< January 13	January 15 >

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hendrik Walter[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer. References are largely unreliable and social media. No secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This non-notable TikTok "influencer" lawyer does not meet critieria for WP:ENTERTAINER nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Especially in the area of the connection with law and entertainment he has achieved innovations in the German-speaking area with different formats, especially "#1MinuteJura", which is what made him famous in the first place. In this respect, he even had a significant influence on TikTok's entertainment in the German-speaking area, which at least fulfills one point of Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER. Depending on whether German magazines such as SVZ, watson or Zeit are considered reliable sources, he is also addressed by these according to the WP:GNG --Tobiasi0 (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER doesn't apply here. They are decent refs, except apart for Die Ziet, which I think is supposed to be unreliable, which I don't understand. They are reporting on his social media work, which everybody does. It is much of muchness. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The RS here doesn't seem very convincing in terms of establishing notabliity. Seems to be referencng Tik tok and other social media, with the odd media article. He has one "new face" award. None of this shows that he meets WP:GNG P{ossibly WPtoosoonDeathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 09:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rete celere del Canton Ticino[edit]

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

This article is about a concept that doesn't quite exist. All the rail services listed are real, but there's no evidence that they are part of a formal network with an official name. This was discussed in some depth at Talk:Rete celere del Canton Ticino#Naming - Renaming. It looks like an S-Bahn network but reliable sources don't treat it that way. The article should be split, with the content moving to Treni Regionali Ticino Lombardia, Lugano–Ponte Tresa Railway, or individual articles about the services themselves (such as RE80 and S90 (TILO), newly-created. This could be done editorially but this is a disruptive change to a long-standing article and would benefit from broader participation and a formal discussion. Mackensen (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corandcrank[edit]

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

Article about a band, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim on offer here is that they exist, and the referencing is entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, such as YouTube videos and their own self-published web presence and a directory listing for the death of a person whose relevance to this band is completely unexplained. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist: they must have notability claims that pass one or more criteria in NMUSIC, and they must have third-party coverage in real media about them to verify that said notability claims are actually accurate, but this article demonstrates neither of those things. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This music group is encyclopedic enough. Corandcrank are global artist group. One of the band's music was watched by 40 million people. They are verified artist on Spotify and have 140K monthly listeners. Santorica (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Bearcat: "bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist". Spotify and youtube are not reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia, notability is not "they're on Spotify" or "they got X number of streams on Spotify or YouTube" — it's "they have third party journalistic coverage about them in media outlets independent of their own self-created web presence, independently verifying that their notability claims are actually true". Put another way, notability isn't "they did a thing", it's "journalists cared enough about the significance of the thing they did to write news stories about it". Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think the article qualifies for a speedy A7 deletion ^{[original research?]}. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Morris (Business professional)[edit]

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

Resumé and promotional article on a Non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them and also doesn’t meet WP:ANYBIO. A before search links me to primary sources, a plethora of press releases bordering on churnalism. I fail to see how holding executive leadership positions at non notable technology startups and Fortune 500 companies meets or is a requirement that demonstrates notability being met. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman lacking truly indepth coverage in reliable secondary indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Couple things- very little coverage in secondary sources, and it seems like the article creator has a COI, given that they tried to create an article for the business that this subject if an executive of... Just look at their contributions [1]. Definitely a Delete to me. Spf121188 (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think we need to create a rule that someone have say 25 contributions that are editing existing articles before they can create a first article. We have way too many drive-by contributors who start out either creating an article with which they had a COI, or who rush into creating an article without fully understanding the notability guidelines. At the same time we have an even larger problem of too many existing articles lacking even semi-adequate sources. The number of articles that have had a tag since 2009 or earlier, so for over 12 years, saying they have no sources is staggering.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet notability standards, appears promotional, Wikipedia is not a resume. Such-change47 (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK4. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I love you. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Energy[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:NCORP, Noble Energy was merged into Chevron Corporation. Muhammad Alfarezal mother (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. Cullen328 (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The large number of sources cited in the article seem to indicate clearly that this formerly WP:LISTED company passes the WP:NCORP and WP:GNG guidelines. I suggest the nominator review WP:BEFORE. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Sunda Strait earthquake[edit]

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

The earthquake magnitude might seem big, but it isn't significant enough for an article since there is only 1 injured, no mass casualty situation, even though houses are damaged that doesn't mean an article has to be created. Reego 41 22:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Yet another prematurely created article and the impacts are too small to be notable. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 23:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – In my opinion we should only make articles out of recent events IF we have enough reliable sources that may prove the significance of the event. We should not rush when it comes to creating articles like this and wait for new information, and even while doing so you may try to expand your article until the sufficient information is published. Moctiwiki (Moctalk with me) 00:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:EVENT - lacks global news coverage and is unlikely to have a lasting impact. Mikenorton (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Hate to be the keeper of earthquake event articles, but this one needs to go. It was made too prematurely and the event has little to no reliable sources or news coverage to make it notable. Long story short, it just fails WP:EVENT. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 09:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETEFails WP:EVENT needs reliable sources to back the article up for significant coverage Juggyevil (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is not worthy of notice. Occurred 100+km from land. Did not have any lasting or significant effects. No significant enduring coverage. Hence does not meet WP:EVENT Such-change47 (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Koded[edit]

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

Promotional article on a non notable singer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns back hits in vendor websites, user generated sources, self published sources and a plethora of other unreliable sources without an editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking SIGCOV.--Chuka Chief_talk 15:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO/WP:SINGER as not subject of significant coverage/significant works. Such-change47 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hajizade[edit]

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

The hits I'm getting on him in searches (and not on the general of the same name), are all by him, not about him. Can't find any in-depth coverage on him to suggest he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage focusses on the project rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This person is a well known political analyst in Azerbaijan, and is widely quoted and interviewed in international mass media. I think he qualifies as a person 'widely cited by peers', per WP:AUTHOR. --میرعلی 797 (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is one of the important political analytics of Azerbaijab and South Caucasus. --Sefer azeri (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ali Hajizade has been cited by notable outlets, including Princeton University Press. So, I think this qualifies him as a notable person. Plus, I was able to find out that he was awarded Honorary Diploma of President — a high-level state decoration that includes recipients such as Joseph Kobzon, Polad Bülbüloğlu, Zeynab Khanlarova and others — Toghrul R (t) 07:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there is overall enough coverage for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note that none of the keep !votes are based on policy, except for the last one, which doesn't address the lack of sigcov in the article, or available in searches. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sam Harris. RL0919 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project Reason[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Most of the sources are to the organization's website. The two sources that aren't are written by Sam Harris, founder of this organization. None of the sources are independent in any way whatsoever and so they all fail SIRS. Doing a Bing search got me a bunch of blog posts and a Reddit post. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 21:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 21:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 21:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sam Harris. Cullen328 (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD-R.--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 10:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquelyn Reeve[edit]

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

Fails a WP:BEFORE search, and fails Wikipedia is not resume. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks non-routine coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her awards and certifications are not notable either. Coolcactus04 (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and lacks significant coverageJuggyevil (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly does not meet general notability guidelines due to a lack of independent coverage whatsoever, let alone any that is significant. Such-change47 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Ishbia[edit]

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

Lack of independent, reliable and significant coverage. Pure reference bombing. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability. A quick Google search couldn't find anything. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sillman[edit]

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

Businessman BLP does not seem to meet WP:NBIO. Notability is inherited from his company Relevent Sports Group and coverage of the individual is largely churnalism articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sillman is one of the most important soccer executives in the United States as referenced by the sources. He has created international soccer tournaments which has been referenced in NY Times and Sports Illustrated articles. He has produced two major soccer films (individually named as an executive producer) which have been written about in the Guardian and ESPN. In addition, and separated from Relevent, he is a business advisor of Draymond Green as cited by NY Times. And Daniel has received industry awards also cited. Multiple other editors have made edits to the page without issue. The editor in this case is targeting multiple pages that I have edited and has accused me of gaming the system. Following standards, Daniel more than meets requirements and it is unfortunate that one editor seems to be targeting me despite more than proper attribution, etc.Bankrupt305 (talk) 12:58, 31 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) 06:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to Keep this page Bankrupt305 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Geschichte (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (sports). And he is an important and pivotal figure in the world of sports. WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you believe support that WP:GNG is met? Also, please note that WP:PRESERVE discusses article content and is not relevant for deletion discussions. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, WP:Preserve is relevant and dispositive in deletion discusssion. Ipse dixit doesn't apply to your claim. Read it and make up your own mind. YMMV. Regards, 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence supporting your claim that WP:PRESERVE is relevant for article deletion discussions?

And again, which sources do you believe support that WP:GNG is met?

