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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Castell[edit]

Dominik Castell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable actor with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:52, 5 December 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 23:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kharuk[edit]

Oleg Kharuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not seem to meet the criteria for sports or creatives. A brief glance at the sources (via machine translation) will reveal that the sources are mostly completely irrelevant to this subject, mere listings or bare mentions (not substantial coverage). Salimfadhley (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom + heavy smell of UPE editing. The article was created by a new and non-returning user, mentions a bunch of non-notable awards, and has a poorly sourced section on the subject's purported charitable work. JBchrch talk 23:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I fully expected to be on the other side, how could he win notable races and then not be notable? Then I looked up the "Winner of the Gulf 12-Hour Auto Race". If he was the winner, why doesn't he appear in that article? The others, he simply competed in. Fails WP:GNG, appears more like a paid vanity piece. Ifnord (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on user:Ifnord's findings. Chelokabob (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete oer nom Devokewater ^(talk) 13:00, 5 December 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. This debate suffered from multiple problems, not least the out-of-process removal of the AfD template on the article, even though the AfD was not closed. At this point there is no consensus for deletion, but given the weak nom and the other deficiencies in this debate, no prejudice to a re-nomination in the near future. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Stoicism[edit]

Modern Stoicism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is using the name of a private organisation as it's title. modernstoicism.com the original author is a member of the Modern Stoicism Ltd Organisation and a former student of Lawrence Becker, who is cited as if to represent him as the intellectual founder of a new philosophy, with followers that adhere to his doctrines. This is false, there is no such consensus, Becker is not an influential author outside a small group of acquaintances. His writings are controversial within the Stoic community...

The general quality is poor...

While it is true that Albert Ellis referenced Stoicism in his Rational EMotive Behavioural Therapy, it is not at all foundational, and both REBT and CBT are psychotherapies, not ethical philosophies.

Viktor Frankl whos is referenced identified himself as an Existentialist. that he named his philosophy Logotherapy, is incidental.

The alleged "modern Stoicism movement" circulates around Modern Stoicism ltd. and they events they organise.

Of the people reference

Alasdair MacIntyre is an Aristotelian has not written on Stoicism other than briefly, and dismissively, in After Virtue. Martha Nussbaum is another critic of Stoicism, not an adherent. Lawrence Becker has been discussed, he is now deceased but none of these academics have ever been participants in any way in any movement.

Mouron Rouge (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article as a whole is vague, misleading and uninformative and is pushing a very personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouron Rouge (talk • contribs) 22:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

= Edit =:

I saw this in the comments below: "promotional and soapboxing". This would describe this article very accurately.

Mouron Rouge (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and was transcluded to the log for 14 November (which was when the nom originally tagged the article). I've added the template and "moved" the transclusion to the 22 November log. I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 22:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Apparently a wholly spurious collection of ad hominems without substance conflating a generic thing with some entity that uses it. Stoicism does in fact have a modern incarnation and Neostoicisim refers to something from the 18th century. The article is 6 years old and doesn't fit the various apparently unhinged complaints above. My intention is to redirect it to Contemporary Stoicism. Lycurgus (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Lycurgus (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep should say haven't examined closely, the prima facie situation is keep and investigate alleged advert. The various ad hominems to major relevant figures and the ground existential matter of contemporary version of virtually any major philosophy school of the past, e.g. Aristotelianism (if you will) which is quite common in right wing layers, spoke for themselves with the age of the article and apparent input. I'm not in a rush, don't know how long it will stay (re)listed but can wait a month or whatever. Lycurgus (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As a consensus was reached, I went ahead and did the move and a superficial redact. The matter of the contested source "Becker" can proceed as a normal issue on the kept page.

• Keep The poor quality does not contradict the importance of the page's existence. Perhaps, to address the most substantial of the claims against this page, it should be renamed to avoid conflation with the organization. 'Contemporary Stoicism' is advisable. 130.15.35.14 (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)RHug.[reply]

• I formatted your vote and signed mine for ease of processing. Lycurgus (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pending a coherent, policy-based argument for deletion. The current nomination reads like a WP:ATA list and it shouldn't the job of other editors to have to wade through and interpret it. —  AjaxSmack  03:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:N there is no modern movement based on the writings of Lawrence Becker, there is no movement with any consensus around the principles set forth in the article, that is a complete fiction. This article is entirely devoted to portraying Lawrence Becker as a well known ideologue with a following, which is untrue. Becker is mentioned 19 times, whereas there are no references to the founders of the philosophy, nor any continuity with them. I suggest moving to 'Lawrence C. Becker' as this is the principle topic of the article. Mouron Rouge (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck the "Delete" as a duplicate !vote--further comments are welcome, but your nomination is implicitly a delete !vote already. --Finngall ^talk 17:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support changing the name to Contemporary Stoicism and the revision/removal of the references to the "New Stoicism" of Lawrence Becker, which as pointed out below, has no consensus Mouron Rouge (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think a name change to contemporary Stoicism eliminated confusion between the Modern Stoicism organization. contemporary or modern are adjectives not part of the proper name. I feel the section on the differences between modern and ancient Stoicism is very poor, based on one interpretation that very few who consider themselves part of the "modern/contemporary Stoicism" would agree with. Broadfootrj (talk) 22:44, 2 December 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 23:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getcha (disambiguation)[edit]

Getcha (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm not used to seeing one word from a title being a reason to create a disambiguation page. I mean, Top Gun isn't listed in Top (disambiguation) or Gun (disambiguation). This is more of an intitle search than a disambiguation page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no reason for a dab page for a single word, as per nominator - and if it was needed, it wouldn't be at this disambiguated title, as there is no asserted primary topic. PamD 09:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the entries are partial matches, which aren't allowed. Sooner or later, AfD's gonna getcha. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for the reasons stated by the nominator, and for not even functioning properly as a disambig page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with noms argument. Chelokabob (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per the nominators reasoning, no need for this page JW 1961 ^Talk 16:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Tranberg[edit]

Charles Tranberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I came to this biography looking to fix it up, since he appears to be a successful film biographer who has written the authoritative biographies of actors like Robert Taylor. However, after doing some fairly thorough searching in various places, the only secondary reviews of his work that I could find were the Santa Fe New Mexican review of Fred MacMurray: A Biography and a one-paragraph review of Robert Taylor: A Biography in the journal Nebraska History that doesn't rise to WP:SIGCOV by my account. WP:NAUTHOR criterion 4c requires that their work has received "significant critical attention", and I unfortunately don't think his work rises to that level. I can find nothing secondary at all about him as a person, and nothing even in primary sources about basic biographical information like where he attended college, so if kept this would necessarily be a permastub. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:35, 2 December 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. None of the "keep" !votes rises above WP:ILIKEIT or is even remotely policy based. The appearance of several new SPA accounts raises suspicions of (meat)puppetry. Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hưng Thịnh Corporation[edit]

Hưng Thịnh Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Recently deleted under G11. Fails WP:NCORP. Still a piece of advertisement. DMySon (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Can't find reliable sources about it. VincentGod11 (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This company is quite reputable in Vietnam and has done many real estate projects. This company has also been listed on the stock exchange with code HTN source: http://s.cafef.vn/hose/HTN-cong-ty-co-phan-hung-thinh-incons.chn. When a company is listed on the stock exchange, it is already closely inspected by the securities commission Hoangnam4487 (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, advertisement of company that fails WP:NCORP. MickyShy (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As Hoangnam4487 has said. One more thing about this subject that I’d like to mention is the fact that its brand name (Hưng Thịnh) – as mentioned in the “Scandals” section – has been copied by many other local organizations. Hence, when you search for information about it, you are likely to find many “fake” websites, which may make it difficult to determine reliability. As a Vietnamese resident, I’d like to keep the article as a source for users to know which organization is the real Hưng Thịnh – this, I believe, may help prevent further crises and riots like the one that happened in Long An in 2020. Dangkhoa275 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The information about this company is necessary for user but content of this page must be rewrite Hamhochoisg (talk) 11:03, 1 December 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. WP:G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Addams[edit]

