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!} 00:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remote location stress reaction[edit]

Remote location stress reaction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This seems to be a WP:Hoax or at best WP:OR. None of the three references mention "Remote location stress" or "logging fatigue", they're all about combat stress. I couldn't find any results for either of the names this "condition" in Google, Google Scholar, JSTOR or Google Books.

Since most of the article seems to be pulled from information about WWI and WWII (not data logging), I think this might be a hoax. I definitely can't find any sources for a stress disorder caused by excessive data logging. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Internet. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I was also unable to find any sources that cover this subject. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero mentions in any sort of academic literature sounds pretty hoaxy.

(stress ... caused by excessive data logging is actually a thing I have experienced before, but that was a very specific situation that is definitely not what this article is about.) ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 04:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NEO. I found exactly one google scholar cite and one google news citation. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2023 (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!} 00:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C/Z Records[edit]

C/Z Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NCORP failure. Record labels are held to NCORP standards. Sourcing and coverage therefore has to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Graywalls (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, California, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - NCORP is one avenue by which a record label can be deemed notable. By precedent, not all editors believe that NCORP is the best standard for record labels in all instances, and this is just such one case. A record label produces art, and is known by their art and artists, and therefore should also be judged based upon the cultural influence it has exerted. It is hard to overstate the cultural impact on Grunge culture of C/Z, as their issue "Deep Six" has been held by several sources to be the start of the grunge movement. The label was highly influential in the careers of several highly notable bands, including Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Melvins. I'm going to list a bunch of links. Some of them are SIGCOV, many are not but demonstrate the label's large influence, but there are at least three sources here that meet NCORP anyway. So it meets the spirit of NMUSIC #5, GNG, and NCORP. [1], [2], [3], [4] (can't see book, but C/Z is in the chapter title, which is highly indicative of substantial coverage), [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. This isn't even nearly the google books search results available. I have not searched newspapers.com or archive.org. Given their prominence in the Pacific NW grunge scene in the early days, it stands to reason there are several non-digitized publications waiting to be discovered that cover the topic.

So all that said, I am concerned about the current state of the article. Much of it fails WP:V. For instance, I originally didn't find that The Presidents of the United States of America (band) recorded for them, but further research indicates that they did (reference is C/Z Records cat# CZ082) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @78.26:, in the WP:NCORP guidelines, it reads For example, bands are covered by WP:MUSIC. though there's no suggestion to evaluate music related organizations and corporations under NMUSIC, so I am going to assume NMUSIC is largely irrelevant. Of the numerous sources you listed out in your vote, could you tell me which ones you believe meets WP:CORPDEPTH and significant, totally independent, reliable and secondary coverage? A bucket of numerous bits of window glass that adds up to the same weight as a full window can't be presented to equal an intact piece of window. For example, the coverage about C/Z Records in Nirvana FAQ was just a tad more than a mention. Graywalls (talk)