Ipse dixit (IMHO a cheap shot that adds nothing to this discussion) also applies to your arguments currently. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources (some added since nomination TBF) appear to show he meets WP:GNG individually. Current refs #2 (New York Business Journal), #5 (SportBusiness Daily) and #15 (Inc.com) all focus on him. Fully agree these aren't national newspapers but he is a businessman and they are business publications (not familiar with them but they look OK to me, seem to be actual entities rather than advertising puff fake sites, but could be wrong). Difficult to quantify his achievements but he is clearly genuinely a CEO of a relatively successful company in a high-profile sector. If that's not deemed enough for a standalone article at present, then it should be Merged into Relevant Sports, as per GNG "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article". Crowsus (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete - what sources are there that detail signifiant coverage? Giant Snowman 15:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment - struggling to find WP:SIGCOV. Anyone have an article from an RS that talks about the subject, rather than just mentioning them? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Lee Vilenski. Here is one https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/why-one-of-most-successful-ceos-and-entrepreneurs-youve-never-heard-of-still-thinks-he-has-a-lot-to-learn.html. Bankrupt305 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete/merge - Tend to agree with nominator and GiantSnowman. After editing the RSG article, in early 2021, I was approached via my Talk page (discussion) to review a similar draft article (here). My view then was that it didn't meet GNG or NBIO (too much reliance on RSG PR-derived coverage), and I am not sure that this article does either. Paul W (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Paul W (talk) . Doesn't this article more than satisfy that? Haden, Jeff (May 30, 2019). "Why One of the Most Successful CEOs (and Entrepreneurs) You've Never Heard of Still Thinks He Has a Lot to LearnHe runs Relevent, has invested in a number of companies with high-profile partners, yet few know him. Which may be a secret to his success". Inc. Retrieved January 10, 2022. Also, since you reviewed the last article, there is new news that Daniel is an executive producer of a major Netflix project about Neymar. https://www.orcasound.com/2022/01/03/neymar-the-perfect-chaos-a-netflix-documentary-series/. He's right behind LeBron James and Maverick Carter in the list of Executive Producers. Thank you for your consideration. Bankrupt305 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult for me to say. I am a UK-based editor unfamiliar with Inc (and I am wary of interviews as sources as they can be publicist-instigated creations that provide the subject with a platform to make assertions that aren't always reliably fact-checked). I am swayed towards the merge option - perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON and in a few more months we will have more significant reliable independent sourcing. Paul W (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there are several claims above stating that he passes WP:GNG, none have addressed which articles they feel accomplish that. Interviews, being primary, do not count towards notability. And searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.forbes.com/pictures/59f73cf34bbe6f37dda1524d/daniel-sillman-28/?sh=55e4032460a6 Forbes thought him notable enough to put him on their 2018 list of 30 Under 30. The coverage already found at https://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/why-one-of-most-successful-ceos-and-entrepreneurs-youve-never-heard-of-still-thinks-he-has-a-lot-to-learn.html counts towards his notability. El Clásico seems notable. https://www.forbes.com/profile/daniel-sillman/?sh=3063efd63fbb "he was responsible for bringing El Clasico to Miami and surrounding the match with concerts and fan festivals." Bizjournals.com gives him ample coverage at https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2018/10/01/daniel-sillman-relevents-29-year-old-ceo-has-bold.html Dream Focus 02:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bizjournals and Inc magazine sources give enough for WP:SIGCOV and focus on him, not the company. BBQboffin (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sources analyzed in the discussion don't appear to satisfy the WP:NORG standard and there were not alternative sources put forward. Since this article and its redirects have been around a long time, as an editorial action I'm going to recreate them as redirects to Center for Inquiry. RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Inquiry Investigations Group[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NORG and is full of promotional content. While the amount of sources are impressive, they are all complete garbage and spam. I have prepared a SIRS table (which is too large to fit into Twinkle) that individually examines every single source included in the article as of this [2] diff and demonstrates how they all fail WP:SIRS. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it turns out that I nominated this for deletion nearly 5 years ago when it was listed under a different name, looking at it again my attitude has not changed, i.e. Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Press coverage seems incidental, self-published or minor. May be worth mentioning within the Center for Inquiry article, but I don't think it merits something in its own right. Shritwod (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is the table that examines every single source. As you can see, despite their volume, they are all unreliable or provide no significant coverage. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"CFIIG: About"	The about page for organization	~ See WP:ABOUTSELF		✘ No
"POINT OF INQUIRY podcast: Dec. 12, 2019"	Published by parent organization	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	Not going to listen to the podcast so won't judge.	✘ No
"Do Power Balance wristbands work? - Yahoo! News"	Written by someone working with the CIIIG	~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF	? Can't read the article.	✘ No
"IIG Power Balance Experiment"	Published by an IIIG affiliate	~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF	Doesn't cover the CIIIG itself.	✘ No
"Power Bracelets a Bust in IIG Test"	The CFI is the parent organization of the CIIIG	~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF	Doesn't cover the CIIIG itself in any significant detail	✘ No
Offline source titled "Power Balance Bracelets a Bust in Tests"	Published by the Skeptical Inquirer which is owned by the CFI	~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF	? If it's just an offline copy of the previous source it doesn't have sigcov, but I don't want to get a copy of the magazine to find out	✘ No
"The Anita Ikonen Report"	Published by IIG West which is a subentity of the subject of the article.	~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF	Doesn't cover the organization in detail.	✘ No
"Light Bulb Luminosity Demonstration"	Published by the CFI, parent organization of the CIIIG	~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF	Doesn't significantly cover the IIG itself	✘ No
"State Sponsored Quackery Feng Shui and Snake Oil for California Nurses"	Skeptical Inquirer is run by the CFI which is the parent organization of the IIG. The contents of this article is also just a report done by the IIG.	~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF	Doesn't significantly cover the IIG itself	✘ No
Carla Baron, Psychic Detective?	Published by IIG West	~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF	Doesn't significantly cover the IIG itself	✘ No
Offline source titled "Carla Baron, Psychic Detective? Not Quite"	Published in the Skeptical Inquirer, which is owned by the CFI which is teh parent org of the CIIIG	~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF	Didn't want to make an evaluation as I can't read the article	✘ No
Offline source titled "TV psychics John Edward and John Van Praagh"	Also published in the Skeptical Inquirer with all that entails, but the author is also James Underdown, leader of the CIIIG	~ Could be under WP:ABOUTSELF	Not going to evaluate as I can't read the offline source	✘ No
"How come TV psychics seem so convincing?"		The Straight Dope is probably notable	Provides no coverage of the CIIIG itself, just mentions its leader without even mentioning said leader's affiliation with the CIIIG	✘ No
"Putting Psychics to the Test"			Blatantly fails the WP:ORGDEPTH requirement that "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" do not satisfy ORGDEPTH. The entire article is just an interview with James Underdown, and doesn't even name the IIG as the organization that Underdown was running.	✘ No
"Psychic Mutt Discovered!" Note the previous link doesn't work at the time I created this source table, so here's the CFIIG's copy of the story: [3]	Please read WP:ORGIND, this is an example of "dependent coverage" where practically all of the info comes from the subjects themselves. It is also not a secondary source, as it written from the journalist's perspective and describes their experience and what they've directly seen and heard. This makes it a primary source and so fails WP:SIRS		Does not actually provide coverage of the CFIIG. All of the coverage is of the CFI, the parent organization. It mentions James Underdown as being the executive director of the CFI - West but there is not a single mention of the CFIIG/CIIIG/IIG.	✘ No
"Skeptoid #372: Prove Your Supernatural Power and Get Rich"		Pretty much the definition of an WP:SPS/self published source. This is just a transcription of someone's self published podcast.	Gives a brief mention of the IIG as an example in a list of organizations that offer prizes if one can prove a paranormal ability. WP:ORGDEPTH explicitly forbids this, saying trivial coverage encompasses "brief or passing mentions, such as: as an example of a type of company or product being discussed"	✘ No
"Hex Factor: Inside the Group Offering $250,000 for Proof of Superpowers"		Medium blog post. WP:MEDIUM has had several threads that have deemed it as generally unreliable.		✘ No
"IIG Challenge"	Published by IIG West	~ See WP:ABOUTSELF	? Source isn't loading for me, perhaps the internet archive is down.	✘ No
"Tyler Henry Still Silent after $250,000 Offer from L.A. Skeptics"	Made by the CFI	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	? Internet archive may be down	✘ No
"About the IIG Awards"		~		✘ No
[http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/index.html "IIG		~		✘ No
"Skeptics at Annual Awards Ceremony"	Video of the IIG awards being presented by the IIG	Provenance of the video is questionable	Not watching this video to find out	✘ No
"The Skeptic Zone #206"		Literally a self published podcast	Not listening to the entire podcast to find out.	✘ No
"Neil deGrasse Tyson inducted into the Houdini Hall of Honor at the IIG Awards"	? I find it hard to believe this is Neil deGrasse Tyson's YouTube channel since the channel hosting the above video has been terminated and Tyson's official channel [4] is still up. And the video, if it's not produced by Tyson, is likely produced by the IIG.	WP:YOUTUBE.	? This is likely WP:ROUTINE coverage of a non-notable award given out by the organization, but as I can't watch the video it's hard to find that out.	✘ No
[http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/2006/index.html "IIG		~		✘ No
[http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/2008/index.html "IIG		~	Not bothering to read this	✘ No
[http://www.iigwest.com/iigawards/2009/20090929_pressrelease.html "IIG		~	Not bothering to read this	✘ No
"IIG Award:Ray Hyman 2011"	Ray Hyman is on the executive council of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry which is in the same organization as the IIG.	This is just Ray Hyman speaking into his phone and directly uploading that video to YouTube.	I'm not watching this whole video to find out if it's SIGCOV.	✘ No
"The Independent Investigators"	? Can't watch the video anymore	I really doubt this random video on Vimeo is reliable given that I can find no information on "New Pilgrim Productions" anywhere on the internet.	? Video is taken down.	✘ No
"Walking with the Psychic Blues"		A self published podcast	I am not listening to the entire thing	✘ No
"Ross and Carrie Meet Spencer!"	I don't know who any of these people are and don't want to dig into them to see if they're independent.	Self published podcast	Not listening to nearly 45 minutes of this, but even the article claimed there were only brief mentions of the IIG.	✘ No
The included ref is "Ghostbusters: is Hollywood a spiritual 'vortex'?", but I couldn't access that, so I used this republishing [5] as it's a wire service story by AFP.			Literally just two quotes from Mark Edward, a member of the IIG. See WP:ORGDEPTH where "brief or passing mentions, such as: in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources," do not qualify as WP:SIGCOV.	✘ No
"MTS: Meet Ross Blocher"	? Can't see the source	Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia has performed an analysis of "Meet the Skeptics" [6] and labelled as a podcast which consists solely of an interview. This makes it not a reliable source and also not a secondary source.	? Can't actually listen to this podcast.	✘ No
"Mark Edward"	The coverage is a lengthy interview of Mark Edward and is neither independent nor is it	Self published zine of some sort.	Barely mentions the IIG.	✘ No
"Mark Edward Interview (Be Skeptical Episode 2)"	Video by IIG west	~	Not watching this.	✘ No
"MTS: Meet Mark Edward"	? Can't see as internet archive is down	A self published podcast as per [7]	?	✘ No
"The Amazing Meeting 2012: James Underdown"	An interview with James Underdown, not very independent of the subject	Just some YouTube video of an interview	Not watching the whole thing to see if it's SIGCOV.	✘ No
"The Amazing Meeting 2012: Susan Gerbic	An interview with Susan Gerbic, not very independent of the subject	Just some YouTube video of an interview	Not watching the whole thing to see if it's SIGCOV.	✘ No
Harold Camping 'flabbergasted'; rapture a no-show			Doesn't mention the IIG	✘ No
"ReasonFest11"	? Unclear who runs the blog, their about page [8] doesn't give much info.	A blog and WP:SPS, see [9]	? Can't read the source as Internet archive is down	✘ No
"James Underdown (3 of 4) @ ReasonFest 2011"	A talk given by James Underdown who runs the IIG	~	Not watching the whole thing	✘ No
"Best of Skepticamp Part 1: Mark Edward"	Note that Mark Edward is affiliated with the IIG and this is an interview, so not very independent. It's also a primary source.	This is a podcast	? Can't listen to podcast	✘ No
[https://www.oprah.com/own-miracle-detectives/guardian-angel-video-expert-re-creation "Guardian Angel: Video Expert Re-Creation	Video segment done by James Underdown	It's a segment on the Oprah Winfrey Network so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt	Not watching to find out if significant	✘ No
"Glen Ivy: A Study in Rational Decision Making"	Literally an IIG report	~		✘ No
"SoCal Para Con"	? Can't see on archive.org	Obviously a recorded livestream of a conference, and so no editorial control	? Even if I could see the livestream I wouldn't watch the entire thing to find this out.	✘ No
"Weird or What? "Mind Control War"	?	? If it's the discovery channel it's probably reliable	According to the article's description, there's Jim Underdown saying stuff at some point.	✘ No
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110720031121/http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/BadCast/2010/06/04/BadCast-Ep14 "BadCast Ep14	? Can't see archived version	Just a podcast from the information I could find on the internet about "BadCast" on bad psychics	Wouldn't listen even if I had access	✘ No
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110720031027/http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/BadCast/2010/03/26/BadCast-Ep04 "BadCast Ep04	? Can't see archived version	Just a podcast from the information I could find on the internet about "BadCast" on bad psychics	Wouldn't listen even if I had access	✘ No
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110720031010/http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/BadCast/2010/03/13/BadCast-Ep02 "BadCast Ep02	? Can't see archived version	Just a podcast from the information I could find on the internet about "BadCast" on bad psychics	Wouldn't listen even if I had access	✘ No
"#46 The Independent Investigations Group"	? Don't want to do research but the article mentions that the IIG was involved in the podcast	A self published podcast	Wouldn't listen even if I had access	✘ No
"The IIG Awards"		~		✘ No
"KCET Article". While I couldn't read the above source I found the IIG's description: [10]	The coverage appeared to consist of mostly interviews with IIG members, so neither independent nor secondary.			✘ No
"Skeptic Check: Diluted Thinking; The Hollywood Reality Check"	The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent.	Self published podcast.	No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV	✘ No
"Skeptic Check: Conspiracy; The Hollywood Reality Check"	The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent.	Self published podcast.	No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV	✘ No
"Skeptic Check: Superstition; The Hollywood Reality Check"	The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent.	Self published podcast.	No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV	✘ No
"Skeptic Check: Playing Doctor; The Hollywood Reality Check"	The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent.	Self published podcast.	No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV	✘ No
"Skeptic Check: ESP or Think Again; The Hollywood Reality Check"	The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent.	Self published podcast.	No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV	✘ No
"Skeptic Check: Sheer Lunacy; The Hollywood Reality Check"	The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent.	Self published podcast.	No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV	✘ No
"Skeptical Sunday: is Ignorance Bliss?; The Hollywood Reality Check"	The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent.	Self published podcast.	No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV	✘ No
"Skeptical Sunday: Take a Number; The Hollywood Reality Check"	The extent of the "coverage" of the IIG is that James Underdown was a guest on the show, so it's hard to say it's independent.	Self published podcast.	No, James Underdown being on a podcast isn't SIGCOV	✘ No
"Penn & Teller: Bullsh**!: Talking to the Dead Episode Summary on"	? tv.com is user-generated content	tv.com is user-generated content	? Site is down	✘ No
"Penn & Teller Bullshit! Season 1 Episode 1:Talking to the Dead (1/3) "	~ The video itself was copyright claimed but this is just James Underdown appearing on the show with Mark Edward. The coverage of them isn't independent	It's not exactly a neutral or academic source.	Highly doubt their interview meets SIGCOV.	✘ No
"Dowsing Truth or Trickery"	? Can't see the source itself anymore.	Judging by the URL, probably.	The claim made is that James Underdown appeared on an NBC News show. This isn't SIGCOV.	✘ No
"Divining Water: Dowsers in Big Demand During California Drought"			James Underdown isn't even mentioned in this source!	✘ No
"A scientific approach to the paranormal"		It's a Ted talk and is a self published source	Carrie Poppy briefly mentions the IIG during her Ted talk as an example of an organization that gives out prizes to mystics	✘ No
"Oh No, It's Ross Blocher! Part II"	The Skeptical Inquirer is owned by the same parent entity (the CFI) as the IIG	~ WP:ABOUTSELF	~~Doesn't even mention the IIG~~ Briefly mentions the IIG in an interview question and a photo caption.	✘ No
Offline source called "CFI Investigations Group Raises Paranormal Challenge Prize to $250,000" published in the Skeptical Inquirer	It's the Skeptical Inquirer and isn't independent	~ See WP:ABOUTSELF	Can't see the offline source.	✘ No
"Guest Editorials"	"The Odds Must Be Crazy" was a blog or something published by the IIG	~ See WP:ABOUTSELF	? Dunno since the site is down	✘ No
"The Odds Must Be Crazy"	This is the Facebook page that The Odds Must Be Crazy allegedly maintains	There's no proof this is even run by the The Odds Must Be Crazy so it's not even WP:ABOUTSELF reliable		✘ No
"Episode: August 19th, 2014"	Extent of the coverage is that The Odds Must Be Crazy has a recurring segment on this podcast	~ It's a podcast but maybe WP:ABOUTSELF		✘ No
"Episode 181: Unnatural Evolution Is A Funny Thing"	Extent of the coverage is that The Odds Must Be Crazy has a recurring segment on this podcast	~ It's a podcast but maybe WP:ABOUTSELF		✘ No
"Skepticality Episode 181: The Odds Must be Crazy"	This is "The Odds Must Be Crazy" giving their take or something on the podcast.	~ Maybe WP:ABOUTSELF?	? Can't read the source	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Survey[edit]