Ava Addams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Porn star bio without good references, thus failing WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. Previously deleted 3 times at AfD. This time around, the references consist of: 1. Celebrities Galore: user-generated content; 2. TMZ article: trivial mention; 3. Most popular porn star listicle previously dismissed at AfD; 4. AVN press release: not independent; 5. International Business Times: a generally unreliable source; 6. GQ Mexico: trivial mention porn awards roster, no significant coverage. The awards and nominations would not even have satisfied the now deprecated PORNBIO SNG. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per previous afds, lack of sources and can we salt this now please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as irretrievable BLP and salt this and other variants of the name - David Gerard (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. A BEFORE didn't bring anything up, and this fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The refs are not RS by a longshot. --Kbabej (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG should be deleted. Sorry for bringing this page up in the first place. Notadogbutafish (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Surely this could be a speedy delete? WCM_email 10:10, 30 November 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, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J C Chaudhry[edit]

J C Chaudhry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was moved prematurely out of Draft by cut-paste, bypassing the WP:AFC process. Additionally, WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK were at play creating the article in the first place, which speaks to a possible WP:COI.

Moreover, although there has been some press regarding business, does not seem to rise to level of WP:NBIO: associated with company that no longer exists, as it was sold to a competitor. I suspect any awards or honours given are not notable enough under WP:ANYBIO. WP:NAUTHOR is not reached. Poojean (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Poojean (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Poojean (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Poojean (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Poojean (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

• Delete Nothing more than PR. Fails GNG.Mtpos (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GNG fail and a Promo article to boot. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG & Totaly based on promo.Juggyevil (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article was once rewritten. The earlier one was without inline citations and proper references. Did add the inline citations. Will try to find more contextual and relevant citations. was asking help for writing the same (202.88.237.193 (talk) 09:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep The article was once rewritten and no promotional content has been uploaded. Please guide on rectification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.80.209 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly promo, not notable, and created/edited by COI editors. So I see no reason to keep it. It's not like the person who created it can't do another draft at some point and actually send it through the AfC process next time either. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its a request to all those who are suggesting to delete the page - please guide on what changes are to be made ? MR Chaudhry is a example of how a normal teacher can become a successful entrepreneur with right ethics. Every content on his page is realistic about him, a person like Mr Chaudhry doesn’t need PR. He have achieved the highest success in his life. His intention is only to give back to the society thats it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:2E85:4ABF:D5C5:A078:F313:B682 (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the Wikipedians should guide on maintaining the page, Mr Chaudhry has been covered by the Mainstream media, also he has never sold his company to a competitor - Byjus were never into classroom sessions, They have rather merged up and Mr Chaudhry is a Stakeholder of complete conglomerate of Byjus which includes Aakash Inst as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimplesethi (talk • contribs) 04:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is a renowned entrepreneur and a Inspiration to many people in India. This profile should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.80.209 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 115.248.80.209 (talk) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
• Keep Mr Chaudhry is a philanthropist, This account should not be deleted. It can be reworked. What really touched me was that he has constructed a place of worship at Vrindavan. there is an altruistic thought of him behind constructing it. He wanted a place where people could come from all parts of the country to seek blessings and be at peace. It is a spiritual place with a natural environment and lush greenery. Catching the first glimpse of the location in the morning gives a sense of peace, which I liked the most! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:2DBB:1620:D830:920A:30A7:D39F (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Continuously adding Keep comments from different ip addresses, strong indication of Wikipedia:SOCK. Also fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. MickyShy (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mr. J C Chaudhry is a true inspirator. Just because of his motivation and inspiration, my son is a doctor today. I support this Wikipedia page as many are there who still need to know about this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4050:2DBB:1620:A776:B844:41C1:3E37 (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and any other applicable guideline. The sock-puppet chorus is just embarrassing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the news are not significant and not enough. Chelokabob (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It's very difficult to come to an objective conclusion when the discussion keeps getting disrupted in this way. The sock-puppet chorus is counter-productive as well as embarrassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hopelessly promotional, and that's enough reason, especially since notability as anauthor or scholar is extremely borderline at best, and the refs are insufficiently reliable for GNG. . The keep arguments are straightforward ILIKEIT. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:46, 5 December 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, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped: Buried Alive[edit]

Trapped: Buried Alive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I could only find one short review. No other coverage. SL93 (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I only found a short blurb/review on Newspapers.com. I still don't have access yet, but what I can see shows that it is extremely short. This looks to have gotten no true coverage as a whole other than routine TV listings. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not enough found in a WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to very few, if any, mentions beyond passing. No reviews to speak of. I have searched the newspapers archive and they all pretty much are just tv guide showings, including the one posted by ReaderofthePack (which is a very brief summary). No substantive reviews or mentions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Mahler[edit]

David Mahler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO; the best sources I can find are this article by WMOT, not quite significant coverage, and only a passing mention in this NPR piece. No claim to notability other than winning a non-notable championship. The article is currently only sourced to Mahler's own website. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 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. Views split between keeping and merging - neither of which require administrator action to delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Pason[edit]

Greg Pason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Perennial candidate and fringe party figure fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. KidAd • SPEAK 17:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Socialist Party of New Jersey, where he has been active for many years and has been its 'perennial candidate'. Djflem (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep his political campaigns aren't particularly notable, but his contributions as national secretary to Socialist Party USA have been recognized in the press. See Observer.com and the New York Times as examples.--User:Namiba 20:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Socialist Party of New Jersey - insufficient WP:SIGCOV to merit a standalone article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:11, 1 December 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. While it's clear that there is fairly strong consensus that most of these articles should be either deleted or redirected, this bundled AfD is a mess and it's impossible for a closer to sort through all of this and come to a conclusion. Bundled AfDs are great for situations when the same result will likely apply to all of the articles, which clearly isn't the case here. And to top it all off, the nominator tries to withdraw half of the articles from the AfD after they've already been discussed at length. I'd recommend nominating each of these articles separately and having a separate discussion about what to do with each one. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kilogram per cubic metre[edit]

Kilogram per cubic metre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per deletion discussion for Gram_per_cubic_metre, none of these other composite units, or the template page above them, are notable. PianoDan (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination includes the following pages in addition to Kilogram per cubic metre:

