed high school in the south part of town. The remaining 2 projects were elementary and middle schools. The point: all four building projects, including the the new Pomona High and Garey High, were built to accommodate burgeoning enrollments, and Garey was never an "outlying" school. It was designed and built as a new school in response to enrollment needs. Garey's enrollment recently has been 1,700+, and Pomona High's enrollment is close to 1,100.

Second, "mainstream" education refers not to a school being the "main school for that area," but to the traditional curriculum (language arts, mathematics, sciences, social sciences, the arts, phys ed) as age appropriate for students who do not have special needs. Mainstreaming does not refer to moving a student from an underserved area to a "main school in a district"; rather it's moving special needs students into the regular curriculum as appropriate.

Third, WP:NORG requires for-profit schools to meet the higher notability bar because they are businesses, and we are more cautious to ensure they meet WP:NPOV. In spite of the "Business model" being applied increasingly to judgments about school quality, very few not-fo-profit schools have resources to engineer PR campaigns. Many for-profits at the secondary level have a vocational focus, such as beauty schools, truck-driving schools, and specialized dance or music schools, such as School of Rock (minus Jack Black, of course). You can see listed the very few WP articles on for-profit schools at Category:For-profit schools in the United States, Category:For-profit schools in North America, and Category:Education companies. Our standard before the February 2017 RfC was to include high schools, but not elementary or middle schools, which were almost always redirected to district articles. To the best of my knowledge, preschools have not even been part of the discussion, so no worries there. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came into this expecting to vote "Keep", but all sources recently added to the article are either local newspapers or statistics, neither of which count toward establishing notability. I am fairly certain enough regional sources exist, but I have not had time to do a thorough check. I will do this tomorrow. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Newspapers.com, I found a source in the neighboring county [4]. I also found a story about an arson attack in the cafeteria in 1971 that appears to be an Associated Press article. People as far away as Sacramento and San Francisco read it. Here it is. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources that I provided indicate that WP:AUD is likely met. I also think WP:GNG are met even though I have not done a complete check. @Grand'mere Eugene:, what do you think? Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks, Scorpions13256, those look like good sources. The database filters at newspapers.com are frustrating, slow, and clunky, but I also found LA Times sources and added them, even though strictly speaking, only for-profit schools are required to meed WP:AUD. GNG requirements are definitely met. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that site is annoying. I was unaware that WP:AUD only applied to for-profit schools. Could you link the policy? Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSCHOOL lists the GNG as an alternative to WP:AUD/NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's wrong. WP:AUD isn't solely confined to NORG. Let alone only for profit schools. Especially since the RfC that determined high schools (even none profit ones) aren't inherently notable. Otherwise, every high school would de-facto be notable because every high school gets run of the mill local coverage. No where do the guidelines say that we should save every high school article just because of run of the mill special interest crap that gets coverage in local newspapers all the time like some kids going to prom night or which student won a track meet that week. The "notable" in "notability guideline" assumes that the facts/information that we are judging this on is actually notable and can't be applied to every other place out there. Otherwise, it's not a notable subject. Which just as much goes for WP:AUD. Maybe the family members of the kids who went to prom care about that their child was mentioned in the local paper, but so what? They aren't who we are writing articles for. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD is solely confined to NORG: that's why it's on the NORG page. The community is quite firmly against applying AUD more broadly; see this and this. (I actually agree with much of what you say, but it just isn't reconcilable with the guidelines as written.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:AUD is solely confined to NORG: that's why it's on the NORG page." For the sake of this discussion I could really care less if AUD applies to topics not related to organizations. Since organizations is what this article and discussion are about. My main point was that nothing about AUD is just confining it to for profit organizations. So feel free to confine it "solely to NORG." What does the NORG article say it relates to? "whether an organization (commercial or otherwise)...is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article." So I think what I said is perfectly reconcilable with how the guidelines are written. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP editing community has had notability discussions about broadening the use of AUD and COREDEPTH at least 3 times: in 2015, 2018 and 2019. Sadly, your belief that your conclusions are perfectly reconcilable with how the guidelines are written is not aligned with the community consensus. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AUD is a part of NORG. It's not a separate policy. There's nothing in NORG or anywhere else that says it only applies to profit schools and not organizations (non-profit schools or otherwise) more broadly. Otherwise, you could throw out like 99% of what's in NORG just because it's part of a subsection of the larger guideline and "screw the rest of it." Which would just be ass-nine and it's not how guidelines work. Obviously everything in NORG applies to organizations. Schools or not.

As far as the RfCs you linked to go, the first one is about adding AUD to GNG. Which in no way is this discussion or anything I said related to GNG or anything none organization related. Same goes for the second and third ones. As Piotr Konieczny says in the third RfC "I think this consideration is relevant to more than just organizations." Last I checked schools are organizations, what's in NORG has to do with organizations, and more importantly this AfD is about an organization. I've been more then clear I'm talking about the application of AUD to organizations. In no way am I trying to broaden AUD to anything that's not an organization as the RfCs were attempting to do. Like I said in my post that your responding to "I could really care less if AUD applies to topics not related to organizations." I'm not sure what's not clear about that. Really, your just Strawmaning. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if the wording of WP:NSCHOOL says clearly that all schools "must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both", are you not attempting to impose WP:AUD on the GNG requirement? I made no strawman argument. I'm just suspecting you are attempting the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. And honestly, you don't have to like it, but the community judgment is that schools can meet GNG without meeting NORG, unless the school is for-profit. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added are enough to meet GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Evangelism[edit]