Thank you Chess for putting in the work to produce that table. A news google search only lists 9 results, from either what appears to be unreliable sources or failing WP:ORGDEPTH. Google search results show wiki pages overwhelmingly for the first 2 or so pages, and then no reliable sources for the next few (I can't be bothered to look for more pages, a 6 page google search is all I did). I'll wait for a few days to give time for others to find sources just in case, but so far I don't see evidence of notability myself. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have anywhere near the time necessary to verify the accuracy of all this data, but as odds would have it, I checked two randomly and found one error. "Oh No, It's Ross Blocher! Part II" does in fact include a discussion of IIG activities. (Search IIG.) Rp2006 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It contains a single question in an interview, which makes it a primary source, and it's still not independent, so does not contribute to notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I was getting tired by that point. Sorry I missed the question "I understand you were part of the IIG test, testing a Flat-Earth in cooperation with Flat-Earthers?" in a magazine published by the CFI. Anyways, you don't really have to "verify the accuracy of all this data". You just have to give us two or more sources that satisfy WP:SIRS. The person who had to verify the accuracy of all of this data was me since I have to do that in order to make an AfD. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 02:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, good work on the WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I don't accept the soundness of your statement that "the [only] person who had to verify the accuracy of all of this data was me." This is especially true now that I pointed out an error, which you have not (yet) corrected. 04:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC) Rp2006 (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the source is not independent, the error does not affect the subsequent assessment of GNG.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 05:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rp2006: I didn't go back to modify it since it's effectively part of a timestamped comment, and going back to change it now would alter the meaning which would result in any reader not fully understanding what prompted this thread. Usually I only do this if it's really egregious or nobody has responded. But I'll go modify it now since you requested. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 06:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the source analysis, because I don't see two WP:GNG/WP:NORG sources. Levivich 03:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is another error in the source analysis. OneZero is not a blog. It is a journalistic publication owned by Medium. From their website:
OneZero is a publication from Medium about the impact of technology on people and the future. Our editorial team is also behind Debugger, a publication about gadgets, and Future Human, a science publication about the survival of our species. As a journalistic publication owned by Medium, OneZero maintains editorial independence over the stories it publishes on the Medium platform. Medium’s business interests and investors have no bearing on our work. We avoid conflicts of interest and, where unavoidable, disclose them. OneZero employees do not have any financial stake in the companies they cover and may not act on nonpublic information for personal gain or the gain of friends and family. Though we make every effort to be accurate in our reporting, when we are wrong, we acknowledge and correct our mistakes. We do not accept gifts, and we pay for or return products that we review. All articles published on OneZero, including those by staff, expert contributors, and freelance reporters, are subject to editing and fact-checking for accuracy by OneZero’s editorial staff.
You could try to make a case that it's not reliable at RSN, but you'd probably lose that battle. I think it's easy to see "medium" in the URL and immediately dismiss something as a blog post. That's not the case here. Medium employs paid journalists and editors for a smattering of professional publications that it hosts on its website. That's one of them. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first relevant thread at the linked RSP entry deals with this issue more or less: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 192#Article by established journalist in Medium publication_with_editorial_staff Not much consensus ensued though. I read the mission statement and didn't really see the proof of reliability above a blog. I can't submit a correction, for instance, and I'm unsure how their editorial process works. Seems like they just threw a bunch of medium employees at random as "editors" that can arbitrarily approve/change/deny stories. [11] None of them actually list on their profile that they're an editor for OneZero, most list that they work for Medium and one lists "former lead editor, Forge at Medium" which is confusing since from her profile she hasn't updated in months but still has editorial access? Why haven't they removed her by now if she doesn't work for Medium? It's also kind of unclear how this "editorial independence" exists when most of the editors list their affiliation as being with the parent company; which implies they're not very independent. From my experience serious journalists are very particular about listing their specific affiliation. For instance, journalists will always say they work at "Bloomberg News" and not "Bloomberg". Or the The Athletic versus the NYTimes company. Those who work in the former are very particular that they don't work for the latter, even though the latter is the parent entity. Though this is just anecdotal and isn't much to base an actual assessment on but it's part of why I judged it initially as a blog that Medium threw some money and employees at, rather than a serious journalistic endeavour. Perhaps I'm wrong in my assessment, but that was my somewhat informed belief when I made the SIRS table (probably should've gone into more detail) and it wasn't an inadvertent error on my part. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 09:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not much consensus is a weird takeaway from that thread. Jytdog never responded to clarifications regarding the nature of re:form, and he is the only person in that thread complaining. Jytdog is an editor whom I have (had?) great respect for, but he could be a bit dismissive and stubborn when it came to challenges to his decisions. It's not clear to me from that thread that we should be dismissive here of a journalistic publication based solely on the other avenues of business for the parent company of that publication. I also think that your above suspicion that Medium just threw a bunch of medium employees at random as "editors" is extremely weird. I'm going to assume in good faith that that was just a gut reaction and not actually what you believe. Medium is not unreliable because the company is somehow biased or shady. Medium is unreliable because anyone can create self-published content on their platform. That is not the case for their owned publications, like OneZero, which are legitimate journalistic organizations. Journalists are more reliable because they are paid by their company, not less. As Rhoark said in the thread you linked:
Medium is a platform on which one can self-publish. That doesn't mean everything that can be found there is WP:SPS. In particular, it has a built-in feature for users to set themselves up "publications" which are groupings of users and articles in which there can be editorial control. This does in principle constitute third-party publishing, if there is reason to believe that quality editorial control is actually exercised. This likelihood is improved if: a) The editors and writers have prior journalism experience, or other relevant expertise; b) The writers are paid; c) The editors are medium.com staff or endorsed by them
These all seem to be true for OneZero as well, and I agree with that assessment. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really see it to be a legit journalistic organization at the time based on the fact almost all the editors list their affiliation as "Medium" and not the actual journalistic organization (i.e. saying they work for "OneZero"). Same with the lack of way to submit corrections. Haven't seen other news organizations do that in the past as they have a very clear separation between news and the rest of the business as well as an email address to send angry letters to. Plus people will acknowledge that they work for the publication and not the parent entity. Didn't really feel like there was a bunch of effort put into "OneZero" and while the mission statement is nice I didn't really see it being a real journalistic organization; more like a blog run by the Medium company. While it's a very nice blog and Medium maybe isn't a biased/shady company I still think it's a blog; because why else wouldn't any of the editors proclaim that they work at "OneZero" in their Medium bios? It would make sense for them to do that if their full time gig was being an editor rather than just having to manage a blog as an extra job duty. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 09:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure if you're implying that Medium threw the janitor and the IT guy at a publication and called them "editors". Medium is a website that owns several publications. Medium is also a self-publishing platform. "Publications" is also a feature of Medium which allows editorial control for content. OneZero is a publication in which the editorial board consists of Medium employees employed as the Medium Editorial Group whose job it is to curate content and exercise editorial judgment. I don't think there's a restriction that a particular employee can only be the editor for one publication at a time, though you'll note that one of the editors is the "former lead editor" for Forge, which is another Medium-owned publication. If you want to submit a correction, you contact the editors or the author. That's the nature of how their platform works. If you were hoping for like "onezero@medium.com" or something, I'm not sure if that exists or not. I also think you're playing fast and loose with the term "blog" at this point. At what point are you just describing a journalistic publication without saying the words "journalistic publication"? I'm not particularly suspicious of the editors or of Medium (website)'s motives in editorial decisions for their publications. Do you have some reason to be? AlexEng^(TALK) 10:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment I have one more comment to add about your analysis of the Chicago Tribune (CT) piece. By the way, the link is broken and the article is not on archive.org, but you can read it here. It does not violate the part of WP:ORGDEPTH that you [mis]quoted, but it still might be trivial coverage. The full statement in the orgdepth example is intended to read: brief or passing mentions, such as in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.^{[emphasis mine]} That's not saying that a source that quotes a member of the organization, even extensively, cannot qualify as a source for the purposes of determining sigcov. It's saying that if the only mention of the organization is as the source of a quotation for the article, then that's not significant coverage. To clarify what I mean, let me give an example. Let's say, hypothetically, that Randy Savage is alive and has quit wrestling, only to start working at Arthur and Son Family Widget Company. Arthur & Son is not notable just because Savage works there, per WP:INHERITORG, and is not otherwise notable by any criteria. Now let's say Arthur & Son fires Savage for allegedly eating their widgets straight off the assembly line. A news publication later runs a story about Savage and his crippling widget-eating addiction that has now landed him in rehab. A quote in the middle of the article, attributed to the president of Arthur & Son, reads, "we just had to let him go. We were losing so many widgets." That is the passing mention that the guideline is talking about in its example. You can't create Arthur and Son Family Widget Company based on a couple of articles using that quotation as sources for notability. The CT column, on the other hand, is not attributing a quote to Underdown in his capacity as a member of CFIIG. The column is clearly about Underdown's investigative work as part of that outfit. However, it may still qualify as trivial coverage. The column is really short, and CFIIG is not mentioned by name; it's only referred to as a "team of investigators". The whole article is not "just an interview" with Underdown, although the author clearly interviewed Underdown as part of their research for the piece. If it were just an interview, it might call into question whether it is a WP:PRIMARY source, which is not something that you noted in your table above. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay, but it gives some pretty good advice on how to evaluate a source that includes interview material as primary or secondary. To be secondary, a source should contain transformative thoughts, rather than just parroting what the interviewee said, with the irrelevant (in this case) exception of when the interviewee is speaking as a subject matter expert on their field of study. Anyway, this turned out longer than I expected, but the bottom line is that I'm not particularly convinced in either direction with respect to whether or not this source is appropriate for use in qualifying the subject for WP:GNG and by syllogism WP:NORG. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, the link works fine for me. Though it was pretty much just an interview with Underdown with little additional information (he didn't seem to contact anyone else) and is just based on quoting the guy as a story source. And to be honest I thought this was a transcribed TV news segment of some kind when I first read it since it had double hyphens instead of dashes (in the link on their website), the writing style, and the fact it's a TV journalist who is attributed as the author. Thought "oh this is one of those segments where the guy does the lead-in, interviews guy for a while, explain what guy said/will say, cuts back to new interview, elaborate, back again, so on so forth until hit the reader with kicker, it's done". It reads a heck of a lot differently with less emphasis on the interview in my head when I'm not imagining it as a TV news segment where the interview is the central part. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribune piece is about debunking, not the organization. The author uses someone from the organization to talk about that. There really isn't anything in-depth about the organization itself that wasn't provided by the organization itself (or the person being interviewed). This wouldn't pass WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are several issues, but addressing notability alone the references do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Leaning delete. That one does look self-promotional, and it is not supported by strong 3rd party RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaella Carr[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a mid-market local television journalist, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion standards for journalists. As always, a local TV news reporter is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because her existence is technically verified by a staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer -- the notability test is the reception of third-party coverage indicating that the significance of her work has been externally validated by sources that don't sign her paycheque, such as evidence that she has won a Gemini or Canadian Screen Award for best television journalist, and/or outside analysis of the importance of her work in the Review of Journalism.
But as usual for bad articles about television journalists, this is essentially written like somebody tried to paraphrase her staff profile, is referenced solely to said staff profile, and says absolutely nothing about her that would actually constitute a notability claim.
Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN, and the baseline for inclusion here requires much more than just "Kaella Carr exists as a person who has a job". Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the level of sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:JOURNALIST. I can't find any reliable sources referring to this person. Samsmachado (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. The article also lacks notabile and reliable sources.Juggyevil (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Article lacks reliable sources to establish notability.Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 10:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It's SNOWing. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Quessenberry[edit]

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

Coverage about this player is of the routine variety. Does not meet WP:GNG, and apparently, and he may or may not meet WP:GRIDIRON, as the Football Reference says he took a snap, but both it and nfl.com say he played zero seconds. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, meets NGRIDIRON. Also, I do not see where you're saying its "0 seconds". It was 18 snaps, each of which takes multiple seconds. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- NFL.com also says he played in a game, so I do not see how you're getting "0 seconds". BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, like nearly every other NFL player ever, Quessenberry appears to meet GNG. See SIGCOV such as [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe there's some confusion here with the "GS" ("games started") stat? (Or one of his admittedly many other "0" stats.) Why would NGRIDIRON in itself be grounds for a "speedy" keep? Or at least, the part of GRIDIRON other than the part of that guideline which says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." This does appear to be the case, though you'd be forgiven for missing it from the article at time of AfD nomination, which essentially made no actual claim of notability whatsoever. "He was elevated to the active roster for Week 16 and played one snap on offense and 17 snaps on special teams in his NFL debut." --CBSsports, which is maybe a somewhat better source than most of those offered above (if CBS itself confers any source-reliability on its sports website). Seems fairly marginal thus far on GNG; USA Today at least is a "perennial" reliable source, so maybe that gets it over the line. Possibly ironically, given that article's "what a weird signing" take on him. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply; I think BeanieFan's basis for speedy keep is also supported by his SIGCOV articles he included above, just to be thorough. Spf121188 (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For SIGCOV, see here/here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article says He made his NFL debut in week 16 against the Los Angeles Chargers, appearing on 18 snaps in the 41–29 win. So he meets WP:NGRIDIRON as a player who has appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in the NFL. KidAd • SPEAK 19:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep per comments above. Nothing really needs to be added here. He clearly meets WP:NGRIDIRON, which is more inclusive, but he also, in my opinion, meets WP:GNG per BeanieFan11 and Cbl62's more than adequate research. Spf121188 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: easily meets NGRIDIRON Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As a clear NGRIDIRON pass. Also meets GNG per Cbl62. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons stated above. Can't find any reason for this article to be deleted. XtraJovial (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per arguments above. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Meets WP:NGRIDIRON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be SNOWing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are thousands of articles with no notability whatsoever that need deletion. This article clearly meets notability requirements, not sure why it was nominated. Such-change47 (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NGRIDIRON just states "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues". Doesn't specify how much they have to play, just that they did. His pro football reference says he played 1 offensive snap and 17 on special teams against the Chargers for a grand total of 18 plays, which is roughly about 13% of the total plays from that game. That very clearly passes NGRIDIRON. And yes, it is snowing.--Rockchalk7 17 23:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kianna Dior[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Utterly non notable. Fails GNG and ENT. Recreated from previous dele5tion but G4 refused, even though sourcing is still hopeless. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion that actress has two awards. According to this fact, she deserves to be on Wikipedia. Moreover, she had to be such recognizable that she appeared in the Eminem's Video Clip to Without Me (Eminem song) . Thought, Eminem's managers and movies selectioners didn't choose her to be starring in the Clip of such known and estimated rapperThe Wolak (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alas we need some policy basis for a vote and parts in videos and porn awards count for nothing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, I would have liked to pay attention that Kianna requires features of notability and requirements for entertainers. Regardless of number of votes being for or against deletion The Wolak (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that comment isn’t at all clear, is that an argument to keep or delete and what is the reasoning? Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I opt for remaining this article in wiki because that character seems to have any sings of notability The Wolak (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please link the sings of notability? Do you mean sings or signs? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, gaining the most respectable award in porn industry such as AVN should be sufficient justification for her notability The Wolak (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The community rejected AVan wins as a notability standard when PORNBIO was deprecated. You need to find WP:GNG sources or show how she meets WP:ENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage of significance, does not meet notability standards Such-change47 (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marylin Star[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not independently notable except being sentenced to 3months for insider trading. Clearly a nonpublic individual so fails NOTNEWS, BLP1E and NOHARM. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Delete I agree Marylin fails NOTNEWS, BLP1E, and NOHARM. Wikipedia is not a criminals Wiki either.TH1980 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Tatton[edit]