If we are going to use NCORP for labels, why would we not want to use it for bands? Bands, after all, meet, to the T, the definition of the thing that NCORP covers - an association of people organized together for a specific purpose, and indeed, in nearly all cases an explicitly commercial purpose. What makes more sense is that people interested in music should evaluate musical topics, and in fact that is how WP:MUSIC has historically been interpreted. Chubbles (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because, the use of NBAND alternative evaluation criteria has been vetted by broad consensus, which you will see on the talk page for NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that I take it you mean this discussion from 2007, which is not a broad consensus; it is a quick addition made as an afterthought. It is the only discussion of any depth that I could find on the NCORP talk page. If we are going to apply NCORP consistently, I see no rationale for why it should not also trump WP:MUSIC for bands as well. Chubbles (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Noted that the article could certainly stand improvement esp. in sourcing. However, per above, C/Z was a pretty significant presence in the Seattle grunge scene of the 80s and 90s. Deep Six is the defining compilation album of early grunge, and the label issued early tracks by multiple artists that later became both highly influential and commercially successful e.g. Nirvana, Soundgarden, as well as releases by acts that never became known to a wider audience but were nonetheless highly influential e.g. Skin Yard, the Gits, and/or had members that did achieve wider critical and commercial success with later acts e.g. Green River, Treepeople. I'm trying to be mindful of WP:civility, but I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone with knowledge of alternative music history would support this nomination. CAVincent (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good grief, this label is important. If NCORP dictates we should delete it, we may as well not bother covering independent labels at all. Luckily, people who are interested in music, rather than people who are interested in corporations, usually decide which label articles to keep and which not, and this certainly meets the sense of "one of the more important labels" mentioned in WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's been some voice to objection to assessment under NCORP and suggesting the use of NMUSIC. I disagree with this objection although I was not sure if there's been previous generally accepted consensus on this. I sought another input just on NCORP vs something else on things like record labels and recording studios. Please see/comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Categorization_of_notability_requisite_for_record_labels,_recording_studios,_art_collectives_and_like Graywalls (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the notice. I'm approaching my limit of how much time I want to devote to WP tonight but planning to read over and maybe comment further in the next day or two. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • • @Graywalls:, don't you think in order to gain broad consensus you should have the conversation at a neutral location and then also notify the NMUSIC people, and perhaps put out a notice at WikiProject Record Labels? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Agreed on this. Just going to NCORP may be a bit of forum shopping. CAVincent (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • If it makes you feel better, it's been added to NMUSIC discussion as well just now. Graywalls (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NCORP is a useful guideline for ensuring Wikipedia doesn't end up filled with spammy articles serving as adverts for present day corporations. I'm not convinced applying it to a record label that closed in 2001 is appropriate or beneficial to the wiki. The above arguments make a good case for keeping the article. Garuda3 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I belive as others have said that if this does not meet the letter of NCORP it meets the spirit of WP:NMUSIC#5, WP:GNG, and WP:NCORP. Lightburst (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2023 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eyring Research Institute[edit]

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

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

I can only locate minimal sources on this company; and none that satisfies WP:SIRS. Fails WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Utah. Graywalls (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The current article isn't very good, but Eyring Research Institute played a role in the early history of technology in Utah Valley. You can see this by the articles that link to it. This role is why per this release they were inducted into the Utah Valley Entrepreneurial Forum's Hall of Fame in 2011, following companies like WordPerfect and Novell. You can also see some of their history, contracts, and big-name customers in Utah newspaper stories from the time like this one from 1973 and this one from 1979 and this one from 1980 and this one from 1981 and this one from 1983 and this one from 1985 and so on. Some of the pieces are on the boosterish side but they establish that it was an enterprise of some significance in the area. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in evaluating notability, press releases have no bearing in establishing notability. In order for a company/organization to be deemed notable, there needs significant, independent and reliable coverage in multiple sources. Coverage by the same journalist or the same publication counts as one. The Hall of Fame host is not independent and being in the host's press release is nothing like being mentioned for being in Utah Valley Entrepreeurial Forum in a multi-page article dedicated to Eyring Research Institute in PC Magazine. The link to it from Novell was added by what appears to be a connected contributor/SPA in Special:Diff/127481326 Graywalls (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The diff mentioned about was where Eyring Research Institute was added into Novell. It was in Special:Diff/136422976; again by the same COI/SPA editor where wiki link to ERI was added. Graywalls (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta say, characterizing these contributions as coming from a SPA, or indicated a COI, seems completely unwarranted to me here. A gentle reminder to WP:AGF. Suriname0 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that editor was indeed an SPA of sorts, whose contributions revolved around some claims and disputes associated with the Eyring Research Institute, WordPerfect, and Novell, as described in this Deseret News story from 2003. I'm not saying those contributions are sound or that those claims are true. I'm saying that the Eyring Research Institute was a real entity that played a role of some significance in the rise of tech industry in Utah Valley. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Graywalls (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We need at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company - therefore regurgitated quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews etc all fail ORGIND. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, topic company therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If this is a non-profit, then the WP:NONPROFIT standards (meets GNG and has a national/international scope of activities) would apply rather than the stricter WP:NCORP guidelines for companies. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, this doesn't. This is essentially constrained to Utah. Also, the intent of the guideline you cite isn't black or white simply based on the classification status of the organization in question by the IRS tax code. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real definition of what constitutes a non-profit, but it was initially founded as a charity but later (which is in the article) The Utah Supreme Court terminated ERI's tax exempt status in 1979 because the Court found that ERI was not devoted to a charitable purpose. So in my opinion, at least from a tax code pov, I don't believe it is a non-profit. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NCORP. Coverage is simply press releases. BruceThomson (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERITORG and lack of reliable sources. Wozal (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2023 (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 Saint Antony's Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Matha Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur[edit]