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

Virtually unsourced article about non-notable 'church', stood up on their own website and a single story about a non-notable 'controversy' - have also nominated Rony Tan for deletion. Most coverage found in search was WP-derived. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. One incident is unlikely to give this church lasting notability. Furthermore, the lead and entire history section rely solely on primary sources. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- A church with a weekly attendance of 12,000 is enough to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV. Church attendance should have no bearing on notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 15:51, 16 June 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 (created by blocked user in violation of block). The Keep comments below all come from people who are almost certainly sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Hut 8.5 18:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parsa Khaef[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non notable musical artist. fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My friend, many sources have been mentioned and are still available, but I did not add them because it seemed to be enough. But if you think they are not enough, I will add. Because deleting this article is cruel despite all the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokhtt (talk • contribs) 12:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Put a little rigor aside because this article is too valid and deleting it may not be fair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokhtt (talk • contribs) 12:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate.--- Possibly (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not speak for itself as to either general notability or musical notability. The article has already been moved to draft space once and re-created in article space, either tendentiously or to game the system. The article has reference-bombed, and an article on a run-of-the-mill subject with 27 sources is still an article on a run-of-the-mill subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ How long will this discussion last and will you help me improve it instead of deleting the article? I will give you whatever you want — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliasghar ghorbandokhtt (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

struck duplicate !vote.--- Possibly (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Robert McClenon. Also, to the article creator, you can only really recommend once, and putting "Keep" three times means nothing (this isn't a vote). AdoTang (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion this paper is qualified enough to be in wikipedia.it's valid and it's about a well known Musical artist! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.70.28.92 (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we needed a wiki page about ParsaKhaef. I liked the context and i found the informations interesting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.210.248.40 (talk • contribs)

Keep I just wanna say Parsa Khaef is a profeesional Singer and I see the lack of a page about him in wikipedia https://www.pishkhan.com/news/166284 https://www.tabnak.ir/fa/amp/news/942377 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.55.98.1 (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been following Parsa Khaef works for a while and I can tell you he is such a genious. He'll be much more famous in one year or two and that's why I think wikipedia should have make a page for him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.51.43.94 (talk • contribs)

Keep I wanted to earn some information about Parsa Khaef, so I took a look at wikipedia and unblievably there was none. This guy is so bold and wikipedia need a page about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.2.225.10 (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish the kid luck as he embarks on a career in which he can utilize his talents. But to all the puppets or friends above, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic resource in which people and things must qualify for inclusion. This is not a promotional service that simply extends a musician's social media blitz. He has some introductions and announcements online, but none meet Wikipedia's crucial requirements for reliability and significance. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wanted to earn some information about Parsa Khaef, so I took a look at wikipedia and unblievably there was none. This guy is so bold and wikipedia need a page about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.122.130.202 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist has been mentioned in native language news sources and TVs, which means he is notable, and he's been in the Persian and Turkish music market ten years before he joined the Asre Jadid, that's why I think it's better to keep his article.

Keep As you can see, Parsa Khaef is a Persian singer, and unfortunately, there is no copyright law in Iran. That’s why the most reliable source on the Persian music market is Radio Javan. Please do research, and you’ll see it’s true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.251.212.211 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it’s fascinating how the same points are made over and over again at AfDs about Iranian singers. “There’s no copyright” etc. I’m just waiting for “There’s censorship so sources are hard to find.” Woeful. Mccapra (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an outstanding example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Bahram (2nd nomination). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG fail. All the socks adding k*ep !votes are likely the same person, as they make the same weird formatting error when !voting. Also, they are kinda obvious.--- Possibly (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This promotional article does not pass WP notability requirements to meet WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. It does not matter how "talented" or how "much more famous he will be in one year" it is WP:TOOSOON. The sockpuppet votes only harm the credibility of the article and artist, so please stop it as the duplicate votes are completely transparent to us. Netherzone (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This should stay because it has the right structure. And I personally vote for its sustainability and I believe it has the authority to remain on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.34.221.51 (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G5 - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aliasghar ghorbandokht Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure user Aliasghar ghorbandokht and Aliasghar ghorbandokhtt are connected? OK seriously now, this is about the most obvious socking at AFD I have seen so far. The AfD is now semi-protected, so tat least the bogus IP !votes will stop. --- Possibly (talk) 18:18, 9 June 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 12:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lipi Kumari[edit]

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

Non elected politician. Fails WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nom. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL: winning 1.31% of the vote in a state-level legislative election is not a golden ticket to notability. And since there doesn't seem to be any non-trivial coverage, she fails the GNG as well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPOL and GNG. Merely contesting in an election is not an indication of notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topaz (company)[edit]

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

Sources fail to demonstrate pass of WP:GNG or WP:NCOMP nearlyevil 665 06:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.military-informer.narod.ru/pvo-kolchuga.html	Looks like an independent military niche website	? Unclear	The article is about Kolchuga passive sensor, the company is mentioned in the last paragraphs as the manufacturer of said system	✘ No
https://informnapalm.org/ua/osnovni-dosyagnennya-oboronno-promyslovogo-kompleksu-ukrayiny-za-2017-rik-chastyna-iii/	? Self-stated to be run by volunteers, unclear editorial oversight. Either way mentions the company once in passing. This article is about achievements of Ukrainian defense military in 2017	? Unclear	No	✘ No
https://glavcom.ua/interviews/130696-direktor-donetskogo-%C2%ABtopaza%C2%BB-jurij-rjabkin-%C2%ABkolchugi%C2%BB-my-uspeli-vyvezti.html	Interview piece	Reliable media	Interview with representative of the company	✘ No
https://ukurier.gov.ua/uk/articles/oleksandr-ponomarov-ukravshi-zavod-rosiyani-poveli/	This is an interview piece in a reliable newspaper	This is an interview piece in a reliable newspaper	This is an interview piece in a reliable newspaper	✘ No
https://www.ukrmilitary.com/2016/08/topaz.html	? Unclear independence	? Unclear reliability	Just run-off-the-mill coverage of company ownership transfer	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

nearlyevil 665 06:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also possible UPE. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom can't see any reliable coverage. Sanketio31 (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I added some significant sources. It's definitely not a UPE created article as it's an article about a defunct plant in occupied by Russia-backed terrorists Donetsk. It's a part of military history of Soviet Union, Ukraine and Europe, as Topaz was producing the famous Kolchuga passive sensor. This plant is also a part of modern Russo-Ukrainian war as it was blatantly seized and moved to Russia. That's why I decided to shed a light upon this subject and ask you not to consider this translated from Ukrainian wikipedia page as a page about a private for-profit company, but mere a part of a military history of Europe. --Sharky tale (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC) stuck sockpuppet--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the sources. Unfortunately, they still qualify as run-off-the-mill and trivial mentions of the plant. I would suggest a possible merge with Kolchuga passive sensor.

