< July 26	July 28 >

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boonreung Buachan[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Neither winning a Darwin award nor a Guinness world record make someone notable; very little coverage outside of people poking fun at the way he died. JeffUK (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His period of fame was 25 years ago, before news was online. There was plenty of coverage of him then, which focused on his unusual feats rather than merely making a world record (though the stunt did bring considerable attention). He was on TV a lot, including this short TV documentary.[1] There's WP:SUSTAINED coverage even long after his death with at least another TV documentary referring to his case in 2014.[2] In-depth English coverage includes this Sunday Telegraph/South China Morning Post article that followed his death.[3] Was the subject of National Geographic TV's Hunter Hunted episode "Victims of Venom". Plenty enough to satisfy the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A man notable for his ability to handle snakes, who received a Darwin Award for being bitten to death by a snake. Glorious. I'd say that deals with his notability, then. Being a 'Victim of Venom' doesn't get you past WP:GNG, I'm afraid, even if it does get you to DOA... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep opinions on the way he died are not indicators of notability. There are more sources that I found in seconds - Wired article, a book mention, and more. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was news online in 2004, but I can't find anything about this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 04:22, 28 July 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noonans Mayfair[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, lack of in-depth coverage in RS. The articles reads like a business directory entry, listing some basic information. Nothing in the article indicates anything notable, and searching finds little more. MB 23:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and England. MB 23:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as article creator. I just created this article today and the nominator seems a bit trigger-happy. It doesn't look like WP:BEFORE has been done since the company just changed its name a couple of months ago - I have been going through and wikilinking dozens of occurrences of the old name. St Anselm (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the article says, they are Britain's foremost auctioneers of military medals. St Anselm (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference/source meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. We have mere mentions-in-passing at best and PR/announcements as sources. We require a source that discusses the topic company in detail and containing "Independent Content" which I am unable to locate. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it is obviously a significant auction house, as attested by multiple independent reliable sources. As well as those cited in the article, there is also Investing in Collectables: An Investor's Guide to Turning Your Passion Into a Portfolio (published by John Wiley & Sons) and The Daily Telegraph Guide to Investing, as well as the Jeffrey Archer novel Nothing Ventured. Perhaps this is a situation where WP:IAR is in order. St Anselm (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that a mention in a Jeffrey Archer novel - a novel which isn't even notable enough for its own article page - is as a sign of notability? And if not, lets IAR? Sure, that sounds convincing. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Archer novel is obviously notable, it's just that nobody's created the article yet. Anyway, just to be clear, I believe this article passes GNG with the Tatler and trade magazine references. St Anselm (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're joking but just to be sure - a mention in a novel doesn't convey notability. We have guidelines. Sources need to pass NCORP which requires Independent Content and significant in-depth content, not a mention. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood me - I wasn't saying the Archer reference contributed to GNG. But it is now in the article and it contributes to the article being "more than a very brief, incomplete stub" as mentioned in WP:CORPDEPTH. St Anselm (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the bit about adding it into the article so that the article is more than a brief incomplete stub. The reason for deletion is a lack of sourcing which is why we're discussing here. If we find sources, we'll have enough to write the article. Combining a snippet here and a snippet there from different sources which fails NCORP isn't going to translate to a notable topic - we don't combine sources when we're looking at notability, *each* source much meet the criteria. See WP:SIRS and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We can now add "The Independent" to the list of sources that call the auction house "prominent" (under its former name). I'll continue to look for an article with SIGCOV, as that is lacking at present. But the number of mention-in-passings (in BBC News, Telegraph, Independent) are cumulative over 30+ years. The company name is recognizable by the public and a household word amongst collectors in the UK. On eBay, for example, you can buy the "DNW Dix Noonan Webb Auction Catalogue-Ancient & World Coins Numismatic-Dec 2013" which the cover says is their 300th edition. It would presume a company that's published 300 editions of a catalogue would be notable. BBQboffin (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Just about everything you've said above has zero bearing on establishing notability. Take a look at WP:NCORP especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Can you link to a source you believe passes NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I think the Roland Arkell article does, barely. It compares the company's strategy of setting a higher buyer's premium compared to smaller rivals (Spink & Son, Bonhams, etc.) in the numismatic market. Admittedly, Antiques Trade Gazette isn't the New York Times, and a lot of the article content looks like it's from the company, but there is an author for the article in an independent publication. A couple more like this and I think it's over the bar. On the company website for press coverage there's over 120 news articles that mention the company just in 2019. Most are about a particular auction and say very little about the company except for a quote from one of the founders. But some of them are going to have a few lines or maybe a few paragraphs about "the largest coin auctioneer in London". BBQboffin (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an article about how they're raising their premiums can be described as promotional. St Anselm (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about it being promotional? There are two primary NCORP tests that each source must meet (see WP:SIRS). WP:ORGIND requires "Independent content" such that in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So, an article which regurgitates the company's announcement without adding any Independent analysis/opinion/etc is essentially PRIMARY content and fails ORGIND. Each reference must also meet WP:CORPDEPTH (and excludes stuff that fails ORGIND). Pointing out that the company has been mentioned or has lots of coverage is an argument to avoid at AfD. Similarly, pointing out that an article referred to the company as "<insert adjective here>" is meaningless with regards to our guidelines. We require articles/sources (preferably with links) which meet NCORP, at least two and preferably more, and *each* one meets NCORP criteria. So far, none meet our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 31 July 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 North American heat waves in 2022#July. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022 North American heat wave[edit]

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

There are a few articles which involve the same topic. North American heat waves in 2022 (July has a section), 2020–2022 North American drought is a similar topic. I decided not to redirect on my own so that the community can decide if this topic is notable on its own. Bruxton (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. Bruxton (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has a bunch of misinformation, one of which assuming Badlands National Park is in Arizona when it’s actually in South Dakota, that needs cleaning up. 96.91.3.165 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North American heat waves in 2022#July as a direct WP:CFORK of that. As it fails to expand upon the article and it doesn’t fail WP:SIZERULE, it shouldn’t stay. Redirect as per WP:ATD. 96.91.3.165 (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per nom and above comment. It just makes sense and the article isn't flushed out nearly enough at this point to justify it being a standalone. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per all of the above; that would be the best choice. TH1980 (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom.—Natalie RicciNatalie 09:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge per cfork and sizerule. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above --Lupe (talk) 20:12, 3 August 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 one "keep" opinion is meritless: being "President of the Society of Philatelic Americans" is not among our criteria for notability. Being covered in sources is. Sandstein 12:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Domanski Jr.[edit]

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

The one source here does not link. My search find some catelog entries for works he created, but no source that provided the indepth coverage in a reliable secondary source that is indepedent of the subject that we need to create an adequate article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vincent Domanski Jr. was President of the Society of Philatelic Americans. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That would only be grounds for keeping if we could present multiple indepdent reliable in-depth secondary sources that cover this information, which are totally lacking in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Per Wikipedia policy, the existence of independent reliable in-depth secondary sources is required to establish notability. However, policy does not require that they are in the article. Please review WP:NEXIST, or work to gain consensus to change it, but don't argue against the policy in a deletion discussion. Jacona (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well no one has presented any such sources here or in the article. My above arguement says that such sources need to exist and be identified. It in no way says that they need to exist in the article. No such sources have been identified at all in this disucssion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I searched on Newspapers.com I came up with nothing that could be SIGCOV (the most in-depth article I could find was this, which only says he told the history of a Polish stamp). The American Philatelic Society has two paragraphs on him ([4]). I also see a few mentions in books about philately, the most in-depth being here (I can't view much of it so I can't determine if its SIGCOV). I don't see enough for GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked Newspapers.com as well and reached the same conclusion as BeanieFan11: there's a bit of coverage, but none of it is quite substantial enough to satisfy the GNG. I wouldn't say that the awards he received are so "well-known and significant" as to trigger WP:ANYBIO crit. 1, either. No single article would make an appropriate redirect target, in my view, so I'm leaning delete; glad to reconsider if there are sources I'm missing. (Quite a few of the articles linked from American Philatelic Society Hall of Fame#Recipients, many of which were mass-created by the same author, seem to be of dubious notability—it might be worth taking a more in-depth look at whether they meet the GNG.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:28, 28 July 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 00:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akram Udas[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Only search results are trivial mentions and the usual filmography/news aggregators. He has been the victim of an armed attack, but this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. BilletsMauves (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ACTOR --Bigneeerman (talk) 19:09, 1 August 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 13:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Kamal (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Has apparently played minor roles only. Only related search results are social media accounts and a YouTube interview. BilletsMauves (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 27 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Student organizations in Mapúa University[edit]

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

A lot of this article seems to be a repeat of Mapua University's wikipedia page. . I did my due diligence and could not find reliable secondary sources that cover the subject significantly to establish WP:GNG nor WP:NCORP. As a result, this just seems to serve as marketing material for student organizations at Mapua University. Wozal (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Asia, and Philippines. Wozal (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. These organizations don't meet WP:GNG on their own with perhaps one or two exceptions, but not enough to justify it having its own page. A lot of the language is promotional and not encyclopedic, so the article could probably be trimmed way down and added as a subsection on the Mapua University page. Chagropango (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite sure how I ended up here, but clearly this article should be deleted.--Bduke (talk) 07:54, 29 July 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 13:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railway Housing Scheme 8 Chaklala[edit]

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

Non-notable housing estate. Only search results are houses for sale, and Google News gives almost nothing at all. BilletsMauves (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – against my all hopes, nothing reliable came up in the google search for English and Urdu search queries. Wasted half hour scrolling pages and files. AHatd (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for "Soft Deletion".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article can be deleted as it can be covered under the Chaklala topic since its a local housing scheme along with many others located in Chaklala town in Rawalpindi.