Mary Matha Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and WP:NBUILDING. No results in Wikipedia Library and news. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 23:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and India. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 23:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Saint Antony's Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur. It appears to be a church building administered by the Saint Antony parish. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. Currently unsourced. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Saint Antony's Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Saint Antony's Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur, as not enough coverage for a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It lacks citations and it doesn't include much the suggested merge article is missing: it being in Ollur under Saint Anthony's Syro-Malabar Church is already stated in Saint Antony's Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur.User:Referencer12 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect As User:Referencer12 mentions above, there's nothing to merge. The sourced information is already at the target article. There's really nothing to merge. Joyous! | Talk 03:26, 15 January 2023 (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 the available sourcing doesn't satisfy WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce Scooter Share[edit]

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

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

Only PR Based News. Non notable company. Lordofhunter (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are sufficient sources to establish that this company meets WP:NCORP. Jfire (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singh, Manish (2020-01-23). "Indian bike rental startup Bounce raises $105M". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-01-01.

Singh, Manish (2021-12-02). "Bounce's first electric scooter features swappable battery, costs less than $500". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-01-01.

"Bounce's shared mobility business shrank 83% during the pandemic". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2023-01-01.

Techcrunch source shared is not even considered reliable here. In the ET we don't have the journalist's name, the whole news is based on the Financial report filed and the company future plan announcements. Lordofhunter (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just examples. There are many, many sources available.

Goel, Vindu (2019-05-05). "Ride-Sharing's Future? It May Sit on Electric Motorbikes". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Walmsley, Julie. "India's Bounce Zips Up Another $72 Million To Continue Scaling Scooter Culture". Forbes. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

"Bounce is running out of cash". The Morning Context. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

"From Scooter Rental To EV Player: How Bounce Morphed To Survive The Pandemic". Forbes India. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Singh, S. Ronendra (2021-10-22). "Bengaluru-based start-up Bounce targets $1 billion turnover in the next two years". www.thehindubusinessline.com. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Patwa, Prasannata (2020-01-24). "This Motorcycle Lover Turned His Passion Into Business". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Ahmed, Amaan (2022-07-28). "Bounce Infinity E1 e-scooter completes Kanyakumari to Khardung La ride, covering 4,000+ km inside 3 weeks". NEWS9LIVE. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Livemint (2022-04-08). "Bounce Infinity begins E1 production, deliveries to start from this date". mint. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

S.H, Salman (2020-12-15). "Of Pivots, Calibration And A New Road Map: How Bounce Is Resurrecting Its Stalled Journey". Inc42 Media. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Shanthi, S. (2021-11-11). "India's EV Race Begins Again; After Ola, Bounce To Launch Electric Scooter". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

It's not a close call. This company very clearly has received significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those were examples? I don't understand what you are trying to prove then. I will not interact if you share more such examples which even you know, are pointless. Please share your fav 2 sources not a list of junk. Don't share non-reliable sources like livemint. Entreprenue.com is not independent at all, totally driven by PR material. I have a similar comment on other sources. Kindly don't share funding, launches, announcements, or future plan-related news. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times doesn't even talk about the company in detail, it mentions Ola, Uber, Vogo and Bounce, all in relation to the industry in general. We require substantive information in the article about the thing you're trying to have a wikipedia article be about. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We need at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company - e.g. simply regurgitating quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews - these fail ORGIND. Here's a review of the references:

• This in Money Control and this in VCCircle are funding announcements of the same funding round. They're all published using the same information and around the same date. They all rely entirely on the same information with no "Independent Content" as required by ORGIND. Here are five other articles all from the same time period, all regurgitating the same information. These references fail ORGIND
• This in Hindu Business Line is about the parent company and doesn't mention the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
• This in Entrepreneur is a puff piece times to coincide with the Series D funding round mentioned above and relies entirely on interviews and information provided by the company/execs along with their investors. There is no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
• This about the name change from Metro Bikes to Bounce is based on an annuncement at the time of their investment round in 2018, same as this article in VCCircle, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
• Both this and this from Business Standard are both based on company announcements with insufficient "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
• This in inc42 is based entirely on what a company spokesperson told the publisher, followed by a basic and oft-repeated company description (e.g. here and here), fails ORGIND
• This in CarTechNewz barely mentions any details about the company, focused as it is on a product. The topic is the company, not the product, fails CORPDEPTH