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

Snooker player with no references on page; Does not appear to be notable per WP:CUENOT and a WP:BEFORE check yields no SIGCOV. AviationFreak💬 18:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 18:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 18:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cue sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - player was a professional for four seasons, which is enough with general consensus for snooker players. WP:CUENOT#Players does specifically call this out, specifically "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". As this is pre-2005 we are talking about, it's very unlikely you'll find anything online. He also won the first event of the 2004 Q Tour, which is a major amateur honour. I'll do some digging for some sources, but it's likely paper sourcing for this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the "fully professional" qualification is possibly questionable, as from 1991 and for a few seasons afterwards, anyone could become a professional snooker player simply by paying a membership fee, and hundreds did. However, Tatton did win a Challenge Tour event, and whilst a lot of the hits on NewsBank are routine coverage, there are some rather more in-depth articles, e.g these two available online: here and here. I think he scrapes through the WP:GNG criteria. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but 2005/06 wasn't the same, right? That first one suggests he made the top 64 - must have been the preliminary rankings! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. He was professional for four seasons and did get honours. -Cupper52^Discuss! 22:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pete (Disney). RL0919 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Junior[edit]

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

Article relies entirely on one source. Very minor character overall (practically limited to one spin-off franchise). Found nothing with WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge into Pete (Disney). TartarTorte 20:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pete (Disney) . Nothing to merge since the article is effectively unreferenced. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pete (Disney): This character has not received any meaningful coverage from a reliable source. Furthermore, there is nothing worth preserving here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will protect this and the two previous titles due to repeated re-creation. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Patel (digital marketer)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination and I am neutral in this nom with my !vote to come below. Agree with the decline of the speedy (courtesy @Bbb23:) and the closure of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Neil_Patel_review, but as this has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Patel (entrepreneur) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Patel (online marketing strategist), I feel like this needs larger discussion and possible resolution. Star Mississippi 17:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete I thought the book might actually help establish notability, but he is only co-author. This isn't in enough depth for a review and this is of questionable independence or editorial oversight. While the article appears well referenced, I do not think he is a notable businessman when taking into account the quality of the sourcing. ~~I do not think we have a bad faith creation issue, however, as the prior creators do not appear connected and this may just be an alternate view of what his "title" is.~~ Edit struck 1/21 per the below conversation with Novem Linguae. Rest of !vote stands as I still don't believe he's notable. Star Mississippi 17:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Star Mississippi 17:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He appears to have been a contributor to Forbes, based on a GNews search and his book seems to have been on the New York Times best seller list per the Forbes bio. Would seem to be notable, but neutral at this time until better sources are brought up.Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - likewise waiting for better sources but on present showing, if there's any notability here it seems to go with the book, not the man.Ingratis (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Evidently a known figure to those who follow digital marketing publications. However, the subject's bylines in business publications do not establish any notability, since contributing writers to Inc., Entrepreneur, Business 2 Community, and Forbes tend to be a mix of non-authoritative and authoritative people, with clear marketing objectives. The only decent sources are the NYTimes and Fortune. However, both make the case of notability for the subject's published material, but not the subject itself. Reliable, independent sources by staff writers or editorial staff covering the subject are needed to establish notability. Multi7001 (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is like a Hydra where the page is deleted only for another one to resurface. I'm wondering how a dormant account who's never created an article before suddenly creates one and it's on a subject who's had a contentious past here. At the very least, it's suspicious. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a case of using WP to market one's marketing business. Atsme 💬 📧 20:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG in my opinion; cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 21:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT this and previous namespaces. best, GPL93 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all the different incarnations of this page. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt; the man isn't a marketer, he's a grifter who's part of a predatory investment advice group: Angels and Entrepreneurs; which is a group in the same vein as the Palm Beach Research Group. 2601:540:8200:89F:C576:2539:3EA0:A09B (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP and no significant coverage by reliable sources.--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 10:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to salt. Seeing as this has been created and AFDd under 3 different names. Seems to be some attempts to evade scrutiny going on. Neil Patel (digital marketer), Neil Patel (entrepreneur), Neil Patel (online marketing strategist). –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not disagreeing with SALT, but is there any benefit when the creators are using different titles already? This isn't currently a case of SALT evasion so much as independent creation. Star Mississippi 15:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My gut instinct is that this article subject has had an experienced UPE trying to get around G4 in the past (and who knows presently, I don't want to make accusations without evidence). Upon further investigation just now, this seems to be confirmed, as the article Neil Patel (online marketing strategist) was created by LTKT, who is a CheckUser confirmed sockpuppet of Wikibaji, who has a massive SPI archive that has the term UPE mentioned six times. In conclusion, because we have confirmed UPE for this article subject, I think salting makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed that SPI, thanks so much for flagging and retract my comment about good faith creation. Still not sure how SALTing would work given we can't guess future permutations on title, but hopefully we won't need to play whack a mole. Star Mississippi 17:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kaiman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hyper-local politician fails WP:NPOL. If there is no consensus to delete, redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. KidAd • SPEAK 17:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 3.Djflem (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician. This is far too soon in the election cycle to even consider a redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Town supervisor is not an inherently notable role that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself, being a candidate in a future election that he hasn't already won yet doesn't help (the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one), and the sourcing is nowhere near adequate to make him appreciably more notable than the norm for either of those roles. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Candidates do not warrant their own articles unless they meet another form of notability criteria, which is not the case here Such-change47 (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriy I. Potapenko[edit]

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

Non-notable subject created by a single-purpose account. Article created the same day a different version was deleted multiple times and SALTed at Valeriy Potapenko. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional, sounds like a PR release. No sources used other than one article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pantyhose#Use by men. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 09:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pantyhose for men[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a confused and confusing article. Men wear pantyhose, but I'm not sure that's encyclopedically notable. Part of what is included - NFL players, scuba divers - is compression sleeves or support hose, and not pantyhose as the term is typically understood. Sourcing is primary and even the ones that are secondary do not discuss it as being a thing for men aside from this piece and possibly this (if someone can find a working archive).

As a result, I'm not sure this can be solved editorially, nor is there a viable merger as an ATD. There could be some discussion of this in drag, or other cross dressing, or medical clothing. But I'm not sure that's possible so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to pantyhose as a shortened-down section. No need for an independent article here. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pantyhose#Use by men as a very niche use case scenario, as it's been addressed by the marketplace more or less by unisex compression garments, and toss out the unsourced fetish stuff. Nate • (chatter) 21:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant referenced information to Pantyhose#Use by men. Additional content may be appropriate for Leggings#For men or pages on other types of hosiery. —Ost (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typecasting (blogging)[edit]

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

Has been PRODded twice, so we're here. While a search is difficult given other meanings of type casting, I cannot find any evidence that this was a notable blogging trend, nor any appropriate redirect as an ATD. There were lots of blogging fads, but this one didn't appear to have any lasting impact. Star Mississippi 15:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Firstly, the thing existed, sometime before 2012. Secondly, a search for "Typecasting" + blogging -wikipedia, despite Google's confident prediction of about 686,000 results, actually has under 200 hits in all, and many of those are about alternative uses of "typecasting: defining people by race or class, actors only getting roles of a fixed type, blogging about typefaces, defining data types in programming languages, etc. There are thus extremely few hits about the blogging use of "typecasting". A book (self-published?) offers a bare definition - not a substantial mention. The two sources used in the article are reliable, but "An ode to clicky keys" only offers the briefest of mentions of typecasting, not a substantial discussion; it's unclear whether Strikethru is a reliable source. It looks as if Polt 2015 is a substantial mention, perhaps the only one. I'm afraid there is really not nearly enough here to demonstrate notability, let alone to justify an article or even to cite the material in the article decently. What we have is part WP:OR, part WP:NEO (or DICDEF if you prefer), and a weak dash of sourcing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to above, this article reads like a personal essay of the author (User:Riwo) written to promote the idea of typing stuff out on paper and then scanning it. Sources do not appear substantial and in fact only two sentences actually are supported in the entire article. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable and not enough media coverage available. I agree with Anton.bersh. VincentGod11 (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepika Pilli[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Fails WP:NACTRESS. Declined twice at AfC but the author bypassed review and moved the draft to mainspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what's a team lead in a tv show supposed to be? Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an arrangement on this particular dance show where someone popular leads a team of dancers (even though they are not dancers themselves). -- Ab207 (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:ENT; Pilli is not a dancer to claim notability via a dance show. Also lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ENT norms, not fulfill the notability criterion. Pinakpani (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass either WP:GNG nor WP:ENT. this article lacks significant coverage and notability.Juggyevil (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NACTRESS; and WP:GNG-no significant coverage in sources — DaxServer (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GEC Consulting[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, but I'm being a bit cautious on this one and doing an AfD rather than A7 (although if a passing admin thinks this is A7, go ahead with a speedy delete). Most of the references are just business listings and directories. There is one Forbes interview which is why I went to AfD. But there are not multiple reliable sources supporting notability. Singularity42 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only two sources that should be of focus is Consultancy.eu and Forbes. The first source, Consultancy, contains useful information, but seems to be possibly unreliable. The second source is reliable and written by an international journalist from Forbes Georgia. Given it's only an interview with minimal editorial dictation, more reliable sources are needed to establish notability. Multi7001 (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. and Multi7001. - Hatchens (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Multi7001. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SERIESA. 10:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Keep I believe the page should not be deleted as I found information about the company outreach and its contribution to economy and society. Here are some what I found: Company information on UN Global Compact website, information about company on governmental website, information about company offers for SME on leading Georgian Bank website, company is member of German business association and is listed on their web, this event was powered by the GEC Consulting, information about company on public broadcast, information about company service on public broadcast. - Svani 170891 (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Svani 170891 and welcome to the AfD! No one is saying the business does not exist or is carrying on business (possibly important business). The question is whether the business meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, as set out here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and more specifically, WP:ORGCRIT. A reliable, secondary source is defined here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Bank listings, Facebook accounts, government listings, etc. are all evidence that it exists, but they are not secondary sources that support notability. Singularity42 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The argument for deletion was based on WP:BLP1E, but the subject does not seem to meet the third criterion, since the event was significant and his participation was substantial and well-documented. Whether specific WP:BLPCRIME content should be included in the article is not an AfD issue unless that is the primary content of the article, which is not the case here. RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Bennett Sr.[edit]

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

While the transplant itself was a newsworthy medical event, I think Bennett himself isn't notable for being the recipient of it and fails WP:BLP1E, not being the main subject of the news articles. There was an additional human interest story about ethics because he had committed a crime, but this fails WP:CRIME. Reywas92^Talk 14:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while a "just" patient, he is still a very noteworthy person who is very important to something that may be historical. --SuperMug (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable person, just a patient. --87.162.172.243 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BLP1E and crime info shouldn't be in there either WP:NPF.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E says that articles generally shouldn't be created when one of three conditions are met. As far as my judgement, Bennett's article does not meet #1 because reliable sources cover him in the additional context of the stabbing; it aldo doesn't meet #3 because the event (operation) was historic and significant and Bennett's role in the event is well documented. RFZYNSPY ^talk 18:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPF states “Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.” That’s why I’m stating the crime info is irrelevant. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 05:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The public discourse surrounding Bennett's surgery includes the revelation that he is a convicted assault perpetrator. It is relevant. Most articles published yesterday by reliable sources cite the public disagreement over whether or not Bennett's past should have disqualified him from surgery, and this aspect of the story has left far more of a lasting impact than I think you're assuming. I think we should definitely include his criminal record. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this. if articles are published about it, if its part of the RS conversation about this event and his role in it. Then it should stay. Frankly, as an aside, in medicine we do not care what you have done or who you are. We treat every patient the same. The only exception being transplantation with limited organs, wherein we only care insofar as it affects the likelihood that you will be able to get full use of that organ. Ergo, alcoholics don't get liver transplants until they have sustained sobriety. This man's criminal past has no bearing on his ability to use this heart. An important conversation, but just want to be honest: there is a clear answer according to medical ethicists. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously I carry the bias of having created the article. My main point of reasoning that led me to create it in the first place was that the article Louis Washkansky exists, with Washkansky being notable only for receiving the world's first human-human heart transplant. Bennett Sr. has had the first successful animal-human heart transplant and therefore matches this level of notability. In addition to that, he is also notable for his criminal record, although that certainly is less noteworthy than his operation. As for the point that he is not "the main subject of the news articles", I would appreciate if you could expand on what you mean, Reywas92, because every article I've read has talked exclusively about Bennett, his operation, and the healthcare team that performed it, with Bennett making up much of the discussion. RFZYNSPY ^talk 18:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move - This article features important information that any encyclopedia would want to cover. The first successful xenotransplant from pig to human? That's groundbreaking. This is history. However, I do agree with the other posters here who say the article currently violates WP:NPF because Bennett is an unknown member of society and only became relevant because he was the patient involved in the surgery. The surgery is what's relevant and notable, not Bennett himself. So I recommend either keeping the article as is, or moving it to an article about the operation. And I know it's already been mentioned, but Bennett's criminal history is also notable. The conversation surrounding this medical breakthrough includes the discussion of whether or not Bennett deserved to be the patient for this groundbreaking surgery because of his history of violence. That's relevant, and it should be documented in an encyclopedia, so that readers in the future can do further research. However, because Bennett is alive, I recommend removing his name from the article and merely referring to him as "the patient" until he passes away and the article is no longer relevant to WP:BLP. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think expansion of xenotransplantation may be appropriate, but we don't need a separate article for this one surgery either; Xenotransplantation#History has relevant medical info. This actually isn't the "first successful xenotransplant from pig to human", it was the first heart transplant, a kidney transplant having occurred last year. There are plenty of individual occurrances that you may call "history", but that doesn't mean each one needs a stand-alone article. Reywas92^Talk 15:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, For WP:BLP1E reasons. The idea that because he's notable for the transplant, we MUST include his unrelated conviction is ridiculous. We would never create an article for someone based solely on a crime like that, and attaching it here just feels gross to me. Merge some of the content to Xenotransplantation#History, as suggested above, and give this man some peace. Parabolist (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or reorganize. There are many wikipedia entries on non-notable people who have passively suffered some newsworthy event: crimes are generally described in the article on the victim, who is non-notable until the crime, rather than creating an article about criminal, who is notoriously notable, as it were. In order to find this article, I instinctively used the patient's name from the news article, because in my mind this is the general Wikipedian rule—my instinct was correct in that I found the quickly (after disambiguation for David Bennett). Also, the criminal history relates to (1) medical ethics (who "deserves" a transplant?); (2) there is such a thing as local color; and (3) the character of the recipient. The crime is worthy of being discussed in one-week follow-up scientific article in Nature.^[1] One reason Bennett was disqualified for a regular heart transplant was "he had a history of not complying with doctors’ treatment instructions", in other words, a lack of character. The single article on xenotransplantion will become unwieldy as more and more significant developments take place in the future. On the other hand, some wikipedians love humongous articles. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone doesn't deserve to have the crimes that they've served their time for prominently attached to every single google search about them just because some editors on wikipedia think that it adds "local color", good god. A drop of empathy here, christ. Parabolist (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. removing the paragraph on his crime. it's not directly related. To the extent it illustrates medical ethics, itcan be added if that aspect is sufficiently discussed in serious sources., not just one newspaper, however reliable. Presumably by that point it will no longer fall under BLP. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would rewrite the crime section and use more and better sources re: the medical ethics question. But this man is notable, and has been discussed in various ways. His role was substantial, it will likely have lasting notoriety, and his past is now part of the conversation. its part of why he has notoriety that lasts beyond his "5 minutes of fame." Medical ethicists will write papers about this, for sure. But we don't have to wait for them, we already have lots of RS coverage which establishes GNG. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He definitely became part of medical history after his heart transplant. Once (if?) this kind of medical intervention becomes an established procedure with its own article, he can be mentioned there through a redirect. Asav | Talk 03:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Bennett has made history, and it is important for future generations who may be reading the article to know who this person is.
Keep, David Benett is definitely going to be talked about later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cringeasfomglmao (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no brainer. A few weeks ago, the Zara Rutherford article, the youngest woman to fly solo around the world was successfully deleted showing that the Wikipedia way is wacky. I created it again (someone else created it the first time) and, luckily, nobody has tried to delete it. Charliestalnaker (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fareisa Joemmanbaks[edit]