A list of housing schemes in Chaklala has already been listed which contains this housing scheme as well. 2A0C:B381:405:7700:9D01:FCB9:F0FE:9022 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sampra yoga[edit]

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

PRODded as unsourced and WP:CFORK of Ashtanga (eight limbs of yoga), which covers the same ground. The author has removed the PROD and added 4 refs, all to Patanjali's Yoga Sutras which defines the Ashtanga, so here we are. The existing Ashtanga article both covers the eightfold path and cites numerous scholarly sources on the topic, which has been extensively researched; a search for "Ashtanga yoga" with "Patanjali" gets some 200,000 hits. The new article introduces a little-used name "Sampra yoga" which gets 21 hits in total, several of them a yoga school in the Netherlands. Apart from Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, the article remains wholly unsourced, not surprising as there are no published sources about "Sampra Yoga". The first two refs to the Yoga Sutras are both to chapter 2, sutra 44, "svadhyayad ishta-devata-samprayogah", meaning "Self-study deepens communion with one's personal deity." Needless to say, this brief verse does not support the claims in the lead which it is positioned to support. The topic is not notable; it appears to be substantially a poor content fork of the existing article, and if anything there is describing something new (not relating to Patanjali's Yoga Sutras) then it is wholly uncited and original research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails any notability criteria. This is a WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE topic, which does not merit an article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL: if it's indeed pseudoscience, that would be a third cause for deletion. Why does it belong in that category? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap Yoga, chakra etc are all part of pseudoscience. EPW [5] Venkat TL (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, they're also religion, philosophy, and for that matter exercise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are marketed in many different ways, but the fact remains that there is no science backing its principles. Hence pseudoscience. Venkat TL (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case we should nominate Yoga for deletion... something wrong here, to coin a phrase. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga even though PS is notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia. But different aspects of yoga like this article or (any PS side topic) dont deserve that generosity. Venkat TL (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for "Soft Deletion".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject matter is covered well enough by other pages that are well sourced and of indisputable notability. If there is anything of unique value in this article, it would be more appropriate to merge it with Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Chagropango (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, Leave the article in place - Of course, leave the article, what kind of dispute can there be on this topic? I will give arguments:

1) There are sources, in this case the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali, in which samprayoga is clearly indicated. What does the Netherlands have to do with it? :) 2) There is a misconception that only one opinion can be correct. Regarding yoga, it is a completely diverse system, there is yoga among Jains, Sikhs, there is yoga among Buddhists. In this case, it is indicated in the article Indian yoga, from the writings of Patanjali 3) In the end, what we have. We have a source - Sutras - in which sampra yoga is clearly indicated. And there are opinions of modern people who confidently declare that their understanding of the Patanjali Sutra is certainly correct. 4) Colleagues - let's expand our knowledge. Let's take everyone home and read the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali and be surprised to discover that he is writing about sampra yoga. By the way, the word ashtanga - Patanjali in his sutras never called the word yoga.Magyar from Bashkiria (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "User:Magyar from Bashkiria" appears to be the same as the article's author, "User:Magyar from Ural". I doubt it's sockpuppetry, more likely a lost password resulting in a new account. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, already covered sufficiently in Ashtanga (eight limbs of yoga). Suonii180 (talk) 12:39, 3 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal Institute of Business Studies[edit]

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

No secondary references, search results give nothing tangible to save the article. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and India. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything what-so-ever in Google, at least in English. (string: "bengal institute of business studies") There may be sources in Bengali or one of India's other native languages, but given the abysmal quality of the results I'm finding I'm not holding my breath. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not an NGO. WP:CORP is applicable to this account. No sign of passing the guidelines.MickeyMouse143 (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP applies to NGOs as well. (The full name of the guideline is "Notability (organisations and companies)", after all. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MickeyMouse143: it is non-government organisation. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:15, 1 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greoh Studios[edit]

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

While the films produced may be notable, there is no evidence that this production company is. A loose necktie (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therfore WP:NCORP criteria applies. We require references that provide "Independent" and in-depth content *about* the topic company. I'm unable to locate any references whatsoever that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 3 August 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} 18:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orvish Kataria[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: not generally notable. No mentions on Google that don't originate from Wikipedia. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits in Google or Gnews, "maybe being related" to someone famous isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. AiGenly (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, no evidence of notability. Ovinus (talk) 15:46, 28 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Fiore[edit]

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

Article mostly unsourced. Player has only played at the semi-professional level in Canada. No professional or international appearances. Players who have solely played at this level and league have historically been considered non-notable on wikipedia RedPatch (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 18:55, 27 July 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 July 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a rather common name in Canada, hits on everything from a student protest in Ottawa to a scientist, none about this individual. Not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything to suggest that the subject passes WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 3 August 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. Only the subject of one AFD discussion, the first AFD was deleted for procedural reasons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Mowat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Olivia Mowat (2nd nomination)

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

This player fails GNG, & N (sports) Atsme 💬 📧 17:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Atsme 💬 📧 17:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Handball, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD nomination is duplicated. Please remove one of the nominations, as this confuses editors, creates extra work for admins, and could lead to contradictory consensus. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:443C:9603:3623:E956 (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caused by a glitch in the curation tool – there was no indication the deletion discussion page was created, so I reverted it in edit history, and used Twinkle instead; thus the (2nd nomination). I just now CSD'd the one I didn't know was created. Atsme 💬 📧 21:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SPORTCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 28 July 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 the precedent of WP:GEOLAND, and arguments below, a verifiable census town with reliable source. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gandabahali[edit]

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

Unreferenced article reads, and has numerous images, like a travelogue. Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, not suitable for Wikipedia. Wikitravel perhaps. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Odisha. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify This village exists according to the Indian Census site. Hence it passes WP:NGEO. That said, it should be stubified, and a majority of the images need to be removed from the article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and stubify Obviously meets WP:GEOLAND. This is the website of the Gram panchayat, which has data on population. Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep decisively passes WP:GEOLAND.Elbatli (talk) 12:15, 30 July 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. Speedy deletion as created by an editor evading blocks. (Incidents, I also doubt, from a very brief survey, that the event was notable enough for inclusion. ) JBW (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Killing of North Carolina Family[edit]

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

despite the gruesome nature of the events, it isn't actually a notable event. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about the New York Times? Ryan990110 (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 27 July 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. MelanieN (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society[edit]

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

Procedural nomination due to contested WP:PROD. The original reason given for the prod was No independent sources at all. What the journal has to say about itself, as in the footnotes here, can never confer notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral when it comes to the outcome of this AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Christianity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per SK #1. Contested prods do not need to be automatically nominated for deletion. Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. Indexed in Atla Religion Database, a selective database. St Anselm (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating it on behalf of the original prod nominator. You have not provided a valid reason to keep the article in this AfD response. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NJOURNALS is a WP:ESSAY, its not policy or guidelines so you can't make arguments "per" it Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider WP:ONLYESSAY (ironically, another essay). St Anselm (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which part exactly? Also note that the content of NJOURNALS *does not* support your argument, much the opposite in fact... "It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.")." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in question have now been added to the article. St Anselm (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have they? All I see are reference texts which don't count towards WP:GNG because they don't contain in-depth coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the bit you were quoting from WP:NJOURNALS was referring to reliable third-party sources, but not necessarily significant coverage. St Anselm (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N clearly lays out the requirement for significant coverage, NJOURNALS (again an essay which carries no weight) assumes that you already understand WP:N which is where you're getting into trouble. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I was the prodder of the article.) As I said in the prod, there are no independent sources at all, merely three footnotes that all refer to the journal itself. I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources via Google either, and it looks like nobody else has found any since 2007, when StAnselm created the article. So, unless there are special notability rules for religious journals, the subject is not notable. (After edit conflict:) StAnselm, what is "SK #1", please? I'm not familiar with this code. Why should an unsourced article be speedy kept? And how is this an "automatic" AfD nomination, any more than other nominations? Bishonen | tålk 17:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

WP:SKCRIT #1: absence of deletion rationale. I was referring to the procedural aspect of the nomination. Anyway, here we are. No, religious journals don't have special notability rules, but the main criterion applied to academic journals is whether they are indexed in a selective database, which this one is: the Atla Religion Database. St Anselm (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not appear to have independent notability guidelines for academic journals[6]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate sources which satisfy WP:GNG and there are none currently on the page. (note that SK1 most likely stands for "Speedy Keep 1" (Absence of delete rationale) but maybe not because that doesn't apply here as a valid rationale has been repeatedly offered) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that sources don't have to be in the article to be kept. In any case, it's hard to find sources, isn't it? Because there are so many GBooks hits, because the journal is cited so much. St Anselm (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being cited does not contribute to WP:NOTABILITY, we need in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1) It is not true there are no independent sources. We have a citation of an encyclopedia for the sponsoring society. (2) a lack of citations is NOT a ground for deletion, except where BLP applies. (3) Peer-reviewed academic journals are likely to be notable in any event. (4) An academic journal is likely to be cited in other journals. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous reliable sources on this journal in Google search, including by mainstream universities and other academic sources. Google Scholar shows that its individual articles are routinely cited scores of times. But, the article sourcing needs to be improved. Banks Irk (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The main reason for the deletion request was a lack of independent referencing, that has now been addressed. That was a weak deletion reason to begin with, especially on a magazine with a 60 year publication history. Now there is no doubt that it passes NJOURNALS . Per NOTABILITY. ALSO: NOTE TO CLOSER: There was no actual reason given for this to be listed here either, as there is absolutely no requirement to send an article to AfD after being deprodded. Was BEFORE even attempted? Regards, GenQuest