nearlyevil 665 10:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~merging is also a nice decision as the plant is quite notable and the information should be kept. thanks for your comment. --Sharky tale (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)~~ stuck sockpuppet--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

however, the article about Kolchuga passive sensor is not much better sourced. So, it will be a stragne decision to merge the article about the plant to the article about it's product. It's like to merge Apple to iPhone. --Sharky tale (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC) stuck sockpuppet--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be notable and well-sourced enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the source assessment table? Could you kindly point out which references you think are qualifying - I'd add them to the table. nearlyevil 665 15:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kolchuga passive sensor as WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺
Speedy Delete G5 (noticed the AfD as I was about to tag). Created by a sockpuppet of Bodiadub ([5]) and all substantial edits are by sockpuppets (creator + [6]). The topic is borderline notable, and there is an issue of UPE here. WP:DENY.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:46, 14 June 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 Central Nebraska League. MBisanz ^talk 19:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minden (baseball)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:NBASEBALL. Delete or merge with Central_Nebraska_League nearlyevil 665 06:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 06:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the Minden team is notable in its position in history as a minor league team playing as a charter member of the 1903 Central Nebraska League. After the league folded in 1903, some Minden players were absorbed by the Holdrege team, who evidently continued play in the 1903 season. Skilgis1900 (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete A very specific !vote - a newspapers.com search shows there's more than enough to include information on this team and league in the encyclopaedia. Whether it's as a standalone page may be a bit much, but it's not impossible to get there in my mind - that being said, merging these teams into the league article may make more sense. SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested, I don't see enough to warrant them having an article alone. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional team game information, standings, player information, name details about the ballpark have been added from newspaper references from the era. Skilgis1900 (talk) 16:27, 12 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beta Delta Alpha[edit]

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

Article appears to be created by a single purpose account for promotional purposes around the same time the fraternity was created. I am nominating per WP:ORGDEPTH as there is 0 coverage of the organization outside of school affiliated websites or social media. And even if it's the "first Arab interest fraternity", that is not enough to keep the article per WP:ORGSIG—"No company or organization is considered inherently notable."BriefEdits (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:ORG. Brycehughes (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Single chapter, does not yet meet our (the F&S Project)'s 10-year requirement for notability of locals. Frustratingly, the group's website is down. It may be dormant. I'd prefer to keep the page as a draft, to resume as an article after 2024 if they remain an active group. Many of these 'start-up' locals fail; Dormancy wouldn't be surprising. Jax MN (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The issue with moving to draft space is that unless there's additional activity with this fraternity in the next 6 months, the draft is subject to deletion by WP:G13. I don't see the draft surviving for another 3 years to meet the requirements of F&S Project. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. I could keep it in my own draft space but I think that is likewise subject to timeout, or could take a copy of the page to bring forward later. They remain listed as active on UCLA student life pages, but their own website is down. Attributable to growing pains or dormancy, I don't know. Jax MN (talk) 15:34, 9 June 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. MBisanz ^talk 19:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese–Siamese War (1767–1775)[edit]

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

Sources do not treat these events as a singular continuous "war" that covered the period from 1767 to 1775. Article is a (previously unattributed, despite the creator having been warned several times) content fork of Taksin. While reorganization of the content away from the Taksin article is probably warranted, this is not the proper way to do so. De-PRODed by User:Andrew Davidson. Paul_012 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Taksin is not the right place for this as the title is obscure. There are certainly respectable sources which use titles of this sort for the conflicts of this period. For example, see this reference work which has entries for Siamese-Burmese War of 1764–69 and Siamese-Burmese War of 1775–76. This indicates that there are various ways to divide up these conflicts but that titles of this form are reasonable. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The naming pattern is not in dispute here; otherwise the entire Category:Burmese–Siamese wars would have been contested. What is disputed is the existence of a war taking place from 1767 to 1775. There is already an article for Burmese–Siamese War (1775–1776), and the 1764–69 one you give is a slightly wider framing of Burmese–Siamese War (1765–1767). Do you have a source that says the two countries were at war for the entirety of the time in between? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still awaiting your response, Andrew Davidson. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging of these two articles would be a better solution. Sodacan (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- With what do you suggest merging? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Burmese–Siamese War (1767–1775) should be merged with Burmese–Siamese War (1775–1776). --Sodacan (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to actually be making an argument for keeping the article. All of the content was originally copied from the Taksin article. If merging is suggested, it can be done from the original article and not a redundant fork with a misleading title, which should not be retained. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a different, thus it should be kept. It's not an unnecessary fork since it is a different war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanakorn Srichaisuphakit (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that the article creator had also split the Taksin article to Taksin's reunification of Siam, which was draftified and recently restored. This is a split do I agree with. The 1767 part purported to be part of the war covered by the nominated article belongs there (or in an aftermath section of the 1765–1767 war article), and is clearly distinct and separate from the Phichai and Chiang Mai campaigns. Lumping the separate conflicts into a "1767–1775 war" is blatantly incorrect. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 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 12:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3D Issue[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY with a pretty poor set of PR based references, and one big deal. WP:NCORP is debatable. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- promotional article, does not meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NCORP. Spleodrach (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Brycehughes (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not see how WP:GNG or WP:NCORP are met. The subject is a 25-person company (max) covered in a half-dozen ROTM news stories (max). A WP:BEFORE search in the Irish Times, for example, returns just 4 results. One of which is a passing mention, two of which are effective overlaps, and the final of which is a republished press-release. A similar search in the Silicon Republic Irish tech news source, by comparison, also returns just a handful of results. All but one of which are passing mentions, and the single 'primary topic' example is the same "republished press release as news churnalism" we see in the Irish Times. In terms of notability, I'm just not seeing it. There is nothing to distinguish this 25-person software company from the other many (10,000? 100,000?) such companies anywhere on the planet. Otherwise, the content reads like an extension of the subject's own website (complete with product promo, leadership bios, and "company press release complete with flowery quotes" style content). Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 00:56, 15 June 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 12:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paani Project[edit]