Gram per cubic centimetre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gram per litre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Metre squared per second (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'll nominate the related templates separately. PianoDan (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Even one specific unit is borderline. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tonne. Praemonitus (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it doesn't make sense to me to redirect a unit of density to a unit of mass. PianoDan (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though the tonne is defined in terms of kilograms per cubic metre? I see. I'll just note that seems more pedantic that helpful to the typical reader. Praemonitus (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tonne ISN'T defined in terms of kilograms per cubic meter. It would be circular use a unit of mass as part of the definition of a unit of mass. A tonne is the mass of a cubic meter of water at 4 C, but that's a definition of mass based on a unit of length. PianoDan (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • A tonne is one cubic metre of water. The definitions are interrelated. Praemonitus (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. A tonne is 1000 kg. And 1000 kg is approximately the mass of one cubic metre of water. The definitions are not interrelated. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • A tonne is defined as a thousand kilograms.--Srleffler (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear - Srleffler and Dondervogel are right. I was not as clear as I intended. It would be circular to use a unit of mass to define ITSELF. Defining a tonne (which is 2000 kilograms) in terms of kilograms per cubic meter for a cubic meter of substance, is that - defining kilograms in terms of kilograms. Obviously the real definition of the tonne is what has been said - 2000 kilograms. PianoDan (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't make sense to redirect a unit of density to a unit of mass.--Srleffler (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Density#Common_units or create Units of density and redirect there. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect kilogram per cubic metre, gram per cubic centimetre, and gram per litre to Density#Common units, as it's just possible that some specialized application might measure density using one of those. Delete metre squared per second because it's not a unit for one specific quantity, and matching quantities to the combinations of SI base units their dimensions happen to work out to is trivia. I mean, it would also be the SI unit of "specific action", but who cares? XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• To all those !voting redirect. All specific units of density including "Gram per cubic meter" are of equal value. That's extremely high for consistent actions for all the units. We obviously don't want the articles on these topics so the current redlinks of Gram per cubic metre and the redirects from other units at the same time are the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by deleting one article, then redirecting the others and giving them (if they are lucky) inconsistent search results. Either we recreate Gram per cubic metre as a redirect or we delete everything. Neel.arunabh (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I am making this argument because I have been influenced by a similar comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 4#iPhone 9 saying To all those !voting delete. This is consistently getting 250 hits a month. That's extremely high for a redirect and so very clearly this is something people are looking for. We obviously don't want an article on this topic so a redlink is the exact worst thing we can do for readers here - our job is to educate people and we don't do that by deleting the redirect and giving them (if they are lucky) unhelpful search results. that I have been mimicking that same comment to to bring about an argument in every debate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neel.arunabh (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly oppose the statement "[a]ll specific units of density ... are of equal value." Kilogram per cubic meter is the coherent unit of density in the SI system. See the BIPM publication The International System of Units (SI),^[1] section 1.4 where this is defined. Similarly gram per cubic centimetre is the coherent unit of density in the cgs system. If there were a mgs system of measurement in common use, gram per cubic metre would be the coherent unit of density in that system, as you well know. The issue with the latter's article was that there is no commonly used mgs system of measurement. --Srleffler (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When people calculate the density of a particular object, they do not care about what unit system they are using. They can even calculate in mg/m^3. And there are may equivalent units as well. I am not going to accept even one unit unless I get every possible unit. And this is not just on Wikipedia. Even in reality, I am a male, and I am attracted to my female friends. I will not accept anything that my male friends give me unless I get the same thing from my female friends as well. I have to be on PianoDan's side. Neel.arunabh (talk) 06:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's... not my side. I was arguing that none of THESE units are inherently notable, not that NO composite units are inherently notable. It would be absurd, for example, to claim that Miles Per Hour isn't notable, as that article has plenty of reliable sources establishing notability. Srleffler is making a good case that as the standard units of density in SI and cgs, kg/m^3 and g/cm^3 are inherently notable, and I certainly won't go to the mat defending deletion for those two. I don't understand your metaphor about friends at all. PianoDan (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am just saying that I will not accept one thing unless I get other things as well. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • This sounds like a WP:WHATABOUT argument.--Srleffler (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I really need have either all or none. S Marshall will be a more helpful contributor than everyone here. Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for your several kind remarks about me in this debate but I have no special wisdom to offer here that others haven't already provided. I do think the encyclopaedic concept is density and someone searching for kg/m3 is probably looking for help with how to perform the arithmetic.—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think that detail should be covered in density itself. Let me also hear from Hobit. Neel.arunabh (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry for being clueless--why was I pinged here? Hobit (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Hobit To let you know that we can get everything covered in the Density article itself. Or as Dondervogel 2 suggests, we can create an article called Units of density and dedicate sections to SI units, CGS units, and other units. Neel.arunabh (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I guess I'm trying to figure out why I was pinged. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deleting Kilogram per cubic metre and gram per cubic centimetre. These are the coherent units of density in two common systems of measurement. The former is specifically identified as such by the BIPM, and is therefore notable.^[1] Saying "Per deletion discussion for Gram_per_cubic_metre" is not sufficient. The issue there was different in that there is no commonly used system of measurement for which that is the coherent unit of density. (UCUM not being a system of measurement). I'm unsure about the other two articles. Metre squared per second is identified by BIPM as the coherent derived unit of kinematic viscosity, though. --Srleffler (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination for kilogram per cubic metre and gram per cubic centimetre, per Srleffler's valid argument. PianoDan (talk) 17:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am really running out of breath and I really will never agree with the density articles. I have found some informative articles where "grams per cubic meter" is actually being used.

    • [5]
    • [6]
    • [7]
    • [8]

  • And I will also ping my friend S Marshall for more helpful suggestions as I do not agree with the current status or with the current contributors. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the BIPM reference should straightaway be added in the Density article itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neel.arunabh (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment the fact that a unit is USED does not make it NOTABLE. Coverage of the unit makes it notable. For example, "Megagauss Oersted" is a unit often used in describing permanent magnets. But the unit ITSELF is not particularly notable. PianoDan (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gram per cubic centimetre. We do not need articles on multiple combinations of units just to state they exist and provide conversions. 15:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)

---

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Connors[edit]

Jim Connors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is almost entirely sourced to the subject's own website. After the OR and trivia is removed, there'd be nothing left. A BEFORE didn't bring up anything of note. Kbabej (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 16:59, 29 November 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Khair Al Shaal[edit]

Muhammad Khair Al Shaal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability is not inherited from the available references. Moved multiple times into the draft (Draft:Muhammad Khair Al Shaal). You must follow the advise that is commented by Faddle. MickyShy (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MickyShy (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MickyShy (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. MickyShy (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @MickyShy Before I comment on the deletion discussion it might be helpful to link to whatever advice I may have given. Where did I offer this advice, please? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I imagine it was my AFC decline, on the creating editor's talk page. I have reflected that in my !vote below Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fiddle, Yes, i found your comment here. MickyShy (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is a notability issue here. The subject has definitely written books, but neither Goodreads nor https://www.noor-book.com are WP:RS. This means that the only reference that might qualify is www.raffy.me which is a site that requires more thought. All I can find on its home page is a quite by Neil Gaiman. This means that we have no references that are about the subject and are independent of the subject and are in muktioke independent sources and are reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE finds me nothing useful about the subject. Thus, unless suitable references can be found and added to the article, the subject fails WP:BIO Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This appears to be a copy and paste move to draft space of Draft:Muhammad Khair Al Shaal. On that basis I am about to request a full history merge. The comment referred to by the nom is

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

Please note that whisking an article you moved to mainspace back to draft is not an appropriate way of avoiding a deletion process. The appropriate thing s to improve the article so that it will survive

placed on the draft. The fact that this has been whacked back and forth between Draft and Main space so often means that we should not close this as returning it to draft. It should stand or fall on its merits Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have repaired the copy-and-paste move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failure to establish notability, lack of reliable sources. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreliable sources --Gazeteci 1980 Tr (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrendSpider[edit]

TrendSpider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article primarily discusses the features of the company's main product of the same name (which arguably should be the topic of the article rather than the company). The article was created by an editor who has now been blocked for advertising/promotion, and a PROD was removed by a new editor upon addition of several sources to the talk page. These sources, and pretty much all in-depth sources on the page are not independent of the subject as they all offer free trials via affiliate links (some of which need to be followed as they cleverly use redirects built into their own sites to hide this). This seems overly promotional and I have not been able to find sources suggesting a pass of WP:GNG. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are plenty of good articles about them such as this [9] and also reviews here that don't have any affiliate links--> [10], [11], [12] and [13], so it meets WP:GNG. As far as the nominators argument that the article should be about the product rather than the company, he may have a point there, but this doesn't justify a deletion. The article can easily be revised to say "Trendspider is a software" rather than it is a "company." Should others here agree to such an edit, I will be willing to make the edit myself. I actually improved this article previously and expanded by adding the RainDrops section, which in itself is notable due to its use by Nasdaq, Yahoo Finance, TheStreet and others. Additionally, there is a recent news about them they winning an award by Benzinga [14] and a lot more articles come up in Google, which I have not checked. Jaxarnolds (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the sources you've presented, 1 and 5 are the same, and amount to a press release. Although the article claims to be written by the editorial staff at the publication, the links in the page go through PRNewswire, a common publisher of press releases. TechBullion does in fact use an affiliate link, verifiable by clicking on the free trial offer at the bottom of the page. Source 4 (after using google translate) does not make any mention of TrendSpider at all and is about a different topic.