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

Non notable model / film-personality. Has acted in a vamp role in a barely notable Malayalam movie and was crowned Miss India Worldwide, which also does not impart any notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL Jupitus Smart 14:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Finney[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable, WP:BEFORE check does not show sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Putting the failure to establish WP:GNG aside, it heavily leans on her website as source. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Very little independent secondary sources, and article reads like the subjects website. Spf121188 (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass ethnic violence in Postcolonial Africa[edit]

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

This page appears to link together a number of conflicts which don't appear to be grouped together in any particular source. Its scope has also been changed by a page move in the past day from "genocides in central Africa" to "mass ethnic violence in postcolonial Africa". In either case it looks like a WP:SYNTH of unrelated events. — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll hold off !voting on this as I'm not quite clear how this is not a content/title dispute. There's more than adequate scholarly work that examines and compares genocide/mass killings in post-colonial Africa.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]

References

^ Reardon, Sara (14 January 2022). "First pig-to-human heart transplant: what can scientists learn?". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00111-9.
^ Stapleton, Timothy J. (2017). A history of genocide in Africa. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger. ISBN 9781440830525.
^ McDoom, Omar (2010). "War and Genocide in Africa's Great Lakes since Independence". In Bloxham, Donald; Moses, A. Dirk (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies. Oxford University Press.
^ Scherrer, Christian P. (2002). Genocide and crisis in Central Africa : conflict roots, mass violence, and regional war. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. ISBN 9780275972240.
^ Howard-Hassmann, Rhoda (2005). "Genocide and State-Induced Famine: Global Ethics and Western Responsibility for Mass Atrocities in Africa". Perspectives on Global Development and Technology. 4 (3): 487–516. doi:10.1163/156915005775093269. It discusses colonial genocide in South-West Africa and Congo; post-colonial genocide in Rwanda and Darfur; and state-induced famine in Ethiopia and Zimbabwe.
^ du Preez, Peter (1997). "In search of genocide: A comparison of Rwanda and South Africa". Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology. 3 (3): 245–259. doi:10.1207/s15327949pac0303_3.
^ Badru, Pade (2010). "ETHNIC CONFLICT AND STATE FORMATION IN POST-COLONIAL AFRICA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ETHNIC GENOCIDE IN THE CONGO, LIBERIA, NIGERIA, AND RWANDA-BURUNDI". Journal of Third World Studies. 27 (2): 149–169. ISSN 8755-3449.
^ Lemarchand, René (2009). The dynamics of violence in central Africa. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780812202595.
^ Straus, Scott (2015). Making and Unmaking Nations : War, Leadership, and Genocide in Modern Africa. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN 9780801455674.

Is the argument here that the article is irredeemable, ie WP:TNT? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Goldsztajn: the article has been prodded twice, by El cid, el campeador and by Brigade Piron, under the "Genocides in central Africa" title, and now it's been moved. I guess per the sources you quote above, it might be possible to construct a coherent article from the topic in question, but either way this article isn't it. It's just a series of paragraphs about unrelated events, with no attempt to tie them together into any single narrative. So yes, I guess it's WP:TNT. I suggest deleting until someone has the time or inclination to write a proper article on the subject and can defend why it's notable. — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I agree there is nothing to salvage in this stub. Putting aside the rather nomenclature of a "postcolonial" era, what exactly is "mass ethnic violence"? Does any ethnic violence count? Or is there some kind of subjective judgment about what "mass" means? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @Amakuru: thank you for the clarification. Given that Genocides in postcolonial Africa (and variations thereof) redirect here, a suitably appropriate article could be created there. Given the inappropriate use of mass ethic violence in the title and the OR contents, delete is justified. While I'm personally also of the view that postcolonial itself is a problematic term, unfortunately, while not always, it is today predominant. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KCG College of Technology[edit]

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

This article has no source and not met notability guideline Vitaium (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to scrub copyright violations and then Redirect back to Anna University. No evidence of notability, purely promotional. --Muhandes (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wgullyn (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to lists of Ariane launches. Except VA246, which was not tagged for AfD. Sandstein 09:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ariane flight VA240[edit]

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

Not notable, per WP:EVENTCRIT. This also fails WP:GNG. All sources are primary. The rocket launch is a normal procedural launch, that does not have "enduring historical significance". I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from the reasons listed above:

Lectrician2 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lectrician2 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lectrician2 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment Ariane flight VA245 carried BepiColombo so probably has more historical significance than the rest.©Geni (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my bad, accidentally nominated it. I'll take it out. Lectrician2 (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These launches are covered in list form at Ariane_5#Launch_history. — Goszei (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided that sources must be added. Per WP:EVENTCRIT: as mentionned above, some of the articles in the series have "enduring historical significance". Moreover, all of them have "widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". As a consequence, they all meet the notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benrem (talk • contribs) 14:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how any of these were "widely covered", in my WP:BEFORE, for all of these articles I saw small space blogs covering them, and not reliable sources. Any of the reporting for these articles also fails WP:DEPTH, as the coverage provided is not "in-depth" reporting. Can you please point me to a example where it fulfills this criteria, with sources? Lectrician2 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Ariane 5#Launch history, unless some additional sources turn up that convince me otherwise. As disclosure, I was musing about AfDing these on WP:DISCORD, which helped lead to this nomination, but I was just too lazy to do a full WP:BEFORE on all of them. Goszei's point pushes me into !voting, though. The launches being considered here all appear very routine, meaning that the only pieces of information that we ought to cover about them are number/date/payload/etc., and those are all covered, along with a few others, at the Ariane page. Preserving anything more than that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so these articles fail WP:PAGEDECIDE (as well as likely other parts of the notability guideline, per nom). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the list of launches as suggested, this one in particular is non notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

merge as explained bove. Separate articles aren't needed ``

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 10:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blink of an Eye (Enchant album)[edit]

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

~~This is a newer progressive rock band and this album may possibly lack reliable coverage. Sikonmina (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Enchant (band)#Discography per WP:ATD. An album that is not independently notable from from its band, but is a plausible search term. ✗plicit 02:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Among search results in Google, this is the only one that I find meaningful. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable reviews here, here, here. There are also several reviews of varying quality including [17], [18], [19], [20].. Geschichte (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Geschichte. Sikonmina (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented above. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WizIQ[edit]

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

Not notable. Just a promotional page. RPSkokie (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotion of a Non notable company which fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article with basically no content, can't find much about this company for coverage, and what coverage is in the article is either routine, or passing mentions. The article has severe content problems and I don't see how they could be fixed unless this company did something, you know, notable. FalconK (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mindspark[edit]

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

Not notable enough. RPSkokie (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Times of India source cited is a dependent source (interviews with executives) and this is a WP:PROMO. FalconK (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EduKart[edit]

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

Not notable enough. RPSkokie (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RPSkokie (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement of a non-notable company fails WP:GNG, Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and PR. DMySon (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was thinking this could be mentioned in its parent company Paytm's page, but there's really nothing here to merge. It's all routine. FalconK (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the coverage about this is made up of extremely trivial passing mentions. None of it seems to be in-depth enough to pass WP:NCORP. The PR isn't really helpful either. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete but could be wrong. My initial feeling was the same as Adamant1's. But how about [21] and [22]. They're paywalled, and I personally don't understand which media are editorially independent in the Indian market, but they look like they may be more than passing mentions. Martinp (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased songs by Coldplay[edit]

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

This page barely improved since its creation in 2019. There are not many reliable sources either, most of them are first-handed or fan websites and got used too many times. Overall, Coldplay's unreleased material does not get enough coverage by media outlets to warrant a page of its own. It should get included as part of their List of recorded songs at best. GustavoCza (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GustavoCza (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's already covered in List_of_songs_recorded_by_Coldplay#Unreleased_songs, with that article being a FL. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – now that the song list has it covered. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of songs recorded by Coldplay#Unreleased songs per Lugnuts. —GMX^{^{(on the go!)}} 14:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PorkchopGMX. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And given how much material is on the page, it might even deserve a partial Merge of any reliably sourced songs. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Edit: Doomsdayer has convinced me to agree for only a Redirect,, no merge. —HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of songs recorded by Coldplay#Unreleased songs. My only reason for voting to redirect is because of the traditions at WP:ATD, while it's remotely possible that someone could use the search term. The material in this article is almost entirely unsupported and unsourced, so there is no need to merge such material to a different article that covers the topic better already. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of songs recorded by Coldplay#Unreleased songs per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per other editors to the list. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator, no delete votes. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Clare's Girls' School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this article deletion for in 2020. At the time the consensus was to keep it due to some coverage it has received the South China Morning Post, a reference that was subsequently determined to be unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong where this school is located. Even if that wasn't the case the references are either on extremely trivial run of the mill topics, interviews, PR puff pieces, or otherwise not worth using for notability anyway. Which is probably why they weren't used by anyone in the article by anyone after the AfD. So I'm re-nominating this in the hopes of there being a more in-depth, thorough discussion of the sources and if they show notability or not then there was last time. As the keep votes in the first AfD amounted to "keep per the other person" and there wasn't really a discussion about it beyond that. Except to question my competence. Which I'd prefer to avoid this time around. Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is SCMP unreliable? I don't see the discussion saying that it's unreliable. According to WP:SCMP, SCMP is generally reliable and only when it covers topics including the Chinese Communist Party and Alibaba, additional considerations should be apply. Sun8908 _Talk 11:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said it's unreliable for things related to Hong Kong because that's what some people in the RfCs said. Obviously the summaries at WP:RSP don't cover every single comment made in the RfCs or the various nuances that they involve. Either way though, I was clear that it doesn't matter if it's reliable or not because the SCMP references are either on extremely trivial run of the mill topics, interviews, PR puff pieces, or otherwise not usable for notability. There isn't some magical thing that suddenly makes an interview usable for notability if SCMP is reliable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some people might have said something but it was rejected by consensus, so you should not pretend in a deletion rationale that it was accepted. Can't you just treat deletion discussions as discussions, rather than battlegrounds where you have to support your predetermined position by peddling obvious lies? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the second RfC the third to last comment said " In case of contentious content about Hong Kong, it is recommended to also use alternative sources like HKFP", then the last commenter said "Usable in most situations, but exercise caution with political reporting and contentious topics." No one ever "rejected" what they said. Just because the first three RfCs were not official votes like the last one was doesn't mean the opinions stated by people in them aren't valid or not part of the general consensus. Even in the last RfC multiple people had civets about when the reference can be considered reliable and on what topics. Personally, I think their opinions are worth considering as one thing out of several. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I've been more then clear that the closing comment didn't include the covets people gave in the RfCs and that I don't really care if people disregard the RfCs altogether. So in no way I'm treating this like a battleground or "peddling obvious lies." If you or other people want to ignore the RfCs and judge this on other grounds, by all means do so. I'd appreciate it if you assumed good faith and didn't insult me in the process though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely because I would like to assume good faith that deletion rationales and anything else written on Wikipedia will not contain lies that I am asking you to stop peddling them. The source was simply not "subsequently determined to be unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong". Someone's opinion stated during an RFC is not determined to be true if it does not gain consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this was someone else's AfD and there was multiple RfCs about one of the main references used in the article then I'd read over the RfCs and consider what people said in them about the source when I "vote" as one factor out of many. So I thought it was worth mentioning. That's it. I never claimed there was more to it then that or that a couple of opinions in an RfC are the single, only, best, def-cato, authoritative, what the hell ever view points and that everything else should be ignored. What part of that or me saying "I don't care about this and people can ignore my opinion about the RfCs if they want" multiple times are you having such a hard time with? Also, let me ask you this, if the opinions given by people in the first three RfCs are suppose to be ignored as "not consensus" or whatever then why does WP:SCMP include links to them, instead of just linking to the last "authoritative" RfC? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of that are we having a hard time with? The part where you're still arguing about it, with the frankly outrageous claim that the sentiment of some minority voters in a RfC establishes what consensus really means, in open defiance of the close. If you believe that doing the decent thing and withdrawing your nomination is a humiliation you cannot bring yourself to initiate, then a dignified silence would be a good look. Ravenswing 17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly fine with withdrawing the nomination. I commented below this that it can be closed as procedural kept by anyone that feels like doing so. Frankly I'm pretty neutral on that being the outcome. It's slightly disappointing that the whole thing with the RfC came at the cost of allowing of something like an interview to be used for notability, but such is life. I could really give a crap about what the outcome of most of my nominations is. Including this one. This isn't a battleground and I'm learning as I go just like everyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As other people said, there is absolutely no consensus that SCMP is unreliable for subjects related to Hong Kong. If the nominator truly believes the consensus should change, they are happy to open a new discussion in WP:RSN. In terms of notability, as a religious non-profit school, WP:NSCHOOL and WP:NRELORG both note that the less strict WP:GNG standard can be used, and the sources provided in the first AfD are sufficient for that. Jumpytoo Talk 18:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:NSCHOOL doesn't say that non-profit schools just have to pass WP:GNG. Since it says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools...must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. Nowhere there does it say "all schools except for non-profits." What it does say is "all schools" at the beginning of the sentence and non-profit schools are schools. Otherwise it would explicitly say non-profit schools just have to pass WP:GNG. WP:NRELORG says the exact same thing. There is no special exception for non-profits from having to meet the notability criteria for organizations in either guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very wording that you quote says that non-profit schools only have to pass WP:GNG. Do you really not understand the word "or"? Or are you again simply saying rubbish to substantiate your pre-determined position rather than discussing in good faith? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The quote doesn't use the word "non-profit" anywhere in it. So I have zero clue what your talking about. That said, I started a discussion about this on WP:Notability (organizations and companies) because I figured you'd use my comment as yet another opportunity to insult me about my opinions and think it would be helpful if things in the guidelines are clarified. Since this keeps coming up. Your free to continue the badgering in the other discussion if you really feel the need to, but I'd appreciate it if you stopped bludgeoning this with your unsolicited personal attacks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not bludgeoning and not making personal attacks, but just pointing out clear flaws in your argument. One of which is that "all" very obviously includes "non-profit", so there is no need for that wording to say "non-profit" explicitly. I can't say why you could possibly have zero clue what I am talking about without insulting your intelligence, so I won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the sentence after the one you quoted which makes the "non-profit" relevant: For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. From my interpretation, for-profit schools must follow the strict sourcing guidelines of WP:NCORP, whereas all other schools (public, non-profit, religious...) only need to pass WP:GNG which does not have such strict sourcing requirements. Jumpytoo Talk 20:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)'[reply]