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

A newly created non-profit organization collecting funds for its project's execution. Non-notable organization, likely covert advertising. The article relies on brief mentions and sponsored news articles.. Fails WP:GNG and does not satisfy WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources used in the article (e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], among others) are independent and clearly establish notability. Brycehughes (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1(Michigandaily): Anouncement/PR; 2 (dailytarheel): Non reliable fails WP:RS; 3 (Parhlo): this can be consider; 4 (news10.pk): fails WP:RS; 5 (regionaltimes): fails WP:RS. Unable to satisfy WP:THREE. GermanKity (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think any of those are unreliable and I'm not sure why you think the first one is PR. Brycehughes (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Don’t delete, sources are reliable. P.H.TARU
Keep- He got enough media coverage and also every source are reliable. So, don’t delete. FardousTWG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.25.250.246 (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I am truly puzzled (and somewhat saddened) by seeing this article here on AfD. Especially when this article about a non-profit organization is backed up by such wide range of Reliable Sources as The Christian Science Monitor newspaper, Haaretz (Israeli newspaper), CNN News and The Muslim Observer (a U.S. and Michigan based newspaper founded in 1998). Easily passes WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had too many tabs open yesterday on my computer and I mixed up the given References for another Michigan organization LaunchGood with this Michigan-based Paani Project above. I fully admit my mistake and I again apologize for it. I am now redoing it only considering the given References for Paani Project above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Updated all references on this article just now. Has a total of 20 references backing up this article including Los Angeles Times newspaper, The News International newspaper, Daily Times (Pakistan), Geo News (a major Pakistani TV channel), Gulf News newspaper, Arab News newspaper, Council on American-Islamic Relations (a large nationwide U.S. organization) – these are all third party independent Reliable Sources which establish this non-profit project's notability. It's all there for everyone to see that these are exclusive feature articles (and NOT MERE MENTIONS at all). Easily passes WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources and reliable sources exists. Peter303x (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not at all clear from the nomination whether an appropriate BEFORE was carried out. Per Ngrewal1 RS clearly exists; passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is provided by many of citations from Independent, Significant, Reliable, Secondary sources. So it clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NONPROFIT. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 08:28, 15 June 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 12:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Championship Wrestling From Hollywood personnel[edit]

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

No notable article. CWFH is a very small promotion and doesn't need a personnel article (not every promotion needs these kind of articles). The website doesn't include a roster section, which is hard to source. The article states that "CWFH's roster consists mainly of independent freelancers.", so they aren't under a long time contract. 68 names in the article, but only two of them have articles. The whole article has only 5 sources HHH Pedrigree (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this level of detail is definitely not needed for such a small promotion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. I also wasn't able to find enough sourcing for most of this to be verifiable. The only source I could find for this which would even approach usability is a database on cagematch.net. Which is not enough for notability or verifiability. Finally, although AFD is not cleanup and this could potentially be fixed, I'm also troubled by the entirely unsourced disclosure of personal information (real names of people who work under pseudonyms) for living people. Lowercaserho (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails General Notability guidelines as well. --Bejnar (talk) 23:40, 11 June 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 Soibam Rebika Devi & Central Institute of Classical Tamil. Seddon ^talk 19:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tirukkural translations into Meitei[edit]