^"scribble" 18:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about "passing" WP:NJOURNALS. That's an essay. The article does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Bishonen | tålk 18:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The lack of independent referencing, has not been addressed. None of the sources currently on the page contribute to WP:GNG. WP:NJOURNALS is a wp:essay. NJOURNAL alsosays "If an academic journal cannot be demonstrated to be impactful via reliable sources, we should probably not have a dedicated article on it." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea that journals need to pass the GNG--that is, someone writes about them, rather than for them or in them or cites them--is a fundamental misunderstanding of how journals work. Good journals can go along without anyone ever writing about them in independent, reliable secondary sources for decades. MIAR shows JETS is an independently indexed work with an upward trend on their now-retired ICDS (Composite Index of Secondary Diffusion) scale. The abbreviation, JETS, is listed in the SBL Handbook of style 2nd edition on p. 238. Again, it's a trivial reference, but it clearly indicates that the journal is sufficiently repeatedly cited in other academic religious studies writings to merit inclusion. What else can one ask for? Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a very insightful observation. And it is entirely consistent with the quote from WP:NJOURNALS above cited, I think erroneously, in favor of deletion. This journal's articles have been extensively cited in multiple other academic and scholarly journals and books in its field, proving that it is significantly "impactful via reliable sources" in its field of scholarship. It is not realistic to expect that a highly specialized journal is going to have coverage in the popular press, but having significant impact in its specialized area meets all of the pertinent criteria for notability. Banks Irk (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The solution would then appear to be getting NJOURNALS endorsed by the community as an actual guideline, until then yes journals do actually need to pass GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in addition to that, I think the discussion here, including a RS that it is a major journal on conservative American theology, is persuasive on GNG. [7]. Let me be clear, I'm not approaching this from some doctrinal standpoint - I've got no sympathy whatsoever for the theological precepts of the Society and its Journal - I find the whole idea of biblical inerrancy fundamentally ridiculous. But the objection that a RS characterizes it as a major journal of conservative American theology is too narrow or qualified to constitute notability would be like saying that a physics journal that published only articles on string theory, and never publishes any on loop quantum gravity, is too specialized to be notable in the wider physics field.Banks Irk (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The objection to the characterization is only within a theoretical exploration of NJOURNALS, until its endorsed by the community such discussions can only be theoretical. That characterization would possibly fulfill one of the criteria laid out in NJOURNALS (which is again an essay unendorsed by the community which would need to be endorsed to enter into force), but it does nothing to move the needle in terms of GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"until then yes journals do actually need to pass GNG", well no, because we have other rules for when a rule requires us to do dumb things like delete articles about important journals. Yes, there's no consensus guideline yet about the notability of journals, but also there's no consensus guideline yet about the notability of journals.Jahaza (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even have to cite IAR. Exceptions to guidelines, like Notability, are expected; that's why the GNG is not policy and never has been: because local consensus can say "Yeah, deleting JETS would be a dumb outcome. Let's not do that and keep the encyclopedia better than if we blindly followed the letter of the guideline and made it worse." Oh, and essays are cited as normative in deletion discussions all the time, without needing to be elevated to guideline status before being considered useful and valid arguments. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cited well enough in Google scholar. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Evangelical Theological Society. It's old, but there's very little indexing. I'd be fine with a keep, but deleting is a no. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Evangelical Theological Society. It is listed in ATLA, which might make it squeeze by NJOURNALS, but that's rather meager. Merging to the publisher makes more sense. --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can support merge/redirect as well. There is already a subsection in the Society's article on the Journal that could be expanded with the text and sources added since this AFD commenced. But I can't support deletion.Banks Irk (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A merger would indeed be a reasonable ATD, if deletion were in fact indicated. I contend that it is not, and thus this should be closed as keep, with merging an editorial-level discussion among interested editors, rather than an enforced AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A likely search term, and the information we have is fine to keep as information, but this is fine as content within the context of the society itself. It doesn't need its own article yet, as there's not much more that even could be written to expand this. The main article about the society is not so large that this text would overwhelm it, and thus its fine to cover all of this content in the article on the society itself. --Jayron 32 14:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Evangelical Theological Society, as it's a plausible search term and there is more than nothing to say about it, but not enough to warrant a dedicated page. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources already in the article, including this one. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That talks a little about the journal, but it seems mostly to be about the Society, with the former treated as just one activity of the latter. It's a matter of taste, I suppose, but I don't really see how that reference makes the case that we need two separate pages. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a major theological journal, published since 1958 without interruption. It includes a couple of book references, ISBN and all that jazz. Used to be that books were golden sources on Wikipedia —and these book references negate the nom "No independent sources at all", so for that reason alone the AfD ought to be closed. The Journal is cited widely on Wikipedia, and for good reason: it is a peer-reviewed journal which has published innumerable articles on theology for 64 years, so it stands to reason that numerous articles cite its published articles. In fact, 188 Wikipedia pages point to the article here for AfD. Interestingly, one of the articles, Biblical inerrancy cites how the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society published the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy; the very article being proposed to be deleted forms part of the content scaffolding around here. Can someone identify some abstruse technicality for which the article should be deleted? Maybe (but probably not). But the wikipedia would be poorer for the effort.XavierItzm (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theology is not a large academic area but this journal is held in over 900 libraries on WorldCat. It is indexed by SerialsSolutions, a signification indexing service. It has been preserved in Microform (and presumably that has been now digitized) by ATLA - "Atla is the hub of worldwide scholarly communication in theology and religion." So unless someone versed in Theology can dispute that this is a key journal in the field, I think it's a keeper. Lamona (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serials is not a selective index. One also does not need to be a field expert in theology to argue against notability. The onus is on the subject to meen WP:GNG, not on us to show it doesn't meet it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But ATLA is certainly selective. St Anselm (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Evangelical Theological Society. There is no exception for journals in WP:GNG, and nobody here presents GNG-compliant sourcing, which means that most "keep" opinions should be disregarded. The article is also short enough to merge into the society, which is what we normally do with non-notable publications. Sandstein 06:56, 5 August 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. This is a bit complicated. This article was moved to INDOTO which was speedy deleted CSD G5. INDOTO TV Series was then deleted as a broken redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

INDOTO TV Series[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. ASUKITE 16:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Rwanda. ASUKITE 16:40, 27 July 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} 18:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Thidé[edit]

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

I have some doubts about notability, since the statements in the article are largely unsourced (for instance, it says that he won the Edlund Prize, but I didn't find any RS for that). HPfan4 (talk) 16:08, 27 July 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 July 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've spent some time going through Swedish newspapers, and I think there's enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Edlundska priset is mentioned by his employer (Uppsala University) in one publication, but not something I'd build an article on – I figure that probably means he was awarded it, at the very least. /Julle (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very substantial citation record passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep several major national newspapers have repeteadly sought out Thidé to solicit comments on physics discoveries, but the only in depth coverage I've encountered were in local papers. I'm not wholly convinced with respect to GNG. However, there's a healthy number of citations and he has published in both Nature Physics and Physical Review Letters (C1). Draken Bowser (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per coverage and citations. Passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 3 August 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} 18:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Thompson-Williams[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria of WP:NBASE or the previous, more lenient criteria. He never got close to the majors, did not represent his country internationally and was not a particularly highly regarded prospect. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with various in-depth articles from a number of third-party reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the significant coverage already in the article. Failing WP:NBASE is not grounds for deletion and passing it does not mean an article will be kept as WP:NSPORTS, which WP:NBASE is part of, makes it very clear that all sport subjects must pass GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, which makes whether he reached the majors or played internationally irrelevant. Rlendog (talk) 02:20, 1 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nagail Sohal[edit]

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

Created by indefinitely-blocked user Teckgeek who was a sockpuppet of Strider11, as part of a campaign of mass-creation.

This is a town of more than 100,000 people according to the article. The problem is that there is no evidence provided in the article, and none that I could find in my WP:BEFORE, that this place actually exists. The co-ordinates point to a random field in Rawalpindi, not Islamabad, or alternatively to a random compound that is also in Rawalpindi and whose address is not given as Nagail Sohal. A search of the Pakistani newspaper The Nation returns zero hits for "Nagail Sohal". Similarly there were no hits at all from GNews and GScholar searches. A search of Google returns only mirrors. There is a corresponding Urdu Wiki page but this is cited only to the English Wikipedia page, which shows just how harmful these low-quality Geostubs are.

The source on the page (Fallingrain.com) is simply a source for rainfall at a place called Nagail Sohal which states "Approximate population for 7 km radius from this point: 93871" - this is not the population of Nagail Sohal but simply an estimated number of people living near it, and is obviously a different number to that provided in the article. This source includes yet another set of co-ordinates that point to the village of Gujar Khan, also in Rawalpindi, not Islamabad. The content on this website is based on a grab-bag of unreliable sources and as such it too is unreliable.

The TL;DR version of this is that - unless I am very much mistaken (wrong Romanisation maybe?) - Wikipedia appears to have been hosting a hoax article created by a sock-puppet about an imaginary city of more than 100k people in Pakistan for the last 13 years. At the very least I'm not seeing either a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass (which would require legal recognition) nor a WP:GNG pass.

BTW - this is literally just the first Pakistan Geostub I checked at random. I haven't even looked for anything specific. FOARP (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The minimum standard is an RS that establishes it exists, and as an entity eligible under N:Geo. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect this is a real place. The one source cited [8] also gives more precise coordinates of latitude 33.2528, longitude 73.3357, and if you plug that into Google Maps you get this, which definitely looks like a settlement, but it's a small village rather than a town with a population of 117,591. However without a reliable source to say it exists and is called Nagail Sohal we can't have an article on it per the verifiability policy, and there doesn't seem to be one - the one link cited definitely doesn't look reliable and I can't find anything better. I suspect the 117,591 figure is taken from that link's estimate of the number of people living within 7km, which would include the city of Gujar Khan (population: 90,131). Hut 8.5 18:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the population figure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments It sound like it exists! [9]. I thoughts towns were notable enough to be included per WP:PLACES. KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are loads of sites like that which show weather forecasts or other data for places culled from databases (possibly even from Wikipedia). It isn't a reliable source and it doesn't prove the place exists. Hut 8.5 18:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KSAWikipedian - Only legally recognised populated places have presumed notability, per WP:GEOLAND#1. Weather.com does not show legal recognition (e.g., incorporation as a city or having a town charter), and as has been explained above, is not a reliable source. Additionally, PB is the area code for Punjab, but this place is supposedly in the Capital Territory. FOARP (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally yes towns, cities and villages are presumed to be notable as long as a reliable source shows it as such, the source doesn't mention what it is and doesn't seem to be reliable for that context anyway. Looking on maps/satellite there doesn't seem to be a town or even village there maybe just a few houses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find reliable sources. Suonii180 (talk) 12:50, 3 August 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} 18:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stetson Allie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet the criteria of WP:NBASE nor the previous, more lenient criteria for notability. He never reached the majors, never represented his country internationally and wasn't even a particularly highly regarded prospect. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG for sure, I don't think any of those newspaper.com links from the first AfD made it into the article. Claiming he wasn't even a particularly highly regarded prospect is odd for someone who got a $2.25 million bonus in 2010, who was throwing over 100 mph when it wasn't done as commonly as it is now.[10][11] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree with above, an above-average draft pick that didn't pan out. Seems to have thrown 4 or 5 shutouts, so that's something. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as the ones listed above and this one from the article. Note that failing WP:NBASE is not grounds for deletion. Alvaldi (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, which makes whether he reached the majors or played internationally irrelevant. Rlendog (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. In addition to the refs provided, I distinctly remember reading a feature article on him in either Sports Illustrated or ESPN Magazine heading into the draft although I can't seem to find it online anywhere. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 2 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Leonard (baseball)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet the criteria of WP:NBASE or the previous, more lenient criteria for notability. He is a fifth-round draft pick who never reached the majors and never represented his country internationally. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets NBASIC; besides the sources already in the article, there are articles about Leonard in Bleacher Report, USA Today, and The North State Journal. Hatman31 (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't think he made to the majors and just floated around the minor leagues for a few years, not sure that meets notability standards here. Generally, they have to play in the Majors or have extensive minor league history before getting an article here. He only seems to have hit anywhere from .260 to a .280, not bad but nothing spectacular. Average minor leaguer it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why, specifically, Leonard does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC? Hatman31 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bleacher Report is three things I need to know about him and USA Today seems to be a few lines with mostly photos, neither of which is substantive coverage. The North State Journal looks ok. Rest of the sources are mostly passing mentions or brief pieces on him. He isn't a phenom tearing up the minors. Sources in the article basically just confirm where he played and what he did, there is hardly any mention of a family/social life, life after baseball or much of anything beyond stats. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today piece has 534 words about Leonard; it appeared cut off to me initially, but that's the website's fault, not an issue with its content. I don't understand the demand that the sources discuss non-baseball topics; the reason they wrote about Leonard is because of his athletic career, so it seems natural that they focus on that. Finally, I strongly disagree that this, this, and this are "passing mentions or brief pieces". Hatman31 (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple in-depth sources from third-party reliable sources, including the three mentioned by Hatman31. Easily passes GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, which makes whether he reached the majors or played internationally irrelevant. Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 1 August 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 no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Films and television shows produced in Wilmington, North Carolina[edit]