The fact that it says "those criteria" makes it sound like it's saying ""For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both." Otherwise why would it use the plural "those" and not just say "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy WP:NCORP" instead? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources appear to be sufficient to show that this school passes notability requirements. Meters (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm failing to see why the South China Morning Post is unreliable in its coverage of Hong Kong topics. The wording quoted above clearly states passing GNG is enough, and I believe this article meets that guideline. NemesisAT (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 潘天惠 (2014-04-14). "聖嘉勒女書院校長教學生堅信真理必勝". Headline Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
2. "校風純樸聖嘉勒名人輩出". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2013-09-06. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
3. "聖嘉勒副校：學生選科功利不足10生願修中四停開中史". Ming Pao Daily News (in Chinese). 2015-04-30. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
4. Wang, Young (2015-04-29). "St Clare's Girls' School cuts Chinese history for lack of student interest". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
5. Chan, Margaret (1993-06-09). "Director of Education reveals exciting strategy for schools at St Clare's". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
6. "Girls of St Clare's take keen interest in dramatics". South China Morning Post. 1968-02-11. p. 32.
7. "Diocesan Girls' to; go DSS". South China Morning Post. 2004-11-20. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  This brief article helps more with Wikipedia:Verifiability more than it helps with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
8. "體認志願團體資源，重視提供延續教育，聖嘉勒女書院畢業明愛石慧嫻稱". Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1980-12-01. Retrieved 2022-01-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
9. "聖嘉勒女書院，金鿋紀念展覽，教育司陶建明主持揭幕". Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1977-03-03. Retrieved 2022-01-16 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow St. Clare's Girls' School (traditional Chinese: 聖嘉勒女書院; simplified Chinese: 圣嘉勒女书院) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says:
The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
As a non-profit educational institution, St. Clare's Girls' School passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools.
WP:SCMP says:
The South China Morning Post is widely considered to be the English-language newspaper of record in Hong Kong. In the 2020 RFC, there was consensus that the SCMP is generally reliable. However, in addition, there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party and the SCMP's current owner, Alibaba. Editors may apply higher scrutiny when dealing with the SCMP's coverage of such topics.
The South China Morning Post sources cited here are not about the Chinese Communist Party or Alibaba. I consider the articles reliable for covering St. Clare's Girls' School.
Cunard (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nomination challenged the use of SCMP as a source, but it has been established this was a clear misread of WP:SCMP by the nominator. Beyond that, it was established that the GNG was met in the initial AFD, and it's pretty clear that consensus is not changing here on that. The nominator has expressly requested that their competence not be questioned, so there is nothing more to do here that won't generate more heat than light. Martinp (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC). I have a very minor COI on this topic, in that I know an alumna. But neither I nor she has any particular interest as to whether this article exists.[reply]
Speedy Keep: Indeed, the nominator's expressly stated that they are neither lying nor incompetent, but it is not easy to take their bizarre claim about the text of WP:SCMP -- which is written in clear English -- any other way. It would be a stretch to consider this merely a fatally flawed nomination (rather than a bogus one), and if the nominator wants to assure us that they're acting in good faith, I anticipate the immediate withdrawal of this AfD. Ravenswing 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's zero point in continuing the AfD if there isn't going to be any discussion of the references like I had originally hoped. Especially if a bunch of bad faithed, off topic personal comments are going to be about me in the interim. So I'm fine with anyone just closing this as keep (procedural, speedy, or whatever) if they want to. If an admins happens to read this and wants to close it then by all means do so. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celina Tent Inc.[edit]

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

Several linked sources, but no SIGCOV to meet WP:CORP. Created as a conflict of interest by someone in the family that owns the firm. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SERIESA. This is very clearly an attempt to promote the company, and could probably have been speedied due to its making no claim at all to notability. FalconK (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial coverage. No justification for an article. It sahould perhaps have been a G11. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Tisha Mohammed[edit]

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

I don't believe the references here support WP:GNG but it couldn't be speedied A7 but there is a claim of significance. But a search just brought me social media and blog coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not violate any rules. Is there a reason you are nominating it for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkyly (talk • contribs) 10:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We should be looking more at N:ACTOR, her role is My Name is Kadi, despite being panned by critics for poor acting 1, 2, 3, 4 was the lead role in a very notable film. If I get another of such role in a film it will be an easy keep based on the requirements of the SNG (don't have the time to look through the filmography section right now). HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HandsomeBoy, her role in 'My name is Kadi' has been added. She played the lead role. Thanks for pointing that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkyly (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. Can you mention another film she played the lead role that has reviews like My Name is Kadi? I don't have the time to do the search myself. If you can give me one or two more, I will vote Keep. Once an actor has multiple lead roles, it is easy to meet N:ACTOR.HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I’m in agreement with the assessment of Liz, and paradoxically also in agreement with HandsomeBoy, in the sense that state that they know WP:NACTOR requires lead roles or significant roles in multiple movies for NACTOR to be met, unfortunately I fail to see this movies. HandsomeBoy, a problem I see almost immediately is that the four sources you made use of are unreliable, (or at least some of them the sources as a whole, whilst some, although reliable sources, are unreliable pieces) a breakdown; the the first source is pre packaged sponsored material, the second source has no presence of a staff reporter in the byline, indicative of an op-ed piece, a sponsored post or an editorial opinion piece all of which are not considered reliable as they bypass the editorial oversight team. The third source is pretty much without an editorial oversight team so isn’t reliable either. The fourth and last source you linked above is self published which is literally a quintessential example of an unreliable source. So in all, it seems that we really do not have anything tangible. Honestly, when reviewing articles I’m somewhat lenient when the articles are of persons or topics of great encyclopedic value, but in cases of most entrepreneurs or most entertainers who tend to want to get a Wikipedia presence for the sake of it, I’m rather strict, unless the article creator can come up with a list of multiple movies which shows her in lead or significant roles, or can show us that she has clinched a prestigious award for her acting skills as documented in WP:NACTOR or can show us at least three sources that meet WP:RS standards, I’m afraid this is not a good fit for mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable sources. I agree that this is probably intended as promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Ganeshwade[edit]

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

Press release news article. Fails GNG Trakinwiki (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Trakinwiki (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsitsia Mkervali[edit]

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

No coverage beyond databases. Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage outwith the database profiles, that is information. Fails sigcov. I hate these profile BLP's, particularly when it is createf from a set of database genered profiles. They are prolifically made, shallow in terms of content and of almost of zero value, as soon as they're made, they are forgotten. They are useless to man nor beast merely duplicating information what has been created somewhere else. scope_creep^Talk 09:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, scope_creep, and my own research; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Beccaynr (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument for deletion - that the existence of this person is not verifiable - has not been substantially been contested here. Nobody pointed to specific sources that would verify his existence. That being the case, the core policy WP:V mandates the deletion of unverifiable content. Sandstein 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polemon Eupator[edit]

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

I prodded this with the following rationale:

Fails WP:BASIC and possibly WP:V. Mentioned apparently by only a single source here, which does not even indicate with full certainty the subject's existence. Some assertions of the article are simply not corroborated by the sources, and some of the content appears to be WP:OR. The rest is irrelevant genealogical trivia. Subject did not reign, no accomplishments are known, and I can find nothing that can shore up this article.

And this was deprodded by Necrothesp with no rationale other than that there "seem to be several sources", even though I explicitly indicated that I looked at the sources, and that their combined statement does not support claims of verifiability or notability made in the article.

It may be added that this "Polemon Eupator" seems to have been invented or mistakenly conceived by the article creator based on his own interpretation of a damaged inscription (WP:OR) which a single source here has transcribed. None of the other sources cited so much as mention the man, and the only one that does doesn't identify the subject conclusively. Avilich (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable, may be a bad mistake for Ptolemy Eupator perhaps? No idea why this was deprodded. Fram (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first name (not the second) is probably the single verifiable fact in the article, so it's probably not a simple spelling confusion. The creator found the brief speculation of a source and magnified it well beyond the limits of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, reporting an unverifiable genealogical link and giving his own guess on how the subject's life went on ("He was raised in his parent’s realm", and so on). Avilich (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sadly it increasingly appears that some editors do not know the difference between when to use a prod and when to use an AfD. To enlighten them, a prod should only be used for blatant unencyclopaedic rubbish. An AfD should be used for anything else. Simply thinking an article is non-notable is not a good reason to prod instead of AfD. I would also remind editors that any editor can deprod an article for any reason or none. Something else that seems to be unclear to some. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That you "can" do something doesn´t mean it is a good idea of course... Fram (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And more worryingly, your patronizing comment about prodding editors and "blatant unencyclopedic rubbish" has absolutely no basis in policy and doesn´t reflect WP:PROD at all. Such incorrect "enlightenment" from an admin to justify their time-wasting is in poor form. Fram (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given your and Avilich's comments above and the comments on my talkpage, I don't think it's me who's the patronising one! I deprodded for very good reasons, as I am perfectly entitled to do. It is obvious that only unecyclopaedic articles could possibly be uncontroversially deleted, which is what prodding is specifically for (ergo, my comment was accurate!). Ths article and the others prodded by Avilich are not unencyclopaedic (since princes are obviously not). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to his father. This is clearly a person of whom we know little, perhaps nothing beyond his mere existence, which does not provide the basis for a full article. His father Polemon II of Pontus was a king, but Nero persuaded him to surrender the kingdom, meaning that no son succeeded him. On the other hand, I detected a gap in WP's coverage of Kingdom of Pontus covering the period when it had become a client kingdom within the province of Bithynia and Pontus, which is supposed to be a main article on it, but fails to cover the client kingdom properly. We have biographies of successive kings and List of kings of Pontus. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And once again you cast a vote without reading the nomination. We don't know that he is in fact the King's son, or that this is even his full name (the idea that we know for certain is the article creator's OR/SYNTH). Avilich (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone creating, deprodding, wanting to merge... this article actually produce a single reliable source even mentioning Polemon Eupator? I haven´t found a single one in e.g. Google books, which is very unlikely for this kind of subject. Fram (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably [23] this is source 1, the source for the name? It includes many Polemons, and many Eupators, but never as a combination it seems. Anyone has more luck finding this name? Fram (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: since you actually appear committed to understanding the problem (unlike others), the source is this. Basically there is a damaged inscription which gives some of the said names in fragmentary and incomplete form, and the source (and those it in turn cites within) makes it clear that any identification is a matter of conjecture (which the creator of this article felt at liberty to do). You're right that the name combination "Polemon Eupator" doesn't exist. If you're interested, there's another similar AfD here, which I forgot to bundle with this one. Avilich (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of relisting this if something as basic as WP:V isn't met and nobody wants to keep? Avilich (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge there's seems to be enough information to mention in the article and someone might want to look for the name. Thee is however no basis for arguing about prods. Anyone may place a prod, anyone may remove it. If someone thinks what's done was wrong, this is the placeto resolve the issue. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody hell DGG, merge what based on what sources? We can't even verify the "name"! What's the point of having a discussion where some people do the legwork and look at the sources (in the article and elsewhere) if people then just !vote to merge because there "seems" to be enough without even an indication that they looked at any of the sources or any of the comments about these sources here. What an utter waste of time and effort. Fram (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no there there. Unclear this even reflects reality, and insufficient quality sourcing to justify adding the information elsewhere. Agricolae (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. and draftify, which I will do momentarily. Star Mississippi 22:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stroma (philosophy)[edit]