  The only potential here is the review by Wesley Crowder on StockTradingTeacher.com, which does not appear to use an affiliate link, but presents a similar redirect scheme which indicates that it may have at one point. The review itself is highly laudatory, to the point where I question its editorial neutrality. Also striking are the use of emphasis, as well as difficult-to-source info such as the company's backstory (as well as how its described, using tropes that are common in startup stories typically used to promote companies and products), and the mention of competitors but lack of direct names (a critical review should ideally list the competitors of a product, something which affiliate-based programs tend to dislike as it draws business away). I would say that on its face that this review is highly questionable and does not appear to be even slightly neutral. ASUKITE 00:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears I had provided you the wrong link for 4. And this was supposed to be 5, which is detailed review with FAQ without any affiliate links. They are corrected now. But even with removing the article that may be a press release and the one that may be an affiliate, there is still stocktradingteacher and plenty more articles in Google about them. I also believe that even if there is an affiliate link, that does not mean the review is not legit. As you can see many of these reviewers have taken time to do in-depth and genuine reviews of the software. An affiliate link is like a banner ad. These sites need to make money somehow. Even major news sites like Yahoo, CNN, MSNBC, etc have affiliate links. For example, here is another legit and detailed review [15], which compares it to its competition, but he does have an affiliate link on the bottom. Still you cannot say that out of dozens (maybe over 50) reviews that exist online, none are legit genuine reviews. The fact that it has so much coverage shows that they meet WP:GNG. So I will stick to my keep vote. I have also found additional coverage on them on some stock trading books, which is very significant, see:

  The Ultimate Guide to Candlestick Chart Patterns , Moving Averages and The Ultimate Guide to Chart Patterns Jaxarnolds (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've read all the comments above and did a search of my own. I found these additional good articles and reviews  barchart which is a case study, and captainaltcoin a very good review. Mommmyy (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Out of sources provided there are some that are good to meet notability, such as coin-hero.de, sourceforge.net, barchart.com. The book citations provided by Jaxarnolds are also good. Chelokabob (talk) 09:17, 6 December 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. WP:1E refuted, no subsequent policy-based reasons for delete raised. Discussion as to whether the article should be renamed can proceed elsewhere. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Munawar Faruqui[edit]

Munawar Faruqui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems like WP:1E; only notable for his arrest and became sensation for a small period, I think to establish notability or for getting an individual article, One need in-depth coverage, not rely on arrest accident or any sensational news. Wiki is not NOTNEWS, Negligible significance outside that single event. Sturdyankit (chat) 15:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to the coverage of his arrest, he seems to have received a lot of news coverage after his decision this week to quite comedy, including in the international news media: [16], [17]. There's also at least a half page of coverage in this book, and any number of news pieces from the Indian media. His notability was marginal when he was arrested, but at this point it's not really in question. This nomination comes on the heels of a spate of coverage: as such it's very oddly timed, and I wonder if the OP followed WP:BEFORE. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vanamonde. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to 'Arrest of Munawar Faruqui,' or something like 'Godhra Joke controversy' since he isn't well-known and doesn't have much mention in WP:RS as a comedian outside of the context of that controversy. LΞVIXIUS💬 14:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As I demonstrated above, there is considerable coverage of his recent decision to quit comedy, which has little to nothing to do with his arrest. "Godhra Joke controversy" has no support at all as a title. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the decision to quit was a part of the controversy mainly caused by some of his allegedly inflammatory jokes. (I merely used the Godhra title as an example). From where I stand, I see a strong case for calling the article 'Munawar Faruqui Controversy' or something similar, because all of his notability stems from the controversy itself, and not from his person. LΞVIXIUS💬 01:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Rename as per Levixius's interpretation. -Hatchens (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Umakant Bhalerao as he was the nominator of the first AfD. -Hatchens (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Munawar Faruqui is irrelevant. I personally don't even think he even passed high school or college. There are lot of stand up comedians in India doing the job due to failure in getting other formal jobs and bad education record. His name in showing up on internet (BLP violation removed). Nothing significant achievement as such. The person is neither a scholar, academic, Nobel Prize winner or even a peace activist. Sameer Wankhede article was deleted and removed from Wikipedia for the same reason. Just because your name appears in newspaper or media for a specific case or (Personal attack removed) in a country is not a precondition for being famous and notable in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news source biography rolodex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.185.161.245 (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment agreed!, Indian Netizens get viral without any proper reason or sometimes for any silly or random act they became headlines or trending on Twitter for a couple of hours/days, One can find a dozen of Indian sensational stand-ups or Netizens, but I think we can't create individual articles for them, Subject doesn't worth an Individual article (as of now). Sturdyankit (chat)

• Neither of these comments has anything to with how we evaluate notability on Wikipedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also read how notability is evaluated here, And as a comment, I was only putting some facts. Sturdyankit (chat)

• Keep The notability of the subject has only increased (though marginally) since the article's two previous deletion nominations. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vanamonde. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per others - It seems like the continued coverage of other things he's done is a result of the arrest, not in spite of it. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eevee01^(talk) 09:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Notable! Rename to “Arrest of Munawar Faruqui” Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:1E does not apply here as there have been multiple events and news items on him now. passes WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is definitely not a WP:1E case and hence the arguments over renaming the article aren't helpful. The subject has received enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:05, 9 December 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, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angel (upcoming film)[edit]

Angel (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An unreleased film that does not meet WP:NFF yet as its production is not notable. Should be deleted or draftified until it is released and meets the requirements of WP:NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: News about this Tamil film had come in 2018. Since then this film has not released and possibly never will. If it gets released then article can be re created. As of now this film does not pass WP:NFILMS and the article should be deleted. No point in sending to draft as nothing happened in 3 years. Unlikely to happen in next 6 months. Venkat TL (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. Premature article. Press releases don't qualify towards notability. Per WP:NFSOURCES, "Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent." Delete. Platonk (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenia Svarovski[edit]

Ksenia Svarovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

She isn't notable. She founded an online university of sorts for internet marketing. I searched in Russian too, and I don't see sources giving GNG. Mvqr (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mvqr! I have given enough sources about this person in my article. These are very respected international journals, such as Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan. Also, very famous Russian newspapers and magazines write about her, such as Komsomolskaya Pravda, Paparazzi, METRO, Argumenty i Fakty, Argumenty Nedeli, Izvestia and many others. There are 27 sources in total. I am very surprised. Sincerely,Олег Черкасский (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. We can see secondary sources: articles about the person are repeated by other magazines and online publications.Олег Черкасский (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These sources are here to just refbomb: constantly repeating what she says. Not enough to pass GNG. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you checked all the sources for sure? There are sources that repeat because it's interesting, but there are also many unique sources. I just found another one, for example: "I am a biologist": new professions that have appeared thanks to social networks This is an absolutely unique text!Олег Черкасский (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, a notable topic with a myriad of reliable sources to show both context and notabilityОлег Черкасский (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll save this article. I will correct my mistake.Олег Черкасский (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I corrected the mistakes in the text, made the correct links to authoritative sources and added a text about the character's activities. Олег Черкасский (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete complete WP:REFBOMBing of self-written posts and at least one of the other articles (Metro News) was published through the paid partnership program. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's clear that the criteria for notability have not been met. There's nothing we can say on Wikipedia that isn't simply a repetition of her own words. Akakievich (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you confirm your words with quotes? If not, then these are fake words.Олег Черкасский (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I'm not sure what sort of quotes you want me to provide. Can you clarify? All the best, Akakievich (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The phrase "simply a repetition of her own words" confuses me. Any interview is a repetition of words, isn't it? If famous magazines consider this person worthy of publishing her words, I think we should listen to the opinion of experts. I prefer to write about living people, because if I make a mistake, they can read the article and point out the inaccuracy. I won't be upset if the article is deleted or moved to drafts. It's just a hobby for me. Sincerely Олег Черкасский (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is one of those internet "influencer" pages designed to use Wikipedia to inflate the significance and notability of its subject. – Athaenara ✉ 14:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verdean Mozambican[edit]