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

While a considerable collection, it fails WP:LISTN. No evidence that these shows/films taken together are notable. Nor is this the sort of list we should encourage because ostensibly every place in the world where a film has been made could have such an article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and North Carolina. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been a request to make an article like this one for years now in the To-do list for NC. I don't see the arguemnt on notabliity as Wilmington is quite a notable film city and is one of the largest outside the other major film areas like Hollywood, Atlanata, Etc... If the problem here is taking out films/shows that are not notable, then that can be done. DiscoA340 (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because its on the to-do list does not make it notable. Instead, the list itself needs to have been discussed as a group, and I'm not seeing that sources are as a group considering this list. My other concern is: are there any other lists like this? This is the only article that starts with "Films and television shows produced in..." Other articles on point cover national level films, not single cities. In many ways, this seems more useful as a category than a list. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wilmington is a major film center and though some non-notable productions can be taken out, a list of productions in the city easily meets N. Nate • (chatter) 18:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails list guidelines. The fact that a show or film was in some way partly made in a particular local is not worth listing. Now maybe Film and television prodcutions in Wilmington, North Carolina is an article worth having, but this list is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if you go into more detail about what you’re saying? What you propose is what this article is about, almost all of the entries on the list were filmed entirely in Wilmington. The Wilmington film region spans about 50 miles outside of the city which includes Pender, Brunswick, and Onslow counties as mentioned on the Screen Gems website. Many films go to different places to shoot but as the previous comment said, entries can be removed that aren’t as important as others. But all in all this list is no different from other WP articles which involve major filming locations. DiscoA340 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to and rewrite as "Film industry in Wilmington, North Carolina". The list is junk, but it aims at a general topic of "Film industry in Wilmington, North Carolina" which would pass WP:GNG: Wilmington’s film industry enjoys record-breaking year - WECT6 News, Biggest Year Ever For Film Industry - Wilmington Biz, Could Wilmington benefit from another film studio? It already is. - Port City Daily, Film production relocates to NC, citing abortion ban in Arkansas - The News & Observer (minor mentions of a movie and TV show filmed there), multiple articles from the Wilmington Star-News [12][13][14] When and where to see 11 Wilmington-shot movies and TV shows premiering in 2022 - Star-News via WWAY3, Lights, cameras of film industry make a comeback in NC - WRAL-TV. My university database search also turns up this: Laine, Tricia (March 6, 1998). "Townies: Wilmington, North Carolina, becomes popular film location". Entertainment Weekly. No. 421.. A blurb from that article: "Ever since 1983, when Universal's Firestarter was filmed in the small (pop. 65,000) coastal town, Wilmington has quietly grown as the alternative film locale of choice; today it's the third-biggest moviemaking city in the U.S., behind L.A. and New York. Thanks to its Anytown, USA, look, Wilmington boasts a resume of 200 productions, including the recent Oprah Winfrey-produced TV miniseries The Wedding." The article also mentions the movie I Know What You Did Last Summer and TV show Dawson's Creek. There's also "It's In The Mix: Downtown Wilmington Island Passage". Women's Wear Daily. October 1, 1999. pp. 78–83. ProQuest 1445774852 which discusses the film industry's impact on the local clothing/fashion industry. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 27 July 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 14:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niyomubyeyi Noella[edit]

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

I am not even sure what this article is supposed to be about. In any case, it does not qualify as notable. A loose necktie (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly speedy (A7), as I'm not seeing a CCS (unless we're counting the sources, I haven't looked). I'm stopping short of calling it vandalism, as it may just be a case of borderline English proficiency, but this doesn't seem notable or noteworthy. ASUKITE 15:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a social media profile. This should have been PRODDED as unencyclopedic. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:443C:9603:3623:E956 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. A puff piece based on very little. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:23, 29 July 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. ✗plicit 14:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Ball[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP does not meet the criteria of WP:NBASE and didn't meet the previous, more lenient notability criteria for baseball biographies either. He never reached the majors and never represented his country internationally. Being a first round draft pick does not make a player inherently notable. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to pass the general notability guideline, see the following: Imposing Potential On Display from the Hartford Courant; New Castle ready for MLB Draft (part 2) from The Star Press; TAKING THEIR BALL (part 2) from The Star Press; and A bright future awaits New Castle's 'Natural' (part 2) from The Indianapolis Star. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if we only kept the articles that meet the current (nonsensical) NBASE, we would be getting rid of nearly every baseball biography there is! BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced article that is a clear pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 15:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wasn't a particularly good pitcher based on his ERA at the end of his career, might be a bit notable for the first round draft pick. Didn't live up to the hype it seems. Not fussed if it gets deleted or we keep it, either way. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is what matters here, not his ERA. JTtheOG (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Not making the majors doesn't make a player inherently non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 02:17, 1 August 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 14:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Dean[edit]

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

This BLP does not meet WP:NBASE and didn't even meet the notability criteria for sportspeople under the previous, more lenient guidelines. He never rose above the low levels of the minors in North America and never represented his country internationally. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Australia. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not finding coverage to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I limited my searches to .au websites and only get two pages in GNews, mostly just confirming he played in xyz game. The lead sentence built him up to be notable, but I don't find anything to support that. Happy to revisit if we can find other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 27 July 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 13:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qanat Sefid, Kerman[edit]

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

Mass-created article made in violation of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT based on the 2006 Iranian census, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 for all the gory details. The Iranian census gathered data by whatever the closest named landmark was, including pumps, factories, farms, bridges, individual houses and so-forth, all of which may be abadi and need not be populated, so this is not actually a legally-recognised community and thus fails WP:GEOLAND#1. GEONet Names Server is an unreliable source and therefore cannot fix this. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources also means this fails WP:GNG.

The word qanat (underground aqueduct) is sometimes used for villages but equally used to simply indicate an underground aqueduct system - a common feature of this dry country. The Google Translate version of the Farsi name is "White Aqueduct". The co-ordinates on the map appear to be within the locality of Khorramabad, Arzuiyeh - the address of the local shop is given in GMaps as "Khorramabad, بافت،استان کرمان،، 7C3Q+VMC, Iran", though this may possibly indicate that both are really in Baft since the Google translate of the Farsi part of the name is "Baft, Kerman province" and it is unusual for the lowest-level part of the address to be romanised.

TL;DR there is nothing here that shows this place actually exists as a village, and plenty of good reasons to doubt that it does. The WP:BURDEN is therefore on people wanting to keep this article and others like it to show why it should be kept. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and at some point we're gonna have to start a discussion about whether or not any of these un-expandable geographic perma-stubs are needed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 13:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You wanna see how many of these one/two-liners there are in Pakistan? It's a real issue - ripping them out of the Emirates was an Augean job but essential - WP had created a whole universe of non-places online... Best

Alexandermcnabb - All created by Mr. Blofeld algorithmically, right? To Blofeld's credit, he at least stopped and has expressed regret at their creation. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP - The Emirates ones were by a now-blocked admin called John Carter. He got hold of a US 1970s gazetteer derived from a UAE 1960s one based on a 1950s survey of the UAE by the Brits. Two twits in puttees and shorts 70 years ago wandering around with a clipboard asking puzzled Bedouin 'Tell me, my good man, what is this place called?' and they'd shrug and say 'The Lovely Sand Dune' or whatever came to mind and so 'Nad Al Helou' was born. Soon enough you could order Deliveroo or have your teeth fixed in 'Nad Al Helou', the non-existent UAE city on Wikipedia. Sigh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:02, 28 July 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 13:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military specialists of Belarus[edit]

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

The article violates WP:OR as it includes nothing but speculations by the article creator himself, together falsification of sources. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Belarus. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is a mess that appears to conflate a number of different-but-overlapping, potentially real (though I don't know about notable) things - Belarusian mercenaries, Belarusian military advisors, and Belarusian foreign policy. WP:TNT is probably the best way forward unless someone can find better sourcing. FOARP (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and not enough coverage for a standalone article. desmay (talk) 19:33, 28 July 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 delete. CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Towhid family massacre[edit]

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

i fail to see how this is a notable event - tragic, yes and initially received some attention but nothing sustained or meaningful. Most of the actual reliable sources available are just parroting one another and there is no follow up beyond "this bad thing happened" PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grim, yes. Worthy of an encyclopaedia? No. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alexandermcnabb, how can you define "stub"? Ryan990110 (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ultimately this falls under WP:NOTNEWS with no evidence of lasting coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tagged this article per WP:CSD#G5 but will leave any decision on deletion to another administrator as I have !voted above. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:09, 29 July 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. If you argue that a subject is "well covered in a wide variety of media", you need to cite these sources. Sandstein 12:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Heasley[edit]

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

The sources in the article are only quotes about the statements made by the subject, which do not provide significant coverage about him. I don't see a mention of him at all in Ref 3, and is about "Magnus Murray" and a few others. A BEFORE search shows similars sources ([15], [16]), which is normal considering he is a spokesperson. Person fails WP:GNG. ~Styyx^Talk? 10:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^Talk? 10:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that this article was created by SPA Yelsorc who began editing 1 month after user Emendment, who appears to have solely edited Catholic-related NZ articles, stopped editing. Emendment began editing articles, one of the first being List of people educated at St Peter's College, Auckland, in October 2016, 4 months after Rick570 (talk · contribs), also a prolific editor of Catholic-related NZ articles, was blocked. Coincidence? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lots of interviews with him talking about the abuse scandal, I can't find much that we could use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, although I would be tempted to add relevant/salient content from here to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in New Zealand. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is certainly well covered in a wide variety of media and is the only prominent victim advocate that I can find in NZ; Search Google under: "Murray Heasley abuse"Yelsorc (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Show what coverage you're talking about. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is coverage of him in relation to the abuse scandal, but not enough in-depth coverage to warrant an article. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:52, 27 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Marshall[edit]