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

The subject of article does not pass WP:NBOOK. The Hindu article lacks in providing significant coverage and Valai Tamil, lacking in any editorial policy (vide You acknowledge that VALAITAMIL.COM cannot and does not pre-screen Content), is not a reliable source. There is no significant coverage in Tamil news, either. (Search for திருக்குறள் + மேதி மொழி) TrangaBellam (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is part of the encyclopaedic list of translations available of the Tirukkural, one of the most widely translated work globally, and lists the translations available in that particular language. Till date, we have only one translation of the work available in the Meitei language. Perhaps this explains, in part, the paucity of information available on it. Nevertheless, the article is not without reliable source. Only the number is meager, given the availability of information. I feel deleting this will only result in an informational gap on the list. Hence I recommend keeping the article. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel this article is not better covered at Tirukkural translations. And, please skim through WP:INHERIT. We (currently) have two sources, one of which is by the publisher. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well. The idea is we have a separate article for each language that the work is translated into wherever we have extra (detailed) information on it that cannot be included in the main (Tirukkural translations) article (which would otherwise violate WP:UNDUE in the main article). However, this is done only when we have at least one reliable source to pass WP:NOTE. Thus you can see there is no separate article for "Tirukkural translations into Thai" or "Thirukkural translations into Norwegian" (due to non-availability of secondary/third-party source). This is not the case with Meitei translation here. Also am not basing this on inherited notability, since the current article has a couple of sources (apart from the publisher's). Rasnaboy (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who set this rule that a new article shall be written on a translation as soon as we have at least one reliable source?
The current article has a couple of sources (apart from the publisher's) - Not anymore.
WP:NOTE states, 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. It does not specify that an article can be created, if we have a reliable source. So, can you provide two such reliable and independent sources in support? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMON and WP:EDITDISC, we don't literally go by rules all the time where commonsense is to be employed with the goal "to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers". Since there are more information on this topic which when retained in the main article Tirukkural translations may clash with WP:UNDUE, I created this article upon sensing a need for it. I've added one more independent source now. Please check. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are accepting the subject fails WP:NOTE and invoking WP:IAR, which is interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said this fails WP:NOTE. Even if I had said/thought otherwise, that shouldn’t bother the article so long as it has reliable sources to support every claim made, which I think it does. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NRV, the topic of Kural translations is notable. The article is a part of translations available on the Kural text. Since there is only one translation available in Meitei so far, we have comparatively less number of sources. I don't think that should make the topic less notable. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRV states, No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. Not that translations of Kural are notable.
We do not have comparatively less number of sources. We have two, one of which is by the publisher. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kural translations are an ongoing process for centuries now and are not a mere short-term interest. Significant independent coverage (for each translated language) is what we have to look for. With the recent addition of more sources, I think this issue has been resolved. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that [s]ignificant independent coverage (for each translated language) is what we have to look for.
Which source provides signficant coverage apart from this source? WP:NOTE states, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources [plural] that are independent of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NRV and above the topic of Kural translations is notable. The article is a part of translations available on the Kural text. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have copied Bhagya sri113's comment word-by-word w/o answering the raised issues. This is not a ballot-poll. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Central Institute of Classical Tamil. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't fall under any of the thing listed under WP:NOTNEWS for it is not about a fading event in the news or a routine reporting of some announcements but about a growing corpus of translations available on an ancient literary work. Only the sources are from newspapers, among other publications. Also it is part of the list of all the available translations, not just the work of a particular person/entity (e.g., the Central Institute of Classical Tamil, in our case). Of course, these details can be included in the CICT article by virtue of their contributions to the Kural translations, but that doesn't mean simply merging the article with the CICT article since the article's scope is beyond this organization. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent notability. Most Tirukkural translations deserve a single line in a list, if any mention is to be made of them at all. This is an encyclopedia, not a annotated bibilography of publishing. --Bejnar (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although list of translations of an ancient work (or any global work, for that matter) is encyclopedic in itself, not all individual translations are notable. Even within the Tirukkural translations, not all language translations are notable. Agree (e.g., Thai, Norwegian, Burmese, Vaagri Booli, Garo language translations of the Kural text). Hence they are listed in the main translations article. However, similar to the list of translations of the Bible, many of them have enough coverage by two or more newspapers (third-party sources), books and other secondary sources per WP:RS. Meitei language translations is one such item in that list that has more information than can be listed in said list (which if listed in the main article will violate WP:UNDUE) and hence deserve separate article. The history details for each Kural translation within a given language speak to that and is enough to show that it is not an annotated bibliography. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mere availability of information is not a reason for an article. That is why Wikipedia has notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. But the point here is this doesn't fall under any of the points under WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I'm not talking about its mere availability, which might otherwise violate WP:NOTNEWS, but its encyclopedic merit—it is the first ever translation of a Tamil work into Meitei and also the first ever Kural translation into that language. It's not any promotional work but a part of a historically important corpus of translation works of literary merit. Thus it doesn't come under WP:NOTNEWS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE despite some of the sources being newspapers. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Soibam Rebika Devi per Wikipedia:Content forking. The Central Institute of Classical Tamil translates many works, and its not clear a merger there would be warranted, as it would shift the weight of the article towards a single translation. I think the best target is the page on the author of the translation, as this work is the primary claim for the author's notability. It would make sense to give a detailed description of the translation in the article on the translator as basically they are duplicate topics.4meter4 (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article is beyond the work of one single translator and thus it is too far from just merging with the translator's article (WP:DUP). The article is meant for listing all translations available in that language (the Meitei language, in this case) and the currently available one is that of Soibam Rebika Devi. It doesn't stop there. The article on a single translator and the one on the list of available translations by different translators are two discrete subjects per WP:NOTMERGE. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that interpretation. She’s the only named author, and the translation is essentially her work. Further, it’s the only claim to her notability as a subject on the encyclopedia, meaning this content is specifically pertinent to her encyclopedia entry. Additionally, your argument is based around an assumption that other translations of the Tirukkural into Meitei will be made in the future. That is a faulty argument per WP:CRYSTAL. There are no guarantees that additional translations will ever be made. If and when that does occur, then this article can be re-created. At this point this article is a duplicate of content on the author and they should be merged per Wikipedia:Content forking. 4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article, being the translations of a specific book into a specific language, does not have significant coverage. I find the pseudo-formalistic argument of Rasnaboy (This article is part of the encyclopaedic list of translations available of the Tirukkural...), i.e. if it's a part of a set of such articles it's okay, to be based on two false premises: (1) the false premise that the current treatment of this topic area is appropriate, (2) the false premise that articles can't be evaluated individually. Treating the topic of Tirukkural translations through a host of untenable daughter micro-articles is bad, and this article exemplifies it. It is not a legitimate way to structure content. More work needs to be done on the parent Tirukkural translations article to make it easier to include needed information there. Edit: I studied how this topic area is systematized in the case of the Bible. There are both good and bad examples. Good example: Bible translations into the languages of Russia | Bad example: Bible translations into the languages of France. Now imagine absolutely every one of those languages' of Russia Bible translations having it's own article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim that articles cannot be evaluated individually (the very reason why I talk about the scope of the article as in WP:NOTMERGE or WP:DUP) but I do find this topic area appropriate for reasons I listed above. I agree with you that more work needs to be done on the parent article, but that doesn't stop the daughter articles from getting created when the need arises. I don't know if the Meitei translation be compared to Bible translations in languages of France or Russia. All those minor languages are overshadowed by the main national language of that country (viz. French or Russian), but that's not the case with any of the major Indian languages—all the 22 official languages of India are the chief and official languages of the respective states of India, each with a rich literary history of their own (Manipuri/Meitei is one of them). These translations are only adding to that corpus of literature. Hence I felt the encyclopedic value of this topic. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:19, 19 June 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 speedy delete per CSD criterion G7 FASTILY 03:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Tunahan Bodur[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR NMW03 (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - created by a spambot that has been blocked on many wikis. aeschylus (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NACTOR due to no notable roles and fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of reliable sources covering him Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quick delete - per reasons mentioned above. Ahmetlii (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if deleted, please request deletion of the WD item at d:Q106778877. Also, then can action a speedy deletion request of File:Mustafa Tunahan Bodur.jpg. If it is unknown on how to undertake this, then please ping me. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I declined this 3 times as a draft (see this revision). Also speedy deleted from the Turkish Wikipedia a few weeks ago, possible PR piece. Clearly fails NACTOR and GNG. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 11:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Yeissensura moved the page to User:Mustafa Tunahan Bodur, which got deleted by Fastily because it's a nonexistent user. Weird stuff. XD ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:06, 13 June 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. Consensus not notable and a redirection would be unsuited Nosebagbear (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VLSI Design Lab, VNIT[edit]

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

Unsourced and promotional. No independent sourcing to justify a standalone article per WP:BRANCH. M4DU7 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability. No redirect because it is not mentioned at proposed target.