Cape Verdean Mozambican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. The episode with 5 people travelling does not seem notable. No relations page to merge to. Geschichte (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the level of migration is very low and not subject to significant coverage failing WP:GNG. The last paragraph is just trivia. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:06, 29 November 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 23:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharvari Wagh[edit]

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

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

Failing the notability criteria. Self promotion coverage on reliable sources. PangolinPedia (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PangolinPedia (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a bit soon, but searching news turns up LOTS of references. It looks like she already qualifies by WP:GNG, though I haven't checked the sources in depth, and there will be more coverage on an ongoing basis. The last headline mention in a legimiate news source was 11 hours ago[18]. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as now it has more sources. There would be more coverage when film will release -- Parnaval (talk) 03:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:01, 29 November 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ^(talk) 15:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Fanucchi[edit]

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

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

I can't find significant coverage about the subject. Couple of mentions and a press-release-like bio on a bunch of websites like 1, 2. Fails notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep complies with WP:BASIC has received widespread news/media coverage. Louie (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Can you provide any of those? We need in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. If you have found any - please add them here or directly into the article. Less Unless (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Less Unless please check if the updates are ok now and can you please reconsider to withdraw the nomination for deletion. Thks. Louie (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louie, you have added a lot of sources - no doubt, but WP:GNG requires significant in depth coverage which lacks. There are couple sources that mention the subject as 'internationally appreciated' but where's the coverage? All the rest are just passing mentions. I'm sorry, but I still believe the article should be deleted. Best, Less Unless (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry that you think that way. I really think that the article complies with the minimum required WP:GNG and those are guidelines not absolute rules. Well, that is the way I perceive them. I have seen much, much worse articles being rescued. Anyway, I will stop adding info/sources for now as it might be just a waste of time, but I appreciate your honest feedback. Thks. Louie (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:51, 29 November 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Mala[edit]

Matthias Mala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent coverage and none found. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to the German National Library, which is clearly independent coverage, Mala is the author of 109 books and co-author of 11 others. A simple English Amazon search generated over 40 of them and a Google search on his name recorded over 10,000 hits with dozens of well known national and international booksellers listing his books, so I struggling to understand why he might not be notable. How many books do you have to write to have an article on Wikipedia? Would it help if the article listed a selection of his works? Bermicourt (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I can't find any coverage of him or his work outside of Amazon listings and a Goodreads profile. He doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR either. It's possible that foreign-language sources exist, but my perusal of his website didn't turn up any reviews or other coverage linked. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well Mala is German, so you'd expect sources to be in a foreign language. To give just a few examples across a wide spectrum of literature, he's cited in Bormann's Orte des Schreckens (2004), pp. 206 and 276; in Kraft's Keine Lust auf Untergang (2010), pp. x, 6, 155 and 163; in the Spanish journal Delibros (2004), p. 62; in Bekmeier-Feuerhahn et al. (editors) Kulturmanagement und Kulturpolitik (2011), p. 389; the German Jewish Institute's Handbuch Medienerziehung im Kindergarten (1995), p. 189; the German national newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine publication Ein Bücher-Tagebuch (1994), p. 588; and PEN Zentrum Deutschland's PEN Das Autorenlexikon 2015/16. Just how many independent, national and international sources do we need? Bermicourt (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I never said I didn't expect foreign-language sources to exist - I should've been clearer that I just can't browse them as I don't speak German :). What's the nature of the citations there? Are they reviews of his work, profiles of him, academic analyses? If they're about him specifically, they should be cited in the article. As it stands, we can't verify anything in the article because the only reference is the members list of a professional organization that doesn't include any biographical information at all. A better option may be to draftify until those sources are worked into the article itself. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this mostly unsourced article. Possibly draftify if someone wants to take that on, but get it out of the common space until it has reliable sources to establish notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Please review significant changes to this article. I have now cited the bulk of the article, added a selection of Mala's works and removed text that is as yet unsourced. Bermicourt (talk) 11:12, 8 December 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. There's no consensus here to rename the article; any further discussion of the title can take place in an RM. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Dumpson[edit]

Taylor Dumpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to be a WP:BLP1E case; she's likely not notable. wizzito | say hello! 14:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 14:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 14:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 14:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 14:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it is mostly a WP:BLP1E case, but it has reached such a wide audience. passing WP:SIGCOV that it has worth keeping. Its been reported on numerous papers in the US and a couple in the UK. Its widely reported on social media, there is even tv programme about the event. I think because it is quite unusual as an event, successfully sueing your trolls on social, that it has historical worth and is worth recording. scope_creep^Talk 14:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I wouldn't object to renaming the page Dumpson v. Ade. pburka (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BASIC and because this does not appear to be WP:BLP1E, including because national coverage of her appears to have begun in 2017, before the lawsuit (e.g. WaPo), she does not appear to have remained low-profile since then (i.e. filing and winning the lawsuit, NYT 2019, CNN 2019, ongoing coverage e.g. NPR 2021), the events are significant and her roles are substantial and well-documented. Also, I would object to renaming the article to the case name because of the volume and depth of reporting about her, both before and after the case. Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has received significant coverage in reliable sources for four years, and the lawsuit she won set the precedent that online harassment can lead to serious financial consequences. Cullen328 (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sufficient in-depth coverage to suggest that this person is of longterm significance. PamD 09:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename As a BLP I would vote delete, the subject is not notable and is only known for one event. Hence, per WP:BLP1E subject does not merit a biographical article. As a legal case, yes it is notable and worthy of coverage. Hence, I would propose rename to Dumpson v. Ade per pburka. WCM_email 09:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I revised and expanded the article to include more sources, including from GScholar and ProQuest. I think additions such as her writing being included as a chapter in the book American Hate: Survivors Speak Out by Arjun Singh Sethi, and her experience noted in the book Culture Warlords: My Journey Into the Dark Web of White Supremacy by Talia Lavin help provide further support for an article about her. Beccaynr (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would say this falls under WP:NOTBLP1E. WestCD (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ^(talk) 15:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bacova Junction, Virginia[edit]

Bacova Junction, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Likely not a notable community. Newspapers.com results give generic "Jane Doe moved from/is visiting Bacova Junction" results and stuff about people from there and directions and places which use it as a waypoint. wizzito | say hello! 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 13:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "At the time of this photo, the nearby village of Bacova Junction was known as Gros, Virginia." according to Oxendine, Margo (2003). Bath County, Virginia. Arcadia Publishing. p. 91. ISBN 978-0-7385-1577-9. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above source, establishing as a notable community. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable locality.₪ Encyclopædius 19:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Expanded content is just enough to squeak by. –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 1 December 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 is the article needs editing and splitting out, not deletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths due to COVID-19[edit]

List of deaths due to COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is going to be a weird one so please stay with me. This list as it currently stands is 299,997 bytes and has no citations because there are more entries than the per page template limit of MediaWiki. The consensus on this article's talk page has repeatedly been in favor of not splitting it due to the sort functions. We are in a bind because it is impossible to verify the information, violating BLP, which covers recent deaths, while leaving it in its current state.