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

Article is little more than a definition that is already covered almost word for word in Materialism#Defining 'matter' and given the topic likely can't be expanded more. I did PROD this but the PROD was removed simply with an edit to add in a link to Materialism, no article expansion. Could also be handled as a redirect merge? RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 05:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 05:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've already changed it and I have expanded the content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepeh17 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 31 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) 06:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be developing. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sourcing is extremely weak, and not independent at all. All four sources are primary, one of which is a Youtube video. This should not be kept as is, but draftified at best. Geschichte (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ok Geschichte Thank you! I'll be looking for the original sources. That video of the author, Gustavo Bueno is magnificent and he inspired me to write the article Pepeh17 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify It seems like an article can be made out of this eventually, but it's not at that point yet IMO. I don't see anything wrong with drafting it so it can be improved though. I suggest that the author send it through AfC before recreating it so they can get feedback on it and possibly avoid it being sent back through AfD again. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - It's premature to delete since the article is still taking shape and there is some evidence of work on the ideas by people other than Gustavo Bueno, but https://www.semanticscholar.org/search?q=Gustavo%20Bueno&sort=total-citations does not show any works with over 17 citations. At the worst, much of the content can be used in the Gustavo Bueno article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge School Indirapuram[edit]

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

Fails as per the WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Hence, calling out for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Besides a small historical interaction and some minor agreements, there is not much to make notable relations: no embassies, no state visits, no significant trade etc. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 04:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 04:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 04:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marabbecca[edit]

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

The only potentially reliable reference that I can find for this mythological creature is the self-published A History of Mythical Beings on Google Books. SL93 (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed two sources that mention the thing but they’re both pretty obscure and in Italian. Dronebogus (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dronebogus: Can you provide the sources? Obscurity and being in a different language doesn't mean unreliable. Pladica (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - https://www.balarm.it/news/una-creatura-spaventosa-vive-nei-pozzi-siciliani-la-marabbecca-e-un-vero-mistero-118312 and https://lurlo.news/le-mostruose-leggenda-siciliane-nel-primo-film-horror-di-niccolo-ammaniti/ Dronebogus (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found and added four sources to the article. They're all in Italian but the google translation is good enough where they're readable. With them and the book source if someone could possibly add it, I believe it meets the notability guidelines. Pladica (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ' the sources are adequate to prevent deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ghalib ibn Abd Allah al-Laythi per late-developing consensus. Star Mississippi 20:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)

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

As per this discussion, TheAafi recommended taking this to AfD. Basically, I was unable to find enough material in secondary sources to sustain an article. Relevant material has already been added to Ghalib ibn Abd Allah al-Laythi, so there is nothing to merge. VR _talk 01:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 02:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 02:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 05:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and all such short articles to List of expeditions of Muhammad to where they belong the best. The list article however needs various improvements. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- This is very much not my subject. I suspect that this concerns something where we know little beyond what is in ancient sources; if so we cannot get more. Redirecting is destructive, since it removes from WP what little we do know; it would be necessary to add a further column to the target article giving details, which would upset what is intentionally a list article. Some one who knows the sources should be able to sort out such of the missing citations as are solvable. One of the problems is the use of a battlebox, which requires information with a precision that ancient sources do not give. The article cites several secondary sources. That there is conflict between them is the result of historians making inferences, beyond what is known. It is legitimate for the article to set out this conflict. IN the absence of further primary sources, any attempt by a WP-editor to resolve the conflict would itself be illicit original research. As this is a Muslim subject the primary sources will be in Arabic. What does the Arabic WP say on the subject? I do not know Arabic, and anyway as a Christian I do not edit articles about Islam. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron the Arabic WP article doesn't look good. It has only one source and that is a link to wikisource that appears to be from Sirat al-Halbiya. I couldn't find much about this book to know if it is reliable (or even the date it was published). However, its page on wikisource says the book "combines what is true and what is denied". That doesn't sound like reliable to me.VR _talk 22:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Ghalib ibn Abd Allah al-Laythi, where this material would fit well; no indication of standalone notability. Sandstein 10:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ghalib ibn Abd Allah al-Laythi. Although Peterkingiron does not feel confident of expressing a recommendation, he does summarize the core issue that there aren't good sources and it is highly unlikely that there will be new sources. The parent article has a one-line reference to this expedition so the material could easily be "saved" by incorporating it appropriately there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gentrified architecture[edit]

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

Not a single source used the term "gentrified architecture". Outside of a font called "Gentrified architecture" that term doesn't really come up in google. This seems to be turning what many of the citied source point out as the architectural styles you typically see with gentrification into a new concept called "gentrified architecture". This article is implying this a new style of architecture being built. At best this should titled "architectural styles associated with gentrification" and the intro should be changed as not to make the author believe that these styles are not directly gentrification but just commonly found near where gentrification is occurring and not necessarily the cause of it. That alone I don't think merits it's own page. Architectural styles are already covered in Gentrification and could expanded with some of these sources but I don't think this page, describing an observational phenomenon on it's own, is notable.

While I agree it's true there is a pattern and look to some of the housing that goes up when gentrification occurs (as also citied), gentrification can only be determined in context as even the sources here state and involves more factors than simply the style of the building. I can't find any source that is making a claim like this article puts forward in it's intro. Also many of these sources cited describe how new architecture is simply changing the character of neighborhood without necessarily discussing gentrification, which also makes me feel like this page is more original research than based off discussion of this topic in external sources. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 18:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I found a few sources that referenced gentrified architecture, but I think there's a fine line here to avoid OR. A merge into gentrification would also be appropriate. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into gentrification or delete. This isn't a real thing; at most it's an academic phenomenon notable in that some people mistake changes in the built environment for changes in the people who live in it, but it's not anything meaningful about the actual process of gentrification. grendel|khan 01:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources use the term "Gentrified architecture" and this is just orginal research and synthesis. Architecture changes over time, and just because something new is built and is perceived as gentrifying the area doesn't mean the architecture itself is gentrified or is a style itself. Everything the nom says is correct, and this is not something that should be merged as it is. Reywas92^Talk 16:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, don't merge. The article's sole author (User:Xicanx, now retired) argues for a concept and point of view that is insufficiently supported by the cited sources, and contradicts other, more notable views on gentrification - for example the widely held notion that traditional architecture can be a major aspect of what makes an area or building attractive for gentrification. I checked two of the given citations, both of which unraveled on closer inspection:

The construction of buildings in a gentrified architectural style increases appeal for outsiders, who are often tourists, and wealthy future residents, who see an area as "revitalized" or "redeveloped" because of its presence. This creates space for more developmental projects in a gentrified architectural style, as the buildings increasingly serve as invitations to outsiders while communicating to the current residents that the space is not for them or their communities.^[1]

The cited thesis says nothing of that sort on pages 38 and 39. Rather, it criticizes a decision by the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) "to 'revitalize' through helping build a garage [which] speaks volumes about the city’s push to create spaces for white tourists and white (future) residents. In short, a parking garage communicates to the surrounding community that this recreational space was not specifically built to address their blighted community." More specifically, that decision was about "allocating $52 million for a garage structure for Eli Broad’s museum in downtown L.A. while simultaneously only securing $5.2 million in public help for Watts [...] While the Broad museum is a valuable addition to the city of Los Angeles, it is predominantly a tourist destination rather than one aimed at assisting residents of a blighted neighborhood." But that criticism is about prioritizing of funding, not at all about architecture. The source doesn't even talk about the design of said garage (it may well be an underground garage, i.e. have no publicly visible parts), and in any case it's not about construction in an area that is being gentrified but rather a downtown location that is already dominated by the avantgarde architecture of the existing museum building and the adjacent Walt Disney Concert Hall.

Gentrified architecture may drain the presence of color from certain areas. For example, in Santa Ana, California, the "colorful pastel tones of the commercial buildings that used to represent a symbol of Mexican architectural design" were replaced with "neutral tones."^[2]

Here, a single case where a particular kind of architecture from a particular nation was replaced during gentrification of the Fiesta Marketplace in Santa Ana is misrepresented as an "example" of a general property of the supposed architectural style, without anything in the cited source supporting the claim that "drain[ing] the presence of color" is typical of "gentrified architecture." (It's also interesting that in the illustrations that Xicanx themselves compiled for the article, the supposed examples of gentrified architecture are clearly more colorful than e.g. the early 20th-century building in Mexico City that they are being contrasted with.)

Note also that the article's author has created other articles that have been described by various editors as having very similar problems, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing (where one commenter referred to WP:FRANKENSTEIN to describe the way in which various incongruent citations had been cobbled together to support a particular POV).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Olivier[edit]

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

None of the references provide much in the way of significant coverage, and several of them don't mention him at all. No indication he meets WP:NACTOR. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is poorly written, so would require extensive edits.2603:8080:B203:8432:7C84:427B:463E:8205 (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worship Leader (magazine)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this for deletion back in 2020 because it lacked notability. Unfortunately no one voted in the AfD and it closed as no consensus. So I'm re-nominating it now since from what I can tell nothing has changed about it since then. To summarize, what this comes down to for me is that the article has only been referenced to a single primary source since 2013 and I can't find anything about it anywhere that would work for notability. Nor could I when I originally nominated it. Especially if this is considered an article about a company and therefore has to pass WP:NCORP. Which I think it is and should. I'm not super up on what reputable, in-depth resources exist for articles related to Christian subjects or magazines though. So maybe someone can find sources I missed. If any are found, they should follow the notability guidelines from the gate and not be trivial, primary, or anything else that the guidelines say shouldn't be used for determining notability. Adamant1 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am aware of the magazine and have been since shortly after its inception, but it is a niche publication, catering to those interested in leading contemporary worship music. It is not a corporation but a publication, but either way, it fails notability criteria for either NCORP and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) and certainly WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is clearly an established, low importance culture and worship publication. There are a few self-generated publicity stunts in low-tier sources (e.g., distributing awards [24]), but no SIGCOV from reliable sources that demonstrates it warrants its own page in the articlespace at this time. Multi7001 (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucra Cars[edit]

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

Non notable company that fails to meet WP:NCOMPANY, as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. WP:SIRS isn’t applicable, there is no WP:ORGDEPTH, a before search shows me no cogent sources, I see predominantly user generated sources, vendor sources, self published sources and a few press releases all of which we do no consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:PROMO. Nothing about this company anywhere outside of trade press. FalconK (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 02:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS LSM-355[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill ship, just like lots of military equipment used consecutively by a few countries, but nothing remarkable. The awards are generic ones, given for "being there", and the sources are not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Some unaccepted military essay tries to claim that all commissioned ships are notable, but this is not an accepted (or acceptable) guideline. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - the ship served with four navies. It would benefit from the addition of a "Description" section, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Sourcing is solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Serving with four navies is irrelevant, military material being sold from one country to another and so on is normal procedure and doesn't make that material more or less notable. The sourcing is fan sites and databases. Fram (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. "Served with four navies" is neither a policy nor SNG. If this was so special, then why is not an overflowing amount of RS to demonstrate such? The sources here are blogs and Facebook (seriously?). The only RS cited is Warship International, which lists a mundane transfer of ownership of the ship alongside a dozen other similar handovers/sales. the closest I can find to good sourcing is this, but this does not constitute SIGCOV and ultimately the subject fails WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See WP:MILUNIT #4, which, despite protests from one or two editors, is a long-accepted standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "We"? Our long accepted standards are WP:GNG, and to a lesser degree some accepted SNGs like WP:PROF, WP:CORP, ... Project essays are by definition not accepted standards but proposals, rejected guidelines, informal thoughts, ... Furthermore, your essay states "As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion" (emphasis mine). The likelihood has been challenged in these cases, just pointing back to the essay claiming that this makes them undeletable is circular reasoning of the worst kind. Fram (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - GNG is the standard; and there are going to be occasions when there just isn't the coverage. There is an alternative target of List of United States Navy Landing Ship Medium (LSMs) which seems to duplicate the lists in Landing_Ship_Medium. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. At present, the subject of the article does not meet the GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (many of which mirror Wikipedia's content). WP:MILUNIT is only an essay and should not be given more weight than that. Pilaz (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone got a copy of LSM-LSMR Amphibious Forces, Vol. II. Paducah, Kentucky: Turner Publishing Company. 1997. ISBN 1-56311-389-9. - which is apparently where navsource gets its service detail from? Is the coverage there non trivial?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a little bit that can be cited to various editions of Jane's Fighting Ships.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Generally accepted that warships have their own articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep barely passes WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ship passes the GNG, and long standing consensus is that commissioned vessels are all notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been some canvassing to get the Milhist editors suddenly out in droves (on all these AfDs) after so many days? Anyway, a lot of people from a project parrotting that these meet GNG (without evidence) and that they have a local consensus to keep these, doesn't make these true or valid of course. Fram (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I haven't seen any indication that a standalone article is warranted here - the tidbits that are unique to this vessel could easily be incorporated into a class article (for example, see S138-class torpedo boat, where some of the ships have articles, but most do not). Some of these ships had notable service careers (USS Hunting is an obvious example), but the majority of them did not. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that any details or even mention of ships with redirected articles is being systematically purged from the class articles - see [[25]] - so information that is unique to this vessel will be lost with redirect becoming deletion. Presumably this new policy, which I haven't seen any discussion of, will also apply to all other class or list articles?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - I'm not getting a SigCov vibe from the sources I can view and hence fails GNG. I'm seeing it getting appearances in lists of ships but not much else. (Doubtful that " Treasury Decisions Under the Customs, Internal Revenue, Industrial Alcohol, Narcotic and Other Laws, Volume 97" contains more than a brief mention.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. I disagree with those saying this passes WP:GNG as they are not addressing the lack of coverage in the sources used in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NOTABILITY, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A misreading of GNG? Notability is determined by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention,". Many brief mentions do not add up to notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A brief mention is not a trivial one, if it addresses the topic directly and in detail. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No missreadinng at all. WP:NOTABILITY literally states Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.Oakshade (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources aren't in the article there' no evidence they exist... GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 01:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides passing GNG, there's no such thing as a "run of the mill" commissioned military war ship. One of the reasons of long standing consensus of retaining articles of commissioned military vessels is that it's literally impossible for there not to be extensive government reports on the proposal, planning, production, operation and long term analysis of such vessels.Oakshade (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires independence from subject. Government and manufacturers documentation would not count under that.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to a class page. RS-coverage appears to be limited to Friedman, which seems to be sufficiently non-independent to prevent usage in notability arguments, and Jane's Fighting Ships which seems like it could fall into the directories and databases exception of WP:GNG (see footnote 5). Admittedly, I don't have access to Jane's so I can't check and hence "weak". That said, this is more borderline than some of the others in the class. If someone can produce even slightly better sourcing, I'd likely go with (weak) keep instead. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Friedman is independent of the subject and would be a great source for the appropriate class article, and for a physical description of the ship, but its coverage of the history of this ship is limited to construction dates - as I added and transfers between users. The coverage in Jane's is also brief - dimensions etc, dates of transfer and the conversion to hospital ship (as added) - there is also an intriguing hint in the 1974–75 Jane's that the ship is "assigned political warfare personnel in addition to the ship's normal complement". The frustrating thing is the ship appears to have been involved in major events - the evacuation of what became North Vietnam by the French in 1954–55 and the escape of the South Vietnamese navy in 1975, but the current sourcing merly implies this rather than giving the article something that can be referenced.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has anyone checked Veith (as used in the LSM-110 article and claimed in the LSM-110 Afd)? ([[26]]) - I can't see the relevant bits of the book from Gooogle Books preview in the UK so cannot see whether there is useful discussion of LSM-355/Hát Giang/HQ-400Nigel Ish (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did, Veith doesn't mention it. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - If sources are not mentioning this particular ship in detail then how can we have an article about it? I would much rather see in prose a summary of this particular class of landing ships here, rather than an article with little to no information available on a ship. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it has enough coverage to satisfy the GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janis Maria Wilson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Meets no Wikipedia guideline. Does however fail several policies, guidelines and essays, including but not limited to WP:GNG, WP:ENT, WP:CHURNALISM, WP:MILL, WP:PEACOCK. Since it was kept in 2015 I'll detail why, first regarding the claims, and then regarding the sources:

"She is known for portraying Miss Gudbrandsdalen" - false, it was a miniscule role which no-one noticed or remembers
"In 2006 she appeared in the Norwegian television series Shopaholic" - no notability of appearance
"was a finalist in the Miss Norway modeling contest" - not even the winners are considered automatically notable
"appeared in a commercial for Norwegian financial firm DNB ASA" - nowhere near notable
"on the cover of magazines such as Beauty Style, Lowrider, and Norwegian magazine Gatebil" - not notable unless the magazines wrote WP:SIGCOV about her
"one of 21 Norwegians competing for a chance to become a Playboy cover model" - one of 21? Lightyears away from notability
"Wilson was the alleged victim of personal attacks on two separate occasions in 2010" - highly trivial, fails WP:10YT, WP:IMPACT etc.

Now for the sources:

Trivial local news about part-time jobs
unreliable blog
passing mention
unreliable gossip
unreliable website, not independent
not in-depth, is about the trivial Playboy contest
news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above
news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above
news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above
news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above.

In addition, a Norwegian newspaper search for Janis Maria Wilson yields nothing further that can be of use. Janis M. Wilson gives 0 hits and Janis Wilson 1 false hit. Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Did a quick Google search on her but couldn't find anything meaningful. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate delete per above. Again, searched but again, not meaningful, and just some social media posts. That's it. Severestorm 28 01:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revival (Vancouver Sleep Clinic album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found reviews at Sputnikmusic, IMR, The Music, this coverage. Passes GNG. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another review at Soundfiction. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews founds by User:Neocorelight. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Neocorelight. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Forså[edit]

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

Absence of RS. Fails GNG & ENT and is woeful for a BLP Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is related to the Swedish sin. Book hits include [27], [28] and [29], though the hits are not very in-depth, Forså's name is brought up as a selected mention. Another article related to a book is behind a paywall, but the Google preview gives the quote Alltmedan svenska nakenmodeller som Christina Lindberg, Marie Forså och Marie Ekorre gör internationella karriärer, i.e. international careers. What about contemporary sources? Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As pointed out above, several writers keep coming back to Forså as a central figure in Swedish pornography of the era. Not just a journalist and writer like Kalle Lind (linked above), but Swedish scholar of pornography Mariah Larsson keeps including Forså multiple times. I've added a few references, expanded the article somewhat, and ordered one of the books mentioned above from a local university library (though this AfD dicsussion will be over by the time I've read it). /Julle (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements made by Julle. Per book hits. Per overall sourcing. Falls within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sourcing. I went through ten pages of Google results and only found links to clips - no media coverage. Linked films in filmography are only bit parts, and she's not even mentioned in their infoboxes. Flagged since 2010 for needing more sources (hatnotes were more recently backdated to 2006 and 2008). Fails WP:GNG, unless someone can provide more info demonstrating that the content in the books listed as sources is significant. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Timtempleton. What this comes down to for me is that the only references we have on her that might be usable are from the two books that are referenced in the article, but it's pretty likely going by the titles of the books that they are not in-depth coverage. If we are extremely lucky one might be, but that's not enough for notability on it's own. I'm not convinced by keep voters who cite "book hits" as a reason to keep either. Since it's akin to "keep because of the number of Google Search results" or something like that. Which isn't valid. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Really not notable that much, and what Timtempleton is stating, not reliable sourcing, no online websites to prove it. Severestorm 28 01:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Meijer (politician)[edit]

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

Deleted several times on nl.wiki for lack of notability and repeatedly recreated there through partisan edit-warring. Notability for en.wiki seems doubtful as the highest elected office he has held was in the States-Provincial and he is famous mostly for internal bickering in far-right fringe parties. Mccapra (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NPOL says: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. I think that being elected to a Provincial council (Netherlands) counts as holding a "state/province-wide office". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Served as a member of the North Holland States-Provincial. ~~Passes WP:NPOL.~~ --Enos733 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Netherlands does not have a "federal or similar system", so no passage of WP:NPOL. Provinces have very few powers in the Netherlands and the States-Provincial is therefore more equivalent to an American county council. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not completely familiar with the government structure of the Netherlands. Relying on Provincial council (Netherlands), the councils seem to have some powers similar to a US state and are described more as regional governments, rather than local governments. I could be convinced that the council is more akin to a county council, rather than a provincial legislature. --Enos733 (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The comparison with county councils is more based on the powers the provincial legislatures have than on their size or population. American states (and administrative divisions of any country with a federal system, for that matter) can create (criminal) laws, determine taxes, create a constitution, and make policy decisions about things such as healthcare, education, and the voting process. Prodemos, a Dutch democracy institution outlines the function of Dutch provinces on this page (only Dutch language). To summarize, they are only responsible for determining places for new industrial parks and neighborhoods, for handing out environmental permits to factories, for maintaining natural and recreational areas and cultural monuments, for maintaining regional infrastructure, for stimulating the regional economy, and for checking on municipal governments. They don't make actual laws, and I think that is the reason for the distinction in WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Striking my keep position due to previous discussion of the mainland French regional councils. My sense is that there is a scale of how much authority/autonomy a sub-regional legislature has - that there is not necessarily a yes/no distinction of whether the governing authority is a "federal or similar system." --Enos733 (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG with relative ease. While the response above seems to focus on WP:NPOL #1, members of provincial assemblies are often covered under WP:NPOL #2. Meijer is no exception. Hence the keeps that mention NPOL are very valid. gidonb (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet WP:NPOL for reasons Tristan Surtel explained. Coverage is limited to media on the local level. National sources have almost never discussed him, and never in such a manner that it is evidence of sufficient notability. Dajasj (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Local, regional, and national sources are valid. All exist and meet all other source criteria. gidonb (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He clearly does not meet NPOL based on his postion. However I cannot figure out the state of the sourcing since I am not fluent in Dutch.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hm an interesting case; there is a claim for an WP:NPOL #1 pass as well, as it states federal or similar, not exclusively federal. The Netherlands seems like one of the or similiars as it seems the provincial parliaments have a considerable amount of devolved power. Curbon7 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to draw a line, but when do you call it similar or considerable amount of power? Compared to federal systems like the US and Germany, they have a fraction of these powers. If even the Dutch province passes the test, which system does not? Dajasj (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There cannot be a claim for NPOL#1, these provincial councils are not parliaments (ie legislatures), they are supervisory, administrative, regulatory bodies; yes, they are nominally a higher level than municipal/local government, but nevertheless, they mirror (functionally) local government over a larger area. We've not accorded presumed notability to members of the mainland French regional councils (see discussion here), the same applies to the Dutch provincial councils. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah there we go then. Curbon7 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the nominator that this politician is (fairly) "famous". They then seem to make an WP:IDONTLIKEIT claim but we examine elected officials by their merits. Not by how much we like their opinions or how mainstream or not these are.

Meijer obviously led a national movement that was not represented in the national parliament. This situation is not so well covered under NPOL #1. He was also elected time and again to local council and once (?) to the provincial council. But for his first provincial as the leader of his group.

Now, even if we were to hold that NPOL #1 is met (I am cautious in this matter), I have frequently seen subsequent requests that the topic also meets the WP:GNG (and with it WP:NPOL #2). In other words, meeting NPOL #2 is more important and final. Well, for Meijer the sources are clear:

[1] Bakker, Jouri (2 July 2021). "Forza!-oprichter haalt bakzeil in strijd om voorzitterschap, wel 'verheugd' over vonnis" [Forza! founder backs down in battle for presidency, yet 'delighted' with verdict]. NH Nieuws (in Dutch). Retrieved 8 January 2022.

[2] "Raadslid naar politie om losgedraaide wielen" [Councilor to police over loosened wheels] (Paywall). De Telegraaf. 3 August 2018. Retrieved 8 January 2022.

[3] Meershoek, Patrick (16 November 2020). "Haarlemmermeers Forza!-fractievoorzitter 'leefde op kosten van belastingbetaler'" [Haarlemmermeers Forza!-fraction chairman 'lived at the expense of the taxpayer']. Algemeen Dagblad. Retrieved 8 January 2022.

[4] Meershoek, Patrick (13 January 2021). "Oprichter Forza! Haarlemmermeer uit fractie gezet, doet live beklag op Facebook" [Founder Forza! Haarlemmermeer expelled from faction, complaints live on Facebook]. Algemeen Dagblad. Retrieved 8 January 2022.

[5] Boele, Bart (2 July 2021). "Rechter: Forza Haarlemmermeer is niet van Paul Meijer" [Forza Harlemmermeer does not belong to Paul Meijer]. Noordhollands Dagblad (in Dutch). Retrieved 8 January 2022.

[6] Boele, Bart (17 October 2021). "Paul Meijer (ex-Forza) gaat raadsverkiezingen Haarlemmermeer in voor BVNL" [Paul Meijer (ex-Forza) enters Haarlemmermeer council elections for BVNL]. Noordhollands Dagblad (in Dutch). Retrieved 8 January 2022.

[7] Brannan, Nicolai (18 October 2021). "Paul Meijer verder als lijsttrekker van partij van Haga 'BVNL' in Haarlemmermeer". NH Nieuws. Retrieved 8 January 2022.

All linked from the article. It is likely there are also quality sources from the first years (not in the article!) but this is sufficient. I have explained elsewhere that we have a lull between 2000 and 2005 (a bit before and after as well), as not yet covered by Delpher and not on the newspaper websites either. Anyway, let's focus on what we have and if someone wants to dig elsewhere, welcome of course. What we have is, in all but one case, signed by fine journalists. gidonb (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most of these sources are provincial sources, no wonder they write about a local politician. The article from Algemeen Dagblad appears to be from Parool, also local. The only national newspaper is Telegraaf, which is known for its focus on drama. Personally, I'm not really convinced by these sources. His recent announcement also didnt make any quality national newspapers afaik. Dajasj (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Het Parool and Noordhollands Dagblad are well-known and read regional newspapers. Of course, local newspapers would still be valid so this is a nonargument. As long as they are verifiable, independent, etc. Just like the other sources. De Telegraaf is the most read national newspaper in the Netherlands. Algemeen Dagblad, the second-most read national newspaper, also carries this news on its site. It went into the print version of Het Parool, covering the greater Amsterdam region. Did I mention all reputable sources, all but one signed by fine journalists? gidonb (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, North Holland has a population of slightly under 3 million people, a newspaper which serves that region can hardly be considered a local paper. As such, given the numerous examples of non-WP:ROUTINE coverage cited, this person passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD is already open for a while and all this time neither the nominator nor the sole person who supported this nomination have come forward with any factual basis for deletion, rooted in policy and guidelines. I have shown how there are plenty of independent, reliable, verifiable, in-depth high-quality sources, and, frankly, these kept coming after my list was added because interest in this person increased once more after he joined BVNL. This AfD seems to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination, where "fringe", by itself a very important and useful guideline, is wrongly evoked from this IDNLI background. gidonb (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nomination was based initially on his not being an unsuccessful candidate for national office. Being elected to a local council does not equate to an NPOL pass. When I saw that the nl.wiki article had been deleted for lack of notability this strengthened my concern. Finally, the sources in the article at the point of nomination did not look like the kind of coverage we’d want for a good GNG pass. My original nomination statement may not have been sufficiently clear if these points did not come across well. Mccapra (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The intro may be weak but your new message is slightly alarming as you seem to be headed to the same mistakes in the future and with it a huge waste of time for our community that would do better to invest its time in the article space. Since when is only looking at the sources in the article sufficient for a nomination? Does the WP:NEXIST rule, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (the bold is in the source), not apply to you? Have you studied WP:BEFORE? Did you even now not look at WP:NPOL and the different routes to satisfy it? gidonb (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it applies and if I’d seen other sources that looked solid I would not have nominated the article. A simple search for Paul Meijer brought up nothing at all for me about this individual. A search for “Paul Meijer Forza” brought up four pieces of news about disputes over funding that did not look to me like a sound basis for creating a bio article. I couldn’t even find anything that confirmed he was elected to the States Provincial. Mccapra (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he meets NPOL in my opinionJackattack1597 (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PASS (Performer Availability Screening Services)[edit]

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

I do not object against a redirect or merger but in itself this NGO cannot be a standalone as it doesn’t meet WP:NGO & because they grossly lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I could find is passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josita Anola[edit]

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

No major roles as an actress, pageants all seem minor and the sources are meh at best without much significant coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was in a Belgian movie at 17 apparently, but I can't find much about it. The Bangalore Mirror has something about it, but it looks like a clickbait site. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seemed to have appeared yesterday (proverbially speaking) and all the supposed coverage, that is PR, confirms that. scope_creep^Talk 09:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability as performer or otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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