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

YouTube comedian, apparently the 'co-originator of planking'; coverage is Rotten Tomatoes/interview/passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Websites, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandermcnabb Please allow me a couple of days to research more articles for notability. thank you Pennyframstad (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)pennyframstad[reply]

No problem, Penny, this AfD will be open for at least 7 days and you're more than welcome to make improvements/add sources and let participants know the article has changed in the interim. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandermcnabb thank you. If it does get deleted can it be moved it into a draft space? Pennyframstad (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)pennyframstad[reply]

Hey Penny - you can request that from the closing admin (in fact, they'll see the above when they review the close so no need to actually say you want it draftified again) and there's every chance that could be accepted as an outcome if they think there's potential for improvement. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other than a real estate agent with the same name, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 27 July 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. especially in light of the article improvements that have happened since this page was nominated for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Horse Lake[edit]

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

Seasonal lake doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Montana. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, reasonably sure someone will be along waving WP:GEOLAND around and saying a low bar to inclusion applies, but it doesn't. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would WP:GEOLAND not apply? It is the Wikipedia guideline that applies to lakes. This is a lake. Any one who wants to make a serious comment about the notability of this lake should carefully consider both GEOLAND and GNG as the appropriate guidelines. Inclusion on Wikipedia is founded on policies and guidelines such as these. Jacona (talk) 12:49, 27 July 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 12:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a lake, that has been the subject of dispute, in or close to a wildlife reserve. It appears in multiple environmental impact surveys. WP:GEOLAND says: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. and this meets that criteria, based on the information that I just added, that I found by searching in google books. There is some uncited material in the article, but it all seems credible to me, based on what I read in the various sources that mention them. It is not clear to me the extent to which WP:GNG is met, due to the length of content in each article, but I think that consensus is that WP:GEOLAND has a lower bar and I think this passes it. CT55555 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not very notable but it seems to be just about notable enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 29 July 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Peñalosa[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an urban planner and as yet unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as passing a Wikipedia notability standard. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in future elections -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring significance than most other people's candidacies.
But neither of those has been shown here at all; there's one news article about his candidacy, which is not in and of itself enough to vault his candidacy over the ten year test for enduring importance, and the content about his background and prior career is referenced entirely to sources that are not support for notability at all, such as the self-published primary source websites of directly affiliated organizations, blogs and Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in October if he wins the election, but simply being a candidate is not grounds for an article at all, and nothing else here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him and his work from having to be the subject of a lot more than just one piece of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I shall offer the comment that indeed, there was notability long before the political candidacy. I acknowledge that the article in its current form does not show that. What makes me hesitant to fix this deficiency myself is that I was heavily involved in getting Peñalosa to a conference as a keynote speaker (which then enabled me to populate the Commons category). Does that constitute a conflict of interest? I have a long list of CoIs and he's not on it, but maybe I should be extra careful at the moment given the political candidacy. I'll leave it there. Schwede 66 12:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify pending election. Think that should be the default for all unelected but future candidates' articles. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or redirect to the article about the election. October is a long way off yet, and registering now is only really a formality (I could register myself, all you do is pay a fee and get things signed and do a bit of paperwork, we don't have political parties to get a nomination from, for example. https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/elections/candidates-third-party-advertisers/candidate-information/become-a-candidate/). It's a rather simple process to do and in no way gives you notability... He's not notable otherwise as an urban planner/office worker. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was likely created to help his campaign along/help with fundraising, but I have no worries as to a COI or anything nefarious going on, just a general thought. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 27 July 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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saurashtra Premier League[edit]

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

Non-notable local cricket tournament. Not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a lot of news coverage - particularly of the legal bits and pieces - Indian Express, Time of India etc... Am I missing something here? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More so because it fails WP:NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NCRIC doesn't supercede GNG and applies only to biographies, so is totally irrelevant here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a substantial amount of coverage, especially in Gujarati, from which the article could be expanded. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Personally think there's enough here for a GNG pass on the tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 27 July 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. No convincing argument regarding notability has been made here. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Sankeshwar[edit]

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

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

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

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

Vanity piece on a non-notable person, sources cited are all primary, churnalism, or offer only passing mentions, and a search finds nothing better. Already draftified once, but copypaste moved to main space by the creator, hence here we now are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the sources and the awards he has received. Honorary doctorate is given to a person who has made a significant contribution to the social development of the state and nation. I would like to add more sources and his achievements if needed. Ramkumar592 (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)— Ramkumar592 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Sourcing, oh, sourcing! If he had just owned a few more lorries, but he doesn't own enough of them for notability and doesn't have enough coverage for notability. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the references are reputed news sites of India. Subject is indeed a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChethanKumar88 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC) — ChethanKumar88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Only some of the sources are "reputed news sites", but they don't provide significant coverage. Others are primary sources. And just saying that someone is "indeed notable" doesn't make it so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: We are honoured to have you first-ever contribution to Wikipedia right here on this AfD! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though articles do not mention him exclusively, numerous credible sources available in his name. Passes WP:GNG WP:BIO. Honorary doctorate is awarded by universities to recognize outstanding achievement in a particular field, or service. So notable enough.Srinivas B A 07:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivas Bangalore (talk • contribs) — Srinivas Bangalore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete A closer look at the references has failed to establish notability. KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON, with no SIGCOV in reliable sources. Young head of a notable company, and son of a notable businessman, but WP:Notability is not inherited. No indication of the notability of the awards he's received, and honorary doctorates alone don't confer notability of a person. Storchy (talk) 12:26, 2 August 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 11:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Singh[edit]

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

Moved back and forth between draft and main in multiple instances without adding improved sourcing to demonstrate notability. Brief search does not reveal additional sources. Eagleash (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no indication of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an NBASIC or NENT pass. It is my opinion that articles like this—that have been repeatedly declined at AfD and renominated or undraftified without any effort at improvement—should have a strong presumption toward deletion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have strong sympathy with the viewpoint expressed by Firefangledfeathers. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gsearch did not pull notable references Hindustaci (talk) 14:51, 28 July 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 Southampton Boat Show#History. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton International Boat Show Act 1997[edit]

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

In my opinion, the article does not pass WP:GNG. The only source in relation to this article seems to be broken. Furthermore, I was going to suggest a merger with Southampton Boat Show, but I personally didn’t think it was worth it seeing as there is already somewhat sufficient information on the Act in that article already with Southampton International Boat Show Act 1997 adding little new (others may feel differently about this), so therefore brought it to AFD. If we do find more sources and information for this article, that would be great, but the question is would it be worth adding new information to this article over the Southampton Boat Show article, which I believe is sufficient to hold the information. As I have already mentioned, I personally feel like none of the information in this article add little to nothing more than what has already been mentioned at Southampton Boat Show, hence why I have brought this to AFD rather than requesting a merger, seeing as the content is already held elsewhere. However, listening to arguments may sway my opinion on this should people think a merger/keeping/redirecting is better than deletion. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Duplicates entirely what's already at Southampton International Boat Show. Nothing worth expanding on found in my WP:BEFORE - just lists of statutes in force and a bare-mention in a book on how Parliament works. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This article contains information not included in Southampton Boat Show. The other sources are not "just lists of statutes in force". James500 (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Southampton Boat Show#History. The information in Southampton Boat Show is not sufficient. What is the chapter number and in which numbered series is the Act included? (Bear in mind that public Acts, like this one, are judicially noticed). What is the title? What are the dates of royal assent and commencement? What are the details of the parliamentary debates on the Bill? (Bear in mind that Parliament acts in a quasi-judicial capacity when it deals with (public) local and personal Bills, and private Bills, promoted by individuals or corporations; and that Pepper v Hart applies to debates). Has the Act been amended? Which enactments does it amend? What commentaries have been published on the Act and what do they say about it? Not answered. There are other sources: [17] (see eg [18] for an example of commentary)[19] [20] [21][22]. James500 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 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. Consensus is that DICDEF applies, though this does not prevent the creation of a disambiguation page as has been proposed. Sandstein 12:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Querent[edit]

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

Per my contested PROD, This is a dictionary definition, not an article. The second paragraph is just a straightforward usage of the term in the contextx of the book, not an actual topic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DICDEF -Roxy the bad tempered dog 07:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTDICT Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 07:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. A "querent" in this case simply means 'someone who seeks answers through a divination process' and so would make for a suitable redirect to Divination (where the term is introduced; I'm simply assuming the topic of querent is not notable per se). However, there's a second use of the term as well: as a less common synonym for Plaintiff. It appears reasonable to assume there's no primary topic here, so I propose 1) turning the article into a redirect to Divination and then moving it to something like Querent (divination) (in order to preserve the article history under a redirect that's related to the topic); then 2) turning Querent into a dab page; its content could be something like:
Querent may refer to:
- The person who consults a divination process
- Plaintiff, the person initiating a lawsuit
Both meanings are reliably attested (e.g. OED), our readers are looking for them: the article receives about a thousands views each month, a third of which arrive from web searches [23] (so it's not just traffic from the incoming links), and we've got relevant articles for both meanings, so redirecting to Wiktionary would be out of the question. – Uanfala (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to this proposal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dhoru 21 (talk・contribs) 08:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We delete a dictionary definition only if it doesn't appear to be possible to improve it to present an encyclopedic treatment. If we remove the first paragraph here it becomes a legitimate referenced stub. I see plenty of coverage in a book search for the term's use in the field of divination. ~~Pppery's~~Uanfala's proposal also looks reasonable but that's an improvement that can be taken on outside AfD if the article is kept. ~Kvng (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI it's not my proposal, it's Uanfala's * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI see nothing to change my mind. -Roxy the English speaking dog 13:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICDEF def applies. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:36, 27 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim West (biblical scholar)[edit]