--Bejnar (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This clearly isn't a notable subject. Also, I agree that a redirect wouldn't work since it's not mentioned in the redirect target. Plus, it doesn't really seem like a search term that deserves one anyway. Since I doubt anyone would be looking for it in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:01, 16 June 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 that the sourcing reviews of the books is sufficient to demonstrate notability for the subject per NAUTHOR Nosebagbear (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwina Preston[edit]

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

Non-notable writer and musician, borderline speediable. Sources cited are primary, or reviews of her books that don't provide significant coverage of herself, and a search finds nothing better. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Austlit lists multiple reviews for her work [12]. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Routine book reviews aren't enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR; you'd need "significant critical attention" etc. for that. And while they might go towards establishing notability of the books, they don't contribute to WP:GNG of the author without sigcov of the latter. That's my interpretation of the guidelines, at any rate. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Those five newspaper and journal reviews establish significant coverage in my view, but I agree it's borderline. However, I don't agree that notability of the author in and of herself needs to be justified separately, given WP:AUTHOR seems to state as a criteria that it's enough if, "The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention". Meticulo (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that AUTHOR allows the author to gain notability through their works. My first point was that I don't see the AUTHOR criteria being met here. My second point was that GNG notability cannot be inherited, so just because the books have sigcov, that alone doesn't make the author notable. Happy to be proven wrong on this, though. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a practical perspective, I'd rather we have one longer article for the author rather than short stubs for each of her notable books. pburka (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Duffbeerforme and Meticulo. Borderline, but enough in my view. Deus et lex (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with reviews in major Australian reliable sources. An artist's work whether they are a writer, musician, painter, and so on cannot be seperated from the notability of the person and there are many famous authors who keep their biographical details strictly secret, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 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. Consensus fails to meet NCORP Nosebagbear (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

My name is Fred Becker, and I hired on at EquityMultiple earlier this year. I was told we had a Wikipedia page, but when looking to make some updates last week I realized that our existing page was flagged for deletion (one example - our inclusion in the 2021 Inc. 5000 list). I'm not completely familiar with the processes following page deletion, but is there any method for remediation with this page given that's it was already deleted? If not, is it possible to create a new iteration? I'm not sure to what extent the page had been updated, but based on the deletion feedback I see, I think many of my planned updates (lots of new sources) should directly address the notability concerns that were outlined--and if this is the right forum, I'm happy to provide a list of those sources here.

I completely understand the need to uphold notability standards for wiki articles, but I'm sure you can understand it's disheartening to have our page deleted. Just doing a quick search I see many of our direct competitors have their wiki pages live, and after reviewing their pages, I really feel we have a defensible claim to equivalent notability (based on a comparable range of reputable sources). Hopefully our deleted article simply failed to incorporate enough of these sources, and we at least have some shot at recovering it.

Apologies for sending this email over the weekend, but I sincerely appreciate your time and consideration on this.

Cheers,

Fred Youknowfred (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EquityMultiple[edit]

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

Non-notable private startup. I haven't evaluated The Real Deal, which is paywalled, but none of the other sources help demonstrate notability, and a single source is not enough. PR Newswire is a press release, and the two Crowdfund Insider pieces by JD Alois ("the pen name of a frequent contributor") also read like press releases. The entrepreneur.com article is written by the CEO of EquityMultiple. National Real Estate Investor, a trade journal, is a primary source interview with the founders of EquityMultiple, with no independent analysis. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest found nothing better: press releases, trade journals, dodgy-looking and self-published sources of dubious reliability, and no more than passing mentions in the legitimate financial press. Does not meet WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks as though it clearly fails NCORP, lack of significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 00:09, 12 June 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 procedural close. The article had already been redirected to Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry at the time of the nomination. Feel free to bring it back here if this is contested. – Joe (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Studies and the Khazar Hypothesis[edit]

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

A strange, essay-like page created in April 2021, which looks to me like an obvious WP:POVFORK of Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry (created in 2013). That is to say, it's a second (and much shorter) article on the same subject, which seems to reflect a very different set of opinions. I don't see why any of this content couldn't be merged into the parent article. jp×g 04:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. jp×g 04:10, 9 June 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 06:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristofer Kamiyasu[edit]

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

Kristofer Kenichi Kamiyasu

This actor does not appear to satisfy acting notability or general notability. An article should speak for itself so that a reader can determine what general or special notability criterion is satisfied, and this one does not. The lede identifies three roles:

1. Box 21, which does not have its own article.
2. M/S Romantika is a ship, not a performance.
3. The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard is in post-production, and so not yet notable.

Copies of this biography were created in both draft space and article space, possibly to game the system, so that the article cannot be moved to draft space to work on notability.

The filmography consists mostly of red links, and does not appear to have any trapdoors to notability.