Further, COVID-19 was the third leading cause of death in the United States in 2020. There is a good reason that List of deaths due to Heart Disease, List of deaths due to Stroke, and List of deaths due to Lung Cancer are all red links. The lists that they create would be too broad to be encyclopedic and are better suited for a database. I think that this list has crossed over from being a unique collection of information that is useful in an encyclopedia to a tragically common cause of death. Lugnuts said something to this effect in their deletion statement just over a year ago and it has only gotten worse.

The article does not show that this list is notable as a stand alone list. Doing some BEFORE I noticed that there is quite a bit of discussion of the number of deaths and trying to calculate the excess mortality over the past 2 years, but very little attempt to exhaustively list the people who have died of COVID-19. There are some listicles of 20 or so celebs that died but no in depth discussion of the phenomenon or anything as wide reaching as this. Maybe in a few years when the history of the pandemic is being written we can return to this subject, but right not, no.

I think the article should be deleted and replaced with a category. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Split (by year) per WP:PAPER. No need to resort to the delete option, leaving us only with a category, which is not sortable or easy to navigate. Havradim (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Strictly speaking, we don't need citations here, because only blue-linked individuals are included, and their articles should already include the citations for cause of death. Sometimes, footnotes are clutter; for example, List of people by Erdős number gets by just fine without them, because any given item is supported by the contents of the linked biography page and/or a check with a standard database. I'm also not convinced that splitting by year would be such a great detriment to sortability in practice. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue that article's approach is problematic and does not follow policy -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But what policy is actually being violated? Verification requiring one extra mouse click is not the same as information being unverifiable. And I don't think that the comparison to heart disease, stroke, or lung cancer is actually illustrative. None of those originated in 2019. XOR'easter (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the better reason would be List of deaths due to heart disease, List of death due to stroke, and List of deaths due to lung cancer as red links provided the MOS formatting. Just providing some clarity. – The Grid (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As I pointed out last year when it was nominated for the third time, reliable sources cover this, and everyone on the list is a blue link to their own article. Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic exist. We can divide the list into nations or continents if need be. As for the examples List of deaths from coronary thrombosis exists. Category:Deaths from lung cancer but isn't made into a list because it has 2,276 entries. We do have various lists for types of death found at Lists of people by cause of death. Dream Focus 22:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not rely on an OTHERSTUFF argument here; List of deaths from coronary thrombosis should potentially be AFD-ed depending on what is said here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I did not make the argument that other stuff exist. I was responding to the nominator mentioning these articles that they claim didn't exist and what they claimed was the reason why. Dream Focus 00:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per reasons listed by User:Dream Focus above, or Split (by year) per reasons listed by User:Havradim above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreed with comments above that the lack of inline citations isn't a problem here as all entries are blue-linked. I disagree with the nominator's comparison to lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Coronavirus is a (very long) event and there will hopefully become a time when nobody is dying of it. It's very unlikely we will eradicate all deaths by stroke for example. Thus eventually there will be a finite scope for this list. NemesisAT (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; however, in a similar vein to what User:Havradim said, it should probably be split. I would suggest going even further than what User:Havradim said, however, in that it should not only be split by year, but by month. There should be a page called "List of deaths due to COVID-19", but instead of containing deaths on that page, it should have a section header for 2020, for 2021 (and later for 2022 and beyond, as will likely be the case; my best guess is it will be around 2023 or 2024 when the pandemic really starts to peter out), and under each section header, links to pages for each month (say, COVID-19 deaths in January 2020) or for a range of months (COVID-19 deaths in January-March 2020). The list provided by this page, even if or when split in the manner just described, should be kept because it provides an excellent reference of which countries had notable persons dying at what times. As sample persons, the deaths of these notable persons can provide insight into which regions were being hit at what times, and of course, since these are notable persons in themselves, provide an understanding of the wide range of people who were affected by and died from COVID-19. AMBtheMarylander2102 (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet even the basic sourcing needs WP:LISTVERIFY - WP:MINREF ....Moxy- 04:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read the last sentence in that? It is generally presumed that obviously appropriate material, such as the inclusion of Apple in the List of fruits, does not require an inline citation. You can click on any entry and verify the information that easily, the infobox showing when they died and the cause of death being covid. Dream Focus 05:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should read over WP:BDP...major bio concern considering cause of death by COVID for those that refuse vaccinations are being denied death benefits. Serious legal stuff here... we should follow the basics on sourcing. Don't make our readers run around and hunt down sources.... that would be the opposite of enabling research and ease of access.Moxy- 00:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa should be deleted. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 05:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominated for AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/List of COVID-19 deaths in South Africa. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per reasons referred to by Paintspot Infez. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 05:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Split by year, for reasons given by Havradim above CC0Rider (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and split by year, per Havradim and CC0Rider -- The Anome (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The splitting proposal is being discussed at Talk:List of deaths due to COVID-19#Split by year?. – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 5 December 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Green, Virginia[edit]

Cedar Green, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I highly doubt this is a community. Newspapers.com only gets results about train timetables and stuff about the school and a nearby Cedar Green Road. (And no, having a place on NRHP doesn't mean automatic notability.) wizzito | say hello! 13:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 13:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 13:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is also a cemetery. https://www.findagrave.com/cemetery/2421471/cedar-green-cemetery There are several photos of roads in Cedar Green at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cedar_Green,_Virginia There is an empty page at https://encyclopediavirginia.org/geodata/cedar-green/ "Cedar Green School is centrally located in the County in a black community on the southwestern edge of Staunton." according to https://www.dhr.virginia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/007-0755_Augusta_County_Training_School_1986_Final_Nomination.pdf On the basis of all this evidence, I conclude that Cedar Green is a community, and I suspect that historically it was predominantly Black. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The topos are a bit of a mess but they do show a town-ish thing there as far back as I look. Looking at the school article it seems pretty clear that this is a historic black community. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' The NRHP nomination for the school describes Cedar Green as a community, and there's also some news coverage of it (see [19] [20] [21] [22]) and some coverage by the Augusta County Historical Society. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Augusta County, Virginia - There's Just enough sourcing to write a short article. Until that content is actually added, it makes more sense to cover it within the county article. (Will change to Keep if article is expanded.) –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 1 December 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 and redirect to List of music styles. ✗plicit 14:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular music genres[edit]

List of popular music genres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It looks like the page is a copy-paste of List of music styles and Popular music. About 90% of the list is copied from List of music styles (mainly because both pages use AllMusic as reference, the only reference of the lists). And all of the reference (the popular music genres) is copied from Popular music. So i'm nominating this page for deletion because:

1. Almost all of the list points are copied from List of music styles

2. The headline is copied from Popular music (and the references)

3. The list is derived from AllMusic, which is the only reference for the list. Does Wikipedia allow single-reference statements?

4. The page is not well managed. Some anonymous editors put some genres into wrong section, like putting ragga into hip hop and disco into R&B and Soul.