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

Clear fail of overliance on primary sources, a lack of general coverage and coverage which is not significant. The subject is not notable in his field except for the claim off having the number one bible blog other blogsites. The "twitter controversy" is entirely sourced by twitter is a copy right violation of direct quotes from twitter interaction that received little to no coverage from other independent sources. Also fails WP:BLP and refers to the subject as a Biblical Scholar but then holds a doctorate from an unaccredited university and centres more on his blogging rather than achievements as an academic. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not yet decided on deletion here, but the arguments offered in the nomination are not very good. If it could be established from secondary sources that he had the most popular biblical studies blog that would probably would be a valid claim of notability, regardless of whether it constituted an achievement as an academic per se. I think the problem with the Twitter controversy section isn't so much copyright as original research.Jahaza (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - if I ran Earwig's copyright tool the copyright video is bad across the whole article. Additionally the rankings are based on Alexa searches according to the blog. Retail rankings are not considered reliable or appropriate. Furthermore, if this article is presenting the subject of the topic as an academic, they don't meet WP:NACADEMIC. If being presented as a general person or theologian, WP:BLP applies. I don't see how that could be met for an academic from an uncredited institution, who has not appeared in peer reviewed material or been quoted by others. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is not a notability guideline, so it can't be "met". My whole point is that he might be notable as a writer (of a blog) rather than as an academic. But of course "an academic from an uncredited institution, who has not appeared in peer reviewed material" can meet a notability guideline other than WP:BIO, because not being notable in one way is no obstacle to being notable in a different way. Jahaza (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS shows negligible scholarly impact, so no pass of WP:Prof. Other social media flim-flam does not pass GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep -- He seems to have a significant number of publications, some at least from reputable academic publishers, but many (including commentaries on most biblical books are published by Quartz Hill, a great deal of whose output is by this one author. Nevertheless the article is a bad one; it almost feels like an ATTACK article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff does not contribute to notability, see WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - It is always useful to do a WP:BEFORE. This little exercise yields the following sources which either describe the subject's advocacy or theology or directly interview him, and which include: NBC News (2012) (not a local station, but the national news desk); National Public Radio (2006); The Christian Post (2004); the Associated Press via The Times-Tribune (Corbin) (2004). Internationally, the subject has been quoted or interviewed by the British Broadcasting Corporation of the UK (2012) and by AMEN bijbelmagazine (2011) of the Netherlands. All these sources have been incorporated in the article now. The argument that the article is supported "social media" simply does not hold water when the subject of the WP:BIO is cited by NPR or by the BBC. XavierItzm (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article originally had a large section sourced by social media to be fair. This is no longer the case. NBC news source is not WP:SIGCOV, neither is the The Times-Tribune. Has an appraisal been done of AMEN bijbelmagazine to prove its a reliable source? The article is still full of blogs and self-written posts about West's beliefs. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 08:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has authored a few papers in GScholar, what is his impact factor like? Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has a total of 6 citations on GS. Tiny, tiny, even for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Comment is an author of books published by well known academic and theology imprints and editorial houses on both sides of the Atlantic such as Edwin Mellen Press (2007); Equinox Publishing (Sheffield) (2016); Wipf and Stock (2022); Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (2017). His books have been reviewed in academic journals also both in Europe and in the US such as The Journal of Ecclesiastical History (2019); Henoch (journal) (2019); and Zwingliana (2008). His work is cited by Journal of Early Modern History (2020). Meets WP:AUTHOR both for being quoted by academic journals —as well as being cited or directly quoted by all of the mass media sources cited a few paragraphs above and which include NPR (2006), the BBC (2012), etc. XavierItzm (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XavierItzm. St Anselm (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XavierItzm's sources. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with his books having been reviewed in academic journals as detailed by XavierItzm above so deletion is unnecessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 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 11:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of information systems[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Although some of the concepts mentioned on the page are notable, the grouping of them together as "Laws of information systems" doesn't seem to be. I couldn't find any sources supporting this term/concept being notable and searching found very little use of the term in general. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The title and the concept are basically the creation of the article's author, as indicated by the lack of inline citations (not to mention the lack of wikilinks), suggesting WP:OR by synthesis. The choice of title, too, is essentially arbitrary; for example, the article conflates Brooks's law (yes, that isn't linked in the article either) with information systems, but Brooks was writing about software project management, which is not the same thing. I'd suggest a redirect, but it'd be to a WP:SYNTH combination of information systems, software engineering, software project management, and (in the case of Moore's law, for instance), computer architecture. By the way, of the four sources listed, one is Brooks (off-topic); one is Kurzweil (on Moore's law and such matters: not really about info. systems); one is Harmon 1998, on treating info. systems as thermodynamic engines; and the remaining one, Amaravadi 2004, is actually on the topic, but not sufficient on its own to establish notability. So the case is hopeless, please delete it at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR/SYNTH. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 27 July 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 11:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship[edit]

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

Not notable. The General Notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". OK, this article has two sources. One is the Heritage Foundation, which is associated with the prize (not independent of the subject), the other is ricochet.com, which is user-generated, and which is also about one recipient, not about the award per se - definitely not significant coverage. In other words, neither source shows notability. I prodded the article, which was removed by a user who had found more sources via a Google News search, namely [24], [25], and [26]. Those are not reliable, however; compare discussion on Talk:Salvatori Prize for American Citizenship. Nor do they offer significant coverage; they're about people who have received the price, not the prize itself. The only independent source which discusses the prize at such (negatively) is this. But that's an opinion piece in a student newspaper. Bishonen | tålk 10:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources discussing the prize itself, only naming people who have received it. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ignoring the student newspaper there are no independent reliable sources covering the price.PrisonerB (talk) 14:11, 1 August 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 11:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Red (band)[edit]

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

Synth-pop band fails WP:MUSICBIO, sourced in the main to Spotify, Soundcloud a four-line review in Billboard and a press release in Yahoo Finance. Also fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely too soon, looks like they just signed with a record label. No sources found; my search has 3 hits then gets talking about ruby hummingbirds. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a vanity page. At best TOO SOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:21, 29 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rukmini Vasanth[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON for an actress. Appeared in only one notable film so far, thus failing the requirements of WP:NACTOR. Ab207 (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Karnataka. Ab207 (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too early - only one film. Wait till more films of the actress release. DareshMohan (talk) 09:42, 27 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate republic[edit]

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

I believe WP:TNT or WP:DRAFTIFY would be appropriate for this poorly sourced essay. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mrs Turtle is being too kind. This is OR and conflating Florence, the HEIC and VOC is sheer madness. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alexandermcnabb. A poorly sourced essay that is in immense violation of WP:OR. Sal2100 (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How did this fanfiction stick around Wikipedia for sixteen years?! Delete per nom and Alex. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure WP:OR, too similar to corporatism and corporatocracy. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:48, 2 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Franco (academic)[edit]

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

Article gives no indication of why the subject is notable. Does not hold a named academic chair, no references are given for the non-notable awards claimed to be won. Does not qualify as notable per WP:ACADEMIC, we have no subject-specific guidelines for plastic surgeons. A loose necktie (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and New Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing inadequate. Sure, he's a surgeon. It's his lack of academic (or any other) notability that's academic. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure this meets notability guidelines.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is not significant. The publications listed in the article do not demonstrate on their own a meeting of WP:ACADEMIC, I'd want to see extensive peer reviewing, co-authoring, and citations of their work which is not demonstrable in a search. Does not meet any relevant notability criteria. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does "Fellow of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons" carry any weight? (I'm not familar with requirements of it.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not demonstrate notability as demanded by GNG and sourcing is inadequate. The information publicly available on the ASPS website leads me to conclude that a fellowship does not in and of itself confer notability. Draken Bowser (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kj cheetham. American Society of Plastic Surgeons is a highly selective fellowship and is the highest achievement a plastic surgeon can get. Passes Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria, point 3. Kulpiert (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fellow of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons isn't even a thing. And, as our article says, more than 90% of U.S. plastic surgeons are members. On his own web site, he's listed as "an active member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons" not as a fellow.[27] Jahaza (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, the fellowship program is advertised on their homepage [28]. But I agree that a notability claim must at least be verifiable and that there is insufficient evidence as to the exclusivity of this particular fellowship. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A "fellow" can mean two things in American academic medicine. Membership as a "Fellow" in a professional organization such as the American College of Surgeons or the American College of Healthcare Executives represents meeting certain educational, experience, and examination requirements to be certified as having achieved a high level of competence beyond that required for ordinary board certification (although this would not generally be enough to demonstrate Wikipedia notability.) A fellow can also be a post-graduate medical education student who is doing extra training in a sub-specialty or other area of study after completing residency. The program for residents and fellows described on the Society web site is a membership program for fellows, i.e. early career surgeons completing extra training after residency, not a fellowship program, i.e. a certification program for plastic surgeons who meet advanced qualifications standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahaza (talk • contribs)

Got it, thanks. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete publication record isn't amazing. Article says that he's a faculty member at the University of Texas Dell Medical School, but their faculty search function doesn't return his name[29]. 06:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. As indicated by Jahaza above, the claim of fellowship appears to be in the medical fellowship sense, not in the learned society fellow sense (and I find no evidence that the latter even exists in the ASPS). The publication record doesn't seem to meet the "significant impact" clause. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Seems like he has received a prestigious fellowship from Ghent University and is an inventor of a widely used technology called "ION". Additionally, in-depth articles from Insider and Dermascope further add to the notability [30], [31]. Meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC; he is an educator, so not sure if academic is a relevant guideline — WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO are more relevant. 2001:569:5593:5900:90E0:EBBE:1798:3609 (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of GNG or PROF notability. The supposed "prestigious fellowship from Ghent University" mentioned above is completely unsourced and we have no evidence of it being in any way prestigious, let alone contributing to notability. Spammy churnalism in trade rags that quote him rather than being about him doesn't help either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:27, 2 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honasa Consumer Pvt Limited[edit]

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

This company exists... But so what? The references appear to be WP:ROUTINE coverage of business transactions in India. There is nothing here to indicate why this particular babycare and skincare company is notable enough to warrant an article. Also, I suspect the author may have an undeclared WP:COI given that he/ she has only 62 edits, yet produced this article fully-formed with structured references and categories to boot. This ain't no noob. A loose necktie (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete routine coverage, potential COI is a concern. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, good grief - FOUR paragraphs of "the company raised..." Routine funding rounds, WP:SERIESA, fails WP:NCORP Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before publishing this article, Creator has also produced another article Dilip Buildcon in 2021 and that is also fully-formed with structured references. But i can see Honasa is a notable company found its presence on many news articles. Isn't it? 2409:4050:2E16:4626:EC0E:25C2:A615:CE18 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Bodycode[edit]

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

Subject article doesn’t meet WP:GNG by any means. Doesn’t meet WP:MUSICBIO by any means. It also look like the editor who created the page has a copy of the bio on his user page USER:Ivania80 which means he was writing about himself. Gabriel601 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Gabriel601 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First of all, the article's title is wrong because the musician, Alan Abrahams, has recorded under two different names: Portable and Bodycode, and his own Bandcamp page calls him Portable a.k.a. Bodycode. If the article is kept, it should probably be called Alan Abrahams and then it would explain that he has recorded under multiple stage names. Unfortunately, none of this is notable, and the various albums are only visible in the usual streaming and retail directories. I cannot find reviews or journalistic discussion of any of the albums released under either name, nor any media notice for his career overall. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 27 July 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 14:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Move[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm opening another AfD for this page because I felt that the consensus made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bald Move was incorrect. I opened the previous AfD about eight months ago and I think that's a reasonable amount of time to wait for improvements to the page or the discovery of new sources. I believe my previous argument for deletion still stands as the only sources cited in the discussion were trivial mentions of the company itself (rather than individual shows produced by the company). To reiterate, a company does not inherit notability from notable products, shows, people and other things associated with the company. If the shows produced by this company are notable than they should be created as independent pages.