An analysis of the references should only be necessary for GNG, but is "interesting", because some of them do not even mention the subject:

	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant
1	New York Times	Paywalled	Yes	Probably a passing mention.
2	Forbes	Mention of an unreleased movie, The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard	Yes	No
3	Variety.com	Interview about the movie 'Knocking'	Yes	No. Subject not mentioned, only about movie.
4	Hollywood Reporter	Interview about the movie 'Knocking'	Yes	No. Subject not mentioned, only about movie.
5	Express.uk	About The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard	Yes	No. Subject not mentioned, only about movie.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked the paywalled NYT source and found that this man was not mentioned at all. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 18:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NACTOR. Good analysis of refs by Robert McClenon. According to IMdB M/S Romantic was a TV mini-series in 2019 about the ship; however, it does not mention Kristofer Kamiyasu in its cast. IMdB does mention him as "head waiter" in Hamilton: In the Interest of the Nation (2012). --Bejnar (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Norell[edit]

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

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in November 2017. The only external link provided is to the IMDB. I failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources, or even in unreliable sources, via G-searches. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The subject is an Emmy-nominated screenwriter with a long list of credits. I've added one source already. I would give the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They had a main role Emergency!. As I also think the refs are fine, supporting the article. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominated for an Emmy, won a WGA Award in 1991, plus a starring role in a long-running TV series. Refs need some work, probably with offline sources, but definitely notable on his own merit. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 18:26, 9 June 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 has tended towards a majority agreeing with the arguments set out by GRuban. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss and Mister Supranational[edit]

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

I tagged this article CSD G4 as a recreation of a deleted article (see the many AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination) but was challenged by the page creator GRuban that it was significantly different. But given the fact that the subject has come to AFD so many times, I'd like to get a consensus decision from AFD regulars on whether the article should be deleted or if this subject now warrants an article. I've seen quite a few beauty pageants come to AFD discussions so I think those participating here will be better judges of the standards of articles on that subject than I am. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of the notable major beauty contests of the year. This Article has more than 90 reliable reference from all over the world are covering the pageant. And it has been rated as C on the WikiProject Beauty Pageants Really meet WP:GNG. Bonutra (talk) 8:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Keep. Sorry if this is going to be long, but there are just so many reasons to keep the article, that I'm surprised that an experienced admin thought it could be speedy deleted.
- The AFD Liz refers to was in 2014. At the time, this was a 4 year old contest. Since, this has become a 12 year old contest, and has drawn much more Wikipedia:Notability. As you can see, as Bonutra writes, over 90 references, and most later than 2014. That should suffice.
- You'll notice it's now Miss and Mister Supranational. In 2014, it wasn't, that only began in 2016. The Miss half is still more notable, but that's a noticeable difference.
- When I wanted to create the article - from scratch, I wasn't aware of any past history - I noticed that it had been deleted before. I went to the deleting admin, RoySmith (talk · contribs), and asked for permission to recreate it. He gave it!
  - After I wrote it, I asked for him to review it, to check that it was now suitable. He did!
  - After it made Wikipedia:Did you know page leaders, as one of the most viewed DYK articles for its month(!), I mentioned this to him again, and he wrote that he was glad it worked out! (The relatively high views have continued, by the way. It actually gets as many or more views than our article on Miss America. Not that that's a direct indicator of notability - the references are that - but it does show our readers are interested.)
  - Hopefully this will ping him and he will be along to confirm.
- I pointed Liz to the article talk page where this is all discussed. That didn't matter?
- Do I have to go to each Wikipedia admin individually to get approval to recreate a deleted article? Surely getting the approval of the deleting admin is enough?
- There may be more, but I needed to start with this. Unless Liz wants to withdraw the nomination? --GRuban (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, I wouldn't categorize my prior interactions with this as saying it was "suitable". My userfication was routine; I'll userfy almost anything on request as long as it doesn't run afoul of WP:CV or WP:BLP. And when asked to review it, the most positive thing I said was that I didn't see any references, that raised any obvious red flags about not being WP:RS. That's hardly a glowing endorsement. In any case, it's all immaterial for this AfD. The goal of an AfD is to determine if a topic meets WP:N. About that, I offer no opinion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly had the impression you were convinced, sorry. --GRuban (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not withdraw this AFD. This subject is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational 2017. Without an updated AFD decision with a different outcome than the last one, any articles on this beauty contest will continue to be tagged for deletion by editors attuned to looking for recreated articles. Isn't it better that have a clear decision to Keep these articles rather than having to go through this song and dance every time a well-meaning editor tags these articles for speedy deletion? That is the whole purpose of this AFD...without an updated decision, these articles will continue to be tagged for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked at a few sources used for the article, one of the first being The Plain Dealer, which starts :"Odds are you haven't heard of the Miss Supranational pageant." Indeed I hadn't, but I think there are enough reliable sources available to demonstrate that these pageants pass WP:GNG. I'm not going to claim familiarity with the reliability of all the sources, but from my random selection, there is adequate coverage in national/regional press, and I see that only a couple of the sources are highlighted by User:Headbomb/unreliable (bearing in mind the caveats on that page). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - It looks to be an international competition with substantial coverage. I don't see any reason to get rid of it. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 04:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No wonder there are huge number of sources: pageants are a a lucrative business. The problem with these sources from all over the world is that they are routine PR pieces and announcements. To establish notability we have to have independent sources that cover the subject in detail. Lembit Staan (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're absolutely not PR pieces and announcements. With the rare exception of a couple of WP:ABOUTSELF, they're from independent newspapers all over the world, who are serving no one but their readers. If you think that all those unrelated sources from different countries are dependent on the Miss and Mister Supranational organization, you have a serious overestimate of its reach and power. And they're only routine in the sense that the contest comes every year. True, most are not tremendously indepth on the organization, just on individual contests, but that is the nature of a regular event, and this is an article about the event - the very series of contests the sources are writing about - not about the organization. Taken as a whole they cover the competition quite thoroughly in detail. WP:GNG does not require that indepth coverage be in a few sources, we can absolutely add them up. To quote a classic: All those are on one side. Maybe some of them are unimportant - I won't argue about that - but look at the number of them.[13]--GRuban (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get a lot of coverage in RS from all around the world without really doing anything significant, hosting an international competition is a pretty good way to do it. Papers love writing stories about locals succeeding in competitions. By the strictest reading this would therefore pass GNG, but I think this is the case where that's misleaading. Almost none of the sources are actually about the pageant as an event, or about the ogranization that hosts it. They're about the women who compete in it. Of the 94 sources (using numbering as of this revision), #s 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47, 48, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, & 94 are about the candidate from the region the source is based in, or a candidate with ties to the region—mostly announcements of who'll be competing, announcements of victory, or press-release-style lists of winners with a focus on the candidate, with a few actual profiles of winners. (Sidenote, #3 doesn't actually mention Miss Supranational; not sure how it wound up in the article.)
That's not to say that the rest are RS coverage of the pageant itself either: Some are the same thing about neighboring countries; some are ones I couldn't translate and may well fit in that long list; some are ABOUTSELF; some are tangential. Really only the 53rd reference (a puff piece about the sponsor one year) and the 82nd, (about a change in franchisee in the Philippines) acknowledge the pageant as anything other than a ranking-generator. There is significant coverage of this pageant's existence, and of a lot of people affiliated with it, but I don't think there's significant coverage in keeping with the spirit of GNG. Delete. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 00:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I heard that "none of the sources are actually about the pageant, [t]hey're about the women who compete in it" argument, and I think if you look at it more closely, you'll see it doesn't hold. The sources are only writing about the women because they're competing in the pageant. Sure, the articles seem pretty in-depth about how Gretchen Gryffindor, the Miss Supranational candidate, is studying Anthropology, active in her local charity, and plays the tuba, but don't you agree that if Sally Slytherin had gotten the nomination, it would instead be about how Sally Slytherin grew up on a farm, rides the unicycle, and juggles for children's birthday parties? They're not about "Rowena Ravenclaw, already famed beauty, adds the Miss Supranational crown to her long list of achievements"; they're about "Helga Hufflepuff, whom we never heard of before she was nominated for Miss Supranational, is also a pretty interesting person". They're articles about "the current holder of the office", so to speak.
It's also strictly untrue that they're only local sources about the candidate:
- https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2020/04/28/2010401/crowned-time-corona-miss-supranational-ecuador-picked-online-pageant is an article from the Philippines, about the contestant from Ecuador. You may notice this is not a neighboring country either, they're rather far apart.
- https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment/fashion/article/miss-korea-jenny-kim-crowned-miss-supranational/137645 From India about the winner from Korea
- https://www.visitseychelles.org/global-travel-news/korean-beauty-jenny-kim-crowned-miss-supranational-2017/ From Seychelles about the winner from Korea. Only two oceans away!
- http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/bb-pilpinas-supranational-mutya-johanna-datul-crowned-miss-supranational-2013-in-minsk-62334/ From the US about the winner from the Philippines
- https://beautypageants.indiatimes.com/mister-supranational/gabriel-correa-from-venezuela-wins-mister-supranational-2017/articleshow/61898631.cms From India about the winner from Venezuela
Sure, most are about the local candidate, but strangely enough it's easier to write about someone when you share their language and time zone. There are plenty that aren't about the local candidate. --GRuban (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged that there are some exceptions. My point is that the idea of 94 citations supporting notability is illusory. The fact remains: Not a single cited RS discusses Miss Supranational as an organization, and few if any discuss the pageant as an event. "Local woman off to compete in international competition with a fancy name" is a good story regardless of whether the competition is notable. If the competition is notable, it shouldn't be hard to find RS that discuss its organizational structure, its finances, logistics of the individual pageants, etc. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 13:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per request. Organizational structure and logistics of the individual pageants.:
"Fil-Am modeling director is new Miss Supranational U.S. franchise owner" Philippine article about the US pageant