5. The title "list of popular music genres" is ambiguous, like, is there an exact measurement about how popular the genres like pop, jazz, and hip-hop? Also, how can you know that genres like vaporwave is not popular? There's no exact measurement of how popular and unpopular a music genre. GogoLion (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially supporting, as I more prefer a merge here. I also wrote the same doubts about this a year ago: Talk:List of popular music genres#Potential merge with list of music styles. Initially, this page should gather all genres except of classical, traditional folk, religious, and maybe experimental/avantgarde. So that is literally should copy the biggest part of the list of music styles. So it just feels excessive to exist separately like this. On #3: it's not really a complete copy of Allmusic after all. People have been adding links here for a long time, so first of all we should move everything from one list to the other, and then just place a redirect here. Solidest (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've finished moving everything from the popular to the general list. So now this is a de facto shortened copy of List of music styles. Thus it can be removed or replaced with a redirect. Solidest (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Appears to be a content fork. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thanks Solidest for completing the merge. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanes Entertainment Team[edit]

Hurricanes Entertainment Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable group of team employees, fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Entirely sourced from primary and unreliable sources. PROD removed without comment by article creator. Ravenswing 13:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 13:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Carolina Hurricanes. Delete. Not independently notable of the sports team. Lacks coverage for WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be a recreation from this previous AfD. Page creator also very likely still has a COI. Yosemiter (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and Yosemiter. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per previous AfD. The content is still not notable. Flibirigit (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly not notable and creator has conflict of interest. JonnyDKeen (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Nakas[edit]

George Nakas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Actor with only three acting credits (according to the Swedish Film Database which seems reliable), none of them major roles and as such failing WP:NACTOR (also has some songwriting credits, equally minor). WP:GNG is not met either as far as I can tell; I included in my BEFORE a search of Swedish newspapers where there are a few mentions but no significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject doesn't pass WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG. Notadogbutafish (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of sex in the media[edit]

Effects of sex in the media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unspeakably vague and haphazard WP:NOTESSAY violation that sounds like it was written decades ago despite being created in 2017 (why is there no information on LGBT people at all? Why is BDSM lumped together with rape and genital mutilation as “violent sexual content”? Why is the best statistic on porn they could find from 2006?). Seemingly just a bad copy of the already very shabby effects of pornography article. Was this created for a college project? Needs WP:TNT via draftification at the absolute minimum. Dronebogus (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTESSAY, and noting that the original author has made no subsequent contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, after merging anything worthwhile into Effects of pornography (although that's at AfD itself). On the positive side, there are plenty of scholarly sources, even if some are dated. But I was expecting content on sex in films and TV shows, or even something like advertising, to differentiate this from the pornography article. I don't see that, making this a WP:CONTENTFORK. I don't think it's worth keeping a redirect because the search term could also relate to things like Sex in advertising. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sdkb: I see that this article has a lot of material on pornography. I think that pornography and mass media are distinct things. Do you think that if all the pornography stuff was moved, and other cleanup done, it is possible to build an article on Effects of sex in mass media?VR _talk 05:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Theoretically possible, yes. But we already have sex in film, sexuality in music videos, sex in video games, and Exploitation of women in mass media. So some careful consideration would have to be given to the scope and to how to avoid forks. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sdkb: thanks for pointing out those article. Of them, only one contains a section on effects (Exploitation of women in mass media#Effects on society. In fact, if this article is kept there should be a hatnote at that section to this article because the content that section covers is very similar to this article's scope.VR _talk 06:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTESSAY - this is written like an essay. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While AfD is not cleanup, this is clearly just an essay and a likely content fork from effects of pornography. The title is also rather vague. What media? What effects? What definition of "sex"? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • from my perusal, “media”=porn, “effects”=effects of pornography, “sex”=straight, cis people doing it Dronebogus (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The first reference cited is not reliable. The article reads like a magazine op-ed using a dozen random academic journal articles with barely any relevancy to the topic. Multi7001 (talk) 02:57, 2 December 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deidre McCalla[edit]

Deidre McCalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP without decent references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Author Keep The nomination is refuted by the current status of the article. I don't really understand why this article was tagged. Chubbles (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An AllMusic bio and a short interview aren't quite enough to establish notability or base a BLP on, I'd say. Lennart97 (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is fair, though not the case made by the nominator. McCalla meets WP:MUSIC bullet 5 (several releases on labels such as Olivia), and she additionally is discussed in a number of academic books and articles about lesbian music (try "deidre mccalla" in Google Books). Chubbles (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • GNG generally needs to be met even if some criterion of an SNG is met, so if the coverage is indeed out there, I'd suggest adding it to the article and it would be an easy keep :) Lennart97 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not so; if GNG needed to be met, the SNG would not be necessary. This example is actually a great illustration of why the SNGs can be so important, such as for a niche musician from a pre-Internet era whose importance may not be obvious from casual Googling. The SNG (in combination with WP:V, though verifiability is not at issue here - her discography is trivial to verify) helps improve our encyclopedic reach in a way that a GNG-only standard might not (though she may meet the GNG as well; I see, for instance, that she was the subject of a profile in Hot Wire magazine in 1988, but I do not have access to a university library that would be able to grant me access to that title, at this time). Chubbles (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • NMUSIC states that a musician may be notable if one of the criteria is met, in the end it should still come down to coverage. If all the biographical info currently in the article can be sourced to more reliable sources than an Allmusic bio and an interview, that would make a pretty strong case combined with NMUSIC#5. That's just my opinion anyway, I'd definitely like to hear what others have to say on the subject. Lennart97 (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this article may meet WP:MUSICBIO, specifically criterion #5 may have been met, due to being on record label Olivia Records. which has its own Wiki page and may mean that it is a major label. Chelokabob (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A quick search on google books [23] seems to find plenty of sources. Obviously the stub needs work but it appears WP:GNG is met by significant coverage in reliable sources. WCM_email 08:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A BLP needs actual references. The only one here is dead. Rathfelder (talk) 11:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't matter if there's an archived version available, and there is, so I added it. Consider doing so yourself next time using the Wayback machine. What does matter of course is the quality of the source. Lennart97 (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on newly provided book citations by User:Wee Curry Monster. Chelokabob (talk) 21:31, 3 December 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 03:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothcomp[edit]

Smoothcomp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not enough reliable sources with in-depth coverage for WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delete There doesn't seem to be significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The article's three sources are from Smoothcomp (obviously not independent), BJJ Scandinavia, and BJJ Eastern Europe. I'm not sure if the two BJJ organizations are truly independent of each other or just branches of the IBJJF, however they both allow outside contributors to write articles and I question the editorial independence of the people who wrote those articles. The Scandinavia BJJ article consists almost entirely of a list of features, starting with "a beautiful user interface" and continuing to describe "the "business modell (sic) is very easy" and costs only "1 euro per contender" plus "payment is supported by Stripe and Paypal (that charges an amount of 2-3% per transaction)". The article also says where and how to get a support ticket and describes one feature that is fast because it is "using our unique template system". Sounds like a published press release to me. The BJJ Eastern Europe article has less information but it too sounds like a press release--like describing the "Extensive organizational skills of the team", the "Years of experience have helped shape this software into a must have" and "make this app a no brainer for every jiu jiteiro". I definitely would need to see better sources to say this had the coverage to be WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the leaning part of my vote. I did a more extensive search for sources, admittedly in English, and still was unable to find enough coverage to convince me that WP:GNG or WP:NORG is met. Papaursa (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom and per above. No in-depth. It seems a case of WP:PROPAGANDA to me. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 01:46, 5 December 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. Unanimous consensus to keep, including the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 All Japan Artistic Gymnastics Championships[edit]