Here's a rundown of the sources that were previously cited. Desert News mentions the phrase "Bald Move" a total of three times "Jim Jones and A. Ron Hubbard, hosts of the movie and television podcast 'Bald Move'", "Hubbard of 'Bald Move' agreed", and "according to the 'Bald Move' podcast hosts". These are trivial mentions that don't provide any useful information about the company. Lifehacker mentions "Bald Move" once saying "Another fan favorite is Watching Westworld, from the Bald Move slate of TV podcasts" which is also clearly a trivial mention. 25YL which mentions "Bald Move" once saying "This week I’m looking into We Do: A Watchmen Podcast, from Bald Move". Metro mentions "Bald Move" once saying "This podcast is hosted by Jim and A.Ron of Bald Move" which is clearly a trivial mention of the company. Desert News mentions the company once saying "Jim Jones and Aaron Hubbard, hosts of a podcast network called 'Bald Move'" which is clearly a trivial mention. 25YL mentions the company in one sentence saying "The folks at Bald Move have started Foundation and Podcast on their 'Bald Move Pulp' feed."

It's also worth mentioning the reliability of the sources. WP:METRO is listed at RSP as generally unreliable. The one 25YL source doesn't appear to have an author and the other is written by a staff writer Brien Allen, but it appears anyone can send in an article to be published. It looks like LifeHacker has had varying levels of reception at RSN. Desert News does appear to have consensus at RSN as a reliable source. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Companies. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, I can't find much else for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 27 July 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 04:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Kickboxing Network[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Zafir94 (talk) 11:38, 13 July 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 July 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Martial arts. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm having trouble finding significant independent coverage of the organization itself. The article gives a number of sources referring to individual events sponsored by the WKN, but I don't think that's sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I'm willing to reconsider if someone can show me articles that show the WKN meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 27 July 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 Wayne State University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne State University College of Fine, Performing, and Communication Arts[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG; notability is not inherited from its notable parent organization ElKevbo (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wayne State University. We lack enough sourcing to justify a free standing article on this sub-unit of the university.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. No need to clog AfD with discussions that could be handled on talk pages. pburka (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wayne State University, article is an extremely promotional, almost unsourced mess and there is no indication that a WP:SPLIT from the parent article is necessary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:25, 2 August 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalabalak[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this 1983 album by a Macedonian group with an article which manages to name only two of the songs in an eight song album. Sourced to discogs/blogs, the only possible claim is that the album went gold, in an interview where a group member says, as far as translate tells me, 'they almost told me it went gold'. Sent to Draft, plonked right back. Tagged for notability, reliable sources but no improvement. Fails WP:GNG;WP:NMUSIC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and North Macedonia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 27 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation (film)[edit]

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

Cannot find any decent reviews. This 7-minute short film does not meet either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources cited in article (all are blogs, PR, IMDB and similar) and no instances of SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE, fails WP:NFILM. FOARP (talk) 13:47, 27 July 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 04:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donisha Xavier[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:41, 27 July 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 13:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Gassner[edit]

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

Straightforward fail of WP:GNG. Creative director at an agency, a number of self-published 'self help' titles of no significance or notability. No sigcov, even the Marketwatch 'book review' is a 404. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Austria. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 27 July 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 04:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Stoute[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:41, 27 July 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 04:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keanna Francis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:41, 27 July 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 04:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kasika Samuel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:41, 27 July 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Giant Snowman 20:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kovalam Football Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The club has neither played in any of the national level football leagues nor any of the official cup competition in India. The Kerala Premier League (presently the 4th tier) is only a regional state league. The club has no significant coverage from the citations. Fails GNG Sullyboywiki (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sullyboywiki (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sullyboywiki (talk • contribs) 09:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I withdraw the nomination. I should have done proper WP:Before. Sullyboywiki (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sullyboywiki: See WP:WDAFD. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:37, 27 July 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 A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A2212 road[edit]

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

Unremarkable set of urban streets in the middle of the South London urban sprawl, largely unsourced, no reliable sources. South Circular it isn't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme and call it a day. Imzadi 1979 → 00:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme#Four digit roads. There might be something in here that could be added to the notes column but there is no indication in this article of any notability. The main author, Carlwev should be encouraged to contribute this sort of thing to the SABRE Wiki (I can't find a copyright statement for that Wiki, so I don't think a transwiki is possible). All non-notable UK roads should redirect to their list entry or some other appropriate target, there is no other obvious target in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme#Four digit roads. Instead, just add some information from reliable sources, for example SABRE, and give it a tidy up. Roads4117 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need sources like The London Encyclopedia and The Survey of London. This is a general purpose encyclopedia, so you need to write for a general audience. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, SABRE is not a reliable source and secondly it contains less information about this road than the article does. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would prefer to keep this. But I am biased as I wrote most of the article and it is close to my childhood home. I wrote it 14 years ago, and haven't really gone back to it. I would probably write a better sourced article now, although I am very busy with work right now but I wanted to comment before it was too late. Wikipedia with it's 6.5 million articles is going to have articles on small locations and infrastructure. I know it's smaller priority than the south circular, but it seems just as notable as A2199 road, Burnt Ash Pond, Northbrook Park, London, A2216 road, Dartford Cable Tunnel, or Grove Park Sidings. I admit it's not very well written, I wrote it 14 years ago when I was less experienced editor, It is a main route that has existed for centuries, but guilty of not being the M25. I am sure when I have time I/we could write a better article with good sources like I did for local parks in the area that also aren't nationally famous, Northbrook Park, London, The Tarn, Horn Park (park). Carlwev 18:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. When 2/3 of the article is about the buses and trains that happen to run near the road, it's just not worth a separate article. (Not to mention, the postal codes!) --Rs chen 7754 18:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said by Roads4117, add some references fro reliable sources, for example SABRE, and then tidy up the article to maybe reduce the content about public transport and focus more on the road itself. Rillington (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A roads in Zone 2 of the Great Britain numbering scheme per Imzadi1979 and Thryduulf. I fail to see how SABRE meets WP:RS, and the majority of the content of the article is tangential (i.e., about proximate public transport). If there isn't much else to say, a redirect to a list is the least destructive option. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:14, 27 July 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 Li Ka-shing#Internet and technology. Rough consensus is that the sources found by Cunard don't establish notability because they are routine business reporting, but that a redirect is a sensible alternative to deletion. Sandstein 12:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horizons Ventures[edit]