"Binibining Pilipinas loses Miss Supranational franchise to Miss World Philippines" CNN Philippines

"Miss Supranational is now under Miss World Philippines" Yahoo!

"Miss SA pageant to field candidate to Miss Supranational in addition to Miss World and Miss Universe" SA in this case means South Africa. --GRuban (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Strongly meets WP:GNG. I don't see any problem with notability in this topic bongchuyen111 (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems to meet GNG. Ah, the dreams of the younger days... - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GRuban.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP as per GRuban reliable citations. All of Indonesian representatives to the Miss Supranational pageant even supported by the governments and each year, Miss Supranational Indonesia appear on Government Website. Means Miss Supranational is a notable major beauty contests.--Lukewon (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://www.antaranews.com/berita/599746/puteri-pariwisata-2016-masuk-10-besar-miss-supranational 2016 edition on Antara (news agency)
- https://www.beritasatu.com/hiburan/398318/wajah-eksotis-dan-fasih-tiga-bahasa-jadi-modal-intan-aletrino-di-miss-supranational-2016 2016 edition on BeritaSatu
- https://www.cnnindonesia.com/gaya-hidup/20161203091003-277-177059/indonesia-tembus-10-besar-miss-supranational-2016 2016 edition on CNN Indonesia
- https://tubankab.go.id/entry/runner-up-puteri-indonesia-pariwisata-kagumi-tuban 2018 edition on Tuban Regency Government Website
- https://setkab.go.id/en/president-jokowi-receives-putri-indonesia-2019-miss-universe-2018/ 2019 edition on Ministry of State Secretariat (Indonesia)--Lukewon (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - noting the following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miss_Supranational_2017 which also includes the 2016 - 2021 pageants, and there is an AfD that includes Mister Supranational 2021 et al. I'm not seeing a valid reason to delete these articles - they pass GNG. Countries are selecting candidates to represent them. Why shouldn't WP include them? It's an international annual event. I'd rather see more science events, WikiCons, college debates and less sports, beauty pageants and Hollywood/Bollywood movies but...hey - the world loves to look at beautiful people. Atsme 💬 📧 16:10, 14 June 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 03:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Secret Santa[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage by independent sources BOVINEBOY2008 00:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. jp×g 06:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film, one of those "movies of the week" they pump out. No awards won etc. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete needs more sources, not currently meeting GNG Lirazelf (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need way better sourcing to show that this was a notable film. Although to be fair that is probalby true of half our articles on films. But we have to start somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:36, 11 June 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.