2021 All Japan Artistic Gymnastics Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

unreliable sources, WP:TOOSOON Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 07:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 07:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 07:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would argue it is not WP:TOOSOON as most of the event has taken place already. The sourcing isn't great, but there appear to be a bit of sourcing in Japanese. The best I've found so far are [24] and [25] however that's really not enough to yet pass WP:RS. I don't speak any Japanese, but it seems that there might be notability in Japanese sources. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 22:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The sources are absolutely reliable. This is a domestic gymnastics competition in Japan and the links are from the official website of Japan Gymnastics Association. There’re lots of information there: qualification criteria, schedule, ticket information, broadcasting, results...They are more than enough, right? Or is it compulsory to have English sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is okay, but unless a japanese speaking person comes, we cann't be sure. --Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 06:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just copy the link to Google search and click "translate this page" at the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep sources are not "independent of the subject" Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 06:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep The nominator has !voted "weak keep". I'm not entirely sure what happened here, but an article currently citing unreliable sources is not a deletion rationale, and an article on an ongoing sporting event is hardly "too soon" (even if it is poorly written and appears to refer twn December 2021 in the past tense). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Confusing reasons So when the article is nominated in delation, I asked for the reasons. The nominator first said that lots of emptiness, even though I just created it for one day and filled the contents whenever I have free time. I understand that too soon means that it looks like a draft, but despite that most of its contents are no longer empty for days, the too soon reminder still exists. The next reason is unreliable sources and when I explained that this is a Japanese gymnastics competition and the sources are from the official website of Japan Gymnastics Association, where all information about the tournament, i.e. qualification criteria, schedule, ticket information, broadcasting, results... The nominator said that they were okay but “unless a japanese speaking person comes, we cann't be sure”. And until a few days later he added that the sources are not “independent sources” to the subjects. I mean, after reading what it is, I get that third-party sources are encouraged to prevent biased and personal opinions of editors, but should such reason be announced from the beginning? I asked just a few hours after the article had been nominated for delation and this is day 5 or 6? I mean come on, give us all the mistakes needed to be corrected so we can fixed it, not confusing, unclear reasons! We editors don’t know all the rules but when you nominated an article for delation, you should have given specific and comprehensive reasons for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Leomk0403: You voted weak keep, does that mean you are withdrawing your nomination? Jumpytoo Talk 21:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not yet, waiting for reliable sources to come in, some that i can read. Leomk (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 02:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There’s no rule that requires the sources to be in English. I already said the article was about a gymnastics tournament in Japan and the sources were from the official website of Japan Gymnastics Association. What can be more reliable than that? The fact that you don’t understand Japanese is not the reason to mark my sources as unreliable. You can just copy the links to google and click on the Translate this page right next to the results and it will translate to the language that you desire. There are many ways to understand articles not writing in your languages without taking too much time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Why on Earth was this relisted? The only person calling for deletion (but hedging his bets) is doing so for the obviously invalid reason that he, like me, cannot read Japanese. Phil Bridger (talk)

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 Platinumb Heart Open. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Platinumb Heart Beating[edit]

Platinumb Heart Beating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication that this meets WP:NALBUM Gbawden (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gbawden (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Platinumb Heart Open under Platinumb Heart: This is a double album. See similar discussion. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge with Platinumb Heart Open. Same reason as the one in the other discussion. SBKSPP (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua-Aston Hospitality[edit]

Aqua-Aston Hospitality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable arm of a notable parent company, there is no meaningful or in depth coverage of AAH, only it's parent and should be redirect, but was contested by a legacy admin. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I’m in total agreement with the actions of Praxidicae predating this AFD. If WP:SIGCOV isn’t met, then an arm in itself is not considered notable for a standalone. Celestina007 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Poorly-referenced article, but not un-notable. WP:BEFORE in Google news section yields some useful sources:

Aqua-Aston celebrates 70 years in Hawaii - Travel Weekly, 4 January 2019

Aqua-Aston Hospitality completes $6.7M sustainability update to Maui hotel - Hotel Management, 9 November 2017

Hawaii-based hotel companies rebrand as Aqua-Aston Hospitality - The Business Journals, 17 August 2017

Aqua-Aston Hospitality launches new operations protocols - Hotel Managment, 9 July 2017

Aqua-Aston unveils Residences at Waikiki Beach Tower - Travel Weekly, 24 March 2018

I didn't go any deeper but I believe there's more than just these five. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I don’t get, the first you linked doesn’t meet SIGCOV, the second reads like an announcement. If SIGCOV isn’t met than arm isn’t eligible for a standalone. Celestina007 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I guess I am the "legacy admin", whatever that is supposed to imply. The company in question has existed since 1948, yet has only been owned by Marriot for the last three years. They were part of ResortQuest for much longer than that. How Marriot is a valid redir target to that parent beggers the imagination. In any event, the company is known as a "significant regional operator" and gains recent notice for their ecological efforts. They are constantly in the news in the Star-Advertizer, although paywalled. Coverage is not always positive! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep taken as a whole (even if some of the provided sources appear to be just public announcements of corporate actions), there appears to be enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], and on I could go. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please - could you point to something that doesn't rely on a company announcements? Here are the headlines for those articles for those editors that cannot access them. For any that can, clearly the references fail NCORP:

"Aqua Hotels to offer stock ownership plan to workers", "Aqua Hotels offers new amenities", "Coconut Plaza is closing for renovation", "Aqua Hotels selects new CEO", "Aqua Hotels to manage Hotel Lana'i", "Aqua Hotels owners institute ESOP", "Aqua Hotels to run Hilton Kanua'i resort", "Aqua Hotels' 'No Commitments' program eases wedding planning". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is in a poor state, but the recently found sources seem to establish notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is all routine coverage, paid for PR like this: Aqua-Aston celebrates 70 years in Hawaii The fact there is coverage is coverage it was a local employee and paid to advertise. scope_creep^Talk 23:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The company appears to be notable, given the availability of sources on the topic both positive and negative [1][2]. As Maury Markowitz has mentioned, coverage is not always positive. [3][4][5][6][7]. Mugimeshi (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I worked for this company around 2014, and I'm sure they are notable. They are known as a hotel management brand throughout the state of Hawaii, and they have some reach in other areas as well. I am not surprised by the "Labor Disputes" though, it was not a great place to work. Long hours, stressed employees, high turnover, bad management. So this section is good to have. When I worked there, there was no union. Many people quit within 1 year. If they are still as busy as they were they won't have the time to focus on Wikipedia, but the article could occasionally be vandalized or deleted by former employees who are still burnt. Spektred (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lots of talk by the Keep !votes above about "coverage" and "availability of sources" and whether the sources contain negative news. There's a simple method to check notabiliy for companies Since it is a company, the topic must meet WP:NCORP criteria. NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc.

As far as I can see, none of the references in the article meet the criteria. There are *all* based on either announcements by the company, or mentions-in-passing with no in-depth coverage about the company. I am unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria. If somebody wants a detailed breakdown of any particular reference and why it fails NCORP, link it underneath here but otherwise, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here are a few more sources to satisfy the notability criteria. None of these were mentioned earlier. American City Business Journals in particular is an outlet known for regional independent news coverage. [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]

Keep in mind that they rebranded a few times. As the article eludes to, first it was "Aqua Hotels & Resorts", then "Aqua Hospitality", then "Aqua-Aston Hospitality" after the merge with Aston Hotels. But it's all the same business. This could be the reason why finding sources might seem a little scarce. I know about the rebrands because I had a direct connection to this company at one time, but there are sources online that confirm all this as well. Spektred (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nonsense, just another bunch of regurgitated press releases and company announcements. Am I missing something? Can you explain how exactly those sources "satisfy the notability criteria"??? Where is the in-depth information on the company to include analysis/opinion/etc by a person unaffiliated with the topic company???

• This from khon2.com is based entirely on a TV interview from the same khon2 company which you can view here. A similar interview and article appear on theHawaii News Now website. This is not "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND
• Your 2nd and 3rd links point to the same article. This Pacific Business News article very clearly says "Theresa van Greunen, Aqua Aston’s director of public relations and promotions, told Pacific Business News" and contains no "Independent Content", also fails WP:ORGIND.
• The Hinowdaily reference says in big bold letters "Sponsored by Aqua-Aston Hospitality", difficult to miss. Fails as a Primary source, fails WP:ORGIND.
• This next one from Pacific Business News is entirely based on a company announcement. Similar article (some with the exact same sentences and quotes) can be found at travelpulse.com and travelweekly.com. Fails WP:ORGIND.
• The two articles on Ben Rafter taking on a bigger role in the group in April 2014 and then stepping down in December 2014 are entirely and complete based on company announcements. A simple search brings up numerous other articles with the same date and using the exact same quotes from Rafter, fails WP:ORGIND

Clearly the company exists, clearly it has a well-oiled marketing department, clearly it is mentioned in lots of articles, but this does not automatically translate into notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 29 November 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.