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

None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability and anything I find is related either to an announcement or one of their investments or an interview. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Hong Kong. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you expand on why the FT wouldn't count towards establishing notability? In addition, found in depth coverage from WSJ. Not ready to vote yet, but leaning keep. Pegnawl (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the FT article from June 2020 focuses a lot on Li Ka-shing (great name too) and "his" investments although the topic company is run by his long-term companion Ms. Chau. The article lists various companies in which the topic company invested in - but the article does not provide information on its sources. It credits "one finance industry professional who has dealt with Horizons" and to "data compiled by Dealogic" saying that "Many of the deals are private and the size of many investments have not been disclosed. Horizons does not report its returns". Ms Chau refused an interview request. Another source is described as "One investor who knows Horizons". Yet more information is credited to "People who know Ms Chau". I'm not seeing enough reliable information that meet CORPDEPTH. The WSJ source is older from 2015 and is also focused on the people, Li Ka-shing and Ms. Chau who refused to be interviewed, as well as the topic company. The information provided about the topic company is little more that a recitation of various companies into which the topic company invested and some of their well-publicised exits. The quotes/information are provided by people affiliated with the company or companies they've invested in or alongside. Again, I just don't see any CORPDEPTH material on the topic company, just a lot of surface-level recitation of deals which were available on lots of websites such as crunchbase, dealroom, etc. Finally, since most of the information is already in the Li Ka-shing article I would not be against a redirect to there instead. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Feng, Bangyan 馮邦彥 (2020). 香港華資財團 (1841–2020) [Hong Kong Chinese Consortium (1841–2020)] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. pp. 504–505. ISBN 978-962-04-4706-8. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The book discusses Horizons Ventures on pages 504–505. The book notes on page 505: "維港投資取得了很大的成功,特別是 2007 年,維港投資先後兩次投資於 Facebook,共計 1.2 億美元。其後 Facebook 上市,維港投資獲得 5 倍的投資回報,一舉成名。不過,維港投資最成功的項目,是投資於視頻會議工具 Zoom。 ... "
  From Google Translate: "Horizons Ventures has achieved great success, especially in 2007, Horizons Ventures invested in Facebook twice, totaling US$120 million. Afterwards, Facebook went public, and Horizons Ventures gained 5 times the return on investment, and became famous in one fell swoop. However, the most successful project of Horizons Ventures's investment is to invest in the video conferencing tool Zoom. ..."
2. Xu, Xiaoyin 徐笑音; Li, Qiqi 李其奇 (2014). "维港投资和李嘉诚" [Horizons Ventures and Li Ka-shing]. 中国证券期货 (in Chinese) (3). ISSN 1008-0651. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
  The abstract notes: "全球高科技产业一系列成功故事的背后部有一个共同的投资者，那就是由两位香港女性创立的一家风投公司。该公司作为个人投资的工具，skYPe、Facebook、Spotify、Waze、Siri、DeepMind和Summly等科技界响当当的大名无不与之相关。"
  From Google Translate: "Behind a series of success stories in the global high-tech industry is a common investor, a venture capital firm founded by two Hong Kong women. The company serves as a vehicle for personal investment, and is associated with some of the biggest names in tech, such as skYPe, Facebook, Spotify, Waze, Siri, DeepMind, and Summly."
3. Lin, Xing'an 林星安 (2014). "周凯旋:李嘉诚的"另类投资"" [Zhou Kaixuan: Li Ka-shing's "Alternative Investment"]. 21世纪商业评论 (in Chinese). Nanfang Daily Newspaper Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via CNKI.
  The abstract notes: "正近日,李嘉诚旗下的创投基金维港投资,向生产人造鸡蛋的美国食品科技公司Hampton Creek,提供1550万美元资金,引起关注。关注"前沿"产业,"激进"的投资策略,一向是维港的风格。而其实际执掌者,便是李嘉诚的亲密伙伴周凯旋"
  From Google Translate: "Recently, Li Ka-shing's venture capital fund, Horizons Ventures, provided US$15.5 million in funding to Hampton Creek, an American food technology company that produces artificial eggs, causing concern. Focusing on "frontier" industries and "radical" investment strategies have always been the style of Horizons Ventures. The actual person in charge is Li Ka-shing's close partner Zhou Kaixuan"
4. O'Neill, Mark (2018). 異地吾鄉︰猶太人與中國 [My Home in a Different Land: Jews and China] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. p. 281. ISBN 978-962-04-4296-4. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "過去 5 年,李嘉誠旗下風險投資業務「維港投資」(Horizons Ventures)在以色列的投資活動非常活躍,迄今已向該國不少最具創新活力的企業投放資金,投資案共達 24 項。在維港投資所支持的項目裡,其中一個最成功的案例,是一家 GPS 導航的地圖軟件公司「Waze」。"
  From Google Translate: "In the past five years, Horizons Ventures, Li Ka-shing's venture capital business, has been very active in investing in Israel. So far, it has invested in many of the country's most innovative companies, with a total of 24 investment projects. Among the projects supported by Horizons Ventures, one of the most successful cases is "Waze", a map software company for GPS navigation."
5. Xiao, Tengyuan 驍騰原; Pan, Qicai 潘啟才 (2017). 憩富發達指南 [A Guide to Prosperity] (in Chinese). Taipei: 真源有限公司. ISBN 978-988-77-3095-8. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "在這方面,香港也有這樣的創投獲利高手—李嘉誠。李嘉誠創辦的「維港投資」,投資多個創科公司,成績亦相當彪炳。「維港投資」於2007年,亦有向facebook投資1.2億美元,5年後Facebook上市時,估計獲得了最少5倍的回報。近年,李嘉誠旗下基金投資了全."
  From Google Translate: "In this regard, Hong Kong also has such a master of venture capital profits - Li Ka-shing. "Horizons Ventures", founded by Li Ka-shing, has invested in a number of innovation and technology companies, and has achieved outstanding results. In 2007, "Horizons Ventures" also invested 120 million US dollars in Facebook. When Facebook went public five years later, it was estimated that it had obtained a return of at least 5 times. In recent years, Li Ka-shing's fund has invested in the entire."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Horizons Ventures (traditional Chinese: 維港投資; simplified Chinese: 维港投资技) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This again. It doesn't matter how much money is invested, how much money the company shovels around, who its partners are, or which analysts want to price its stock. This article is a perma-stub. The criteria at WP:NCORP call on us to "consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." This one does not seem to, and follows the common "in business, raised money" template I mention in WP:SERIESA. I vehemently disagree with User:Cunard's frequent argument that "by the numbers" reporting on these kinds of companies establishes notability. FalconK (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd only because it's unclear whether Cunard's have been fully reviewed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Li Ka-Shing is notable, and the coverage of Horizons Ventures on his page is adequate. Having two pages covering mostly the same material is unnecessary. Anyone looking for info on Horizons Ventures will be better off landing on his page, and there doesn't seem to be anything unique to differentiate this venture capital firm from hundreds of other non-notable venture capital firms, which is probably why none of the media coverage actually focuses on the firm itself, beyond passing mentions. Chagropango (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have the utmost respect for User:Cunard's abilities to find sources, as I hope they're aware. I'll confess I'm often persuaded to !vote keep by sources Cunard presents during formal procedures. I'm sure that's partially because we share similar views on notability and verifiability, and I'm inclined to support such views. In this case, they have presented us a series of routine business news articles, to my limited ability to read them. I performed a reasonable BEFORE and I'm not seeing anything in English sources which reads differently than the summaries of Cunard's translated quotations. Yes the company is verifiable; No the subject lacks significant coverage directly detailing from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Li Ka-Shing is well covered and his foundation gets him more wiki-ink, but given the breadth of this fellow's activities, I don't even think this company is notable to him. BusterD (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- BusterD (talk · contribs), how is coverage in two book sources and an academic journal article "routine business news articles"? Cunard (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm willing to amend my comment to "routine business coverage." This is a company that has acquired capital and invested wisely. Good for them. One of the two women who founded the company happens to be the ~~"partner"~~ "long term companion" of the "30th richest man in the world." Totally independent? Not so much. IMHO, everything I'm reading about Horizons Ventures is seems to be written in a manner and by somebody who wants to please Li Ka-Shing. Just not seeing corporate depth. BusterD (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Horizons Ventures received two pages of coverage in a book that discusses the company's history and significance. How is this "routine business coverage" and how does this not meet WP:CORPDEPTH? If two pages of coverage in a book is not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, what would be enough?
      Horizons Venture co-founder Solina Chau is a business partner of Li Ka-Shing. She is not the "partner" of him which has a different meaning. From https://www.forbes.com/profile/solina-chau/, "Chau founded venture powerhouse Horizons Ventures in 2002 with partner Debbie Chang Pui Vee. Li Ka-shing came in as a backer two years later." These sources are all independent of Li Ka-Shing. There is no evidence that they were "written in a manner and by somebody who wants to please Li Ka-Shing". Sources with a positive tone that are independent of the subject can be used to establish notability.
      Cunard (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excuse me for reading "long term companion" in the WSJ source and not drawing the conclusion she is totally independent of her business "partner". Are you reading what you just wrote? The standard of corporate depth may be met in a two page book mention? Really? WP:CORPDEPTH literally concludes a company possesses such depth if it's "possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." A ridiculously low standard. And these sources are the best that can be found? By a wikipedian whose sourcing acumen is well respected? Write more than a very brief, incomplete stub on this subject and I'll concede depth. Everything I'm able to see in sources is already in the article. BusterD (talk) 09:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry if I lost my temper. BusterD (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I cannot believe my comments would provoke such a hurtful response infused with hostility at me. You called two pages of coverage "a two page book mention" and WP:CORPDEPTH "a ridiculously low standard". Two pages of coverage in a book is not a "mention". The WP:CORPDEPTH guideline is the community consensus-backed standard even if you believe it is "a ridiculously low standard". The Chinese-language sources contain plenty of information that is not in the Wikipedia article, which at 157 words is already beyond a "very brief, incomplete stub". Editors' comments here dissuade me from investing time into improving the article which could still get deleted after it is improved. I will limit my response to this as discussing this further would make this an even more unpleasant experience for me. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The editors who supported deletion have not refuted the significant coverage about the company in several books (two pages in Feng 2020 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFeng2020 (help) and multiple paragraphs in O'Neill 2018 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFO'Neill2018 (help)).
Xu & Li 2014 is published in 中国证券期货, an academic journal of securities and futures published by the China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing. From a Google Translate of the federation's Wikipedia article (zh:中国物流与采购联合会), "China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing is a national, non-profit and industry social organization composed of enterprises, institutions and social groups in the logistics and procurement industry of the People's Republic of China. It is under the supervision of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council." The article discusses the significance and impact of Horizon Ventures' investments and the work of the two women who founded the company, which shows Horizon Ventures is independent of Li Ka-Shing.
To say that these book and academic journal sources are "'by the numbers' reporting" or "routine business news articles" is very inaccurate. Cunard (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The book Hong Kong Chinese Consortium (1841–2020) by Feng provides a standard description of the company on page 504 complete with a map/diagram taken from the topic company's website and on page 505 lists some of the investments - the exact same information from the websiate and the same as that which we've seen in multiple other articles. It is neither significant nor in-depth. Nor is it two full pages about the company as you've described, it is more accurate to say there are a couple of sentences on each of the pages that deal specifically with this company. In a similar vein, the brief mention in the book by O'Neill for a total of three sentences is neither significant nor in-depth. Finally, why do you say that the paper published in Issue 3 2014 of China Securities Futures by Xu Xiaoyin (translator) Li Qiqi is about this topic company? You say that it discusses the significance and impact of Horizon Ventures' investments and the work of the two women who founded the company, which shows Horizon Ventures is independent of Li Ka-Shing. Perhaps you've mistaken the reference or something because the article journal you've linked to appears to not even mention the topic company, focussed instead on a different firm "Victoria Harbour Investment" which is another Li Ka-shing investment vehicle. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree with the analysis of the sources. Feng 2020 provides detailed analysis about the company's history on two pages. If translated from Chinese into English using Google Translate, the text about the company would amount to over 500 English words, which is very substantial coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. It is not surprising that the source discusses Horizons Ventures' investments in significant companies and that other sources do too as this is what is notable about the ocmpany. This does not mean the source is not independent. The inclusion of a map of the investments from the company does not mean the text is non-independent. I read through the company's website including pages like https://www.horizonsventures.com/portfolio/ and https://www.horizonsventures.com/news/ and could not verify that the text of the book is based on the website. If translated from Chinese into English using Google Translate, O'Neill 2018 would provide at least 250 words about the company, which is significant coverage. The paper Xu & Li 2014 is about Horizons Ventures. The paper has "维港投资" in the title, which corresponds with the Chinese characters in the logo of http://www.horizonsventures.com/. "Victoria Harbour Investment" is what Google Translate translates the Chinese name of Horizons Ventures to.
    Cunard (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I maintain that Horizons Ventures is a notable company under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria that should have a standalone article. I as a second choice support a redirect to Li Ka-shing#Internet and technology (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the company is mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. This will allow a selective merge of the content as well as the redirect to be undone if more reliable sources are found in the future.
Pinging HighKing (talk · contribs), Pegnawl (talk · contribs), Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs), Chagropango (talk · contribs), and BusterD (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Li Ka-shing#Internet and technology (with the history preserved under the redirect) as an alternative to deletion?
Cunard (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could go along with a redirect as suggested by Cunard. BusterD (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, on reflection, a redirect as suggested is a better option, thanks Cunard. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, it's a good idea.Chagropango (talk) 06:39, 3 August 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. ✗plicit 01:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Art Green (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or the revised version of WP:NOLY, as he did not win a medal and I could find no coverage of him other than database listings. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and United Kingdom. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His Olympedia bio is a decent size, including info on him being the youngest player ever to compete at the (ice hockey) European Championships, that he had an extensive career in the English National League with multiple teams with more than 350 apperances. I also found this book source. I suspect there's more press coverage of him too. At worst, redirect to Ice hockey at the 1948 Winter Olympics – Rosters. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Article expanded a little and a couple of sources added. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG per Lugnuts and wjemather. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - would seem to have enough coverage to meet notability standards. Dunarc (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:54, 1 August 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.