None of these meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. There's no doubt the company has an active PR and Marketing department, but volume of "coverage" doesn't translate into notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Conflicting views on the sourcing, relisting for further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Thinly-veiled PR piece; most sourcing is only mentioning the company in passing. Based on what I see, I don't even thing they're notable enough to have an article. It almost seems to be a minor business. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (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!} 00:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hartley Bolt 4 engine[edit]

Hartley Bolt 4 engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable product. Mikeblas (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree, there is no indication about what this engine is used for: marine, street racing, lawnmowers? I can't find anything discussing the engine or the company. Lack of any sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2023 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Humphries[edit]

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

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

There is precisely one "Arthur Humphries" in the encyclopedia, and one "Arthur Humphreys". Unless I am missing something here, there is no need for a disambiguation page between these two different spellings. Any confusion can be handled in a hatnote. BD2412 T 21:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 21:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and move Arthur Humphries (rugby union) to base name, linking the two articles by hatnotes. It seems that Humphreys article was created in 2009 using "Humphries" and immediately moved, leaving the redirect; when the article on Humphries was created in 2016 it should have been created overwriting the redirect but instead was given a disambiguated title. PamD 08:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination - hatnotes meet dab guidelines best here Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom two different spellings.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2023 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ndola Girls Technical High School[edit]

Ndola Girls Technical High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability not established. The article is clearly promotional. The only articles linking to it are lists List of schools in Zambia and Lists of girls' schools except for a trivial reference to its location from Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport Hmee2 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I've toned down the promotionalism and added a new source which verifies their ranking as 3rd in the country on one measure. PamD 08:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It appears to be a reputable school. Tictictoc (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to note Tictictoc has recently been blokced as a sockpuppet Hmee2 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It could use another source or two maybe but it appears to meet WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - has 7 out of 10 factors in my standards for secondary schools. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Apart from that "AllAfrica" source, it is difficult to find any "source" for this school apart from Social Media sites & Location Sites. A web search isn't bringing the right results. GeographicAccountant (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in addition to the AllAfrica source, I was able to find [14] and this YouTube video by Paul Shalala, a renowned reporter from Zambia. HouseBlaster^talk 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the above sources show article meets GNG.

 // Timothy :: talk  20:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Boudro[edit]

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

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

I'm not finding anything of substance in a BEFORE search to establish the notability of this artist. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion. The current article sourcing consists of three primary sources: galleries that show his work, one of which is a blog for the gallery, and the other is an online sales site - all of which do not count towards notability; and one review press release in Mixtemagazine, which is not enough to meet notability specifications. An online search on Google turned up social media, Google Books turned up nothing, and Newspapers.com had only calendar listings. No additional reviews of exhibitions, art historical analyses of his work, nor museum collections. Bringing it here for the community to weigh in. Netherzone (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Canada. Netherzone (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I find this source [15] but that's about all. We'd need more to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regarding WP:NARTIST, his bios indicate he worked on September 11th memorials in NY in conjunction with Accor hotels as well as working with the French Consulate in NY which would establish item 4 in WP: NARTIST Expandinglight5 (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Expandinglight5, are there verifiable reliable sources for this that are independent of the artist? If so, could you please link them here? Not sure if that fits criteria #4, but it would be good for the community to assess these sources. Thanks! Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The sources presented are from galleries. The article from Mixte Magazine appears to be a press release. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a few additional sources which helps support notability. Expandinglight5 (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources added late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sources added do not add to notability. One is a link to the gallery showing work. The other two are puff pieces International artist BOUDRO finally in Quebec City at Galeries Perreault Guy Boudro's pop art in Old Quebec. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources above fail to show notability, and also the article itself has no reliable sources. Fails NARTIST.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 20:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Henry (American football)[edit]

Aaron Henry (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Just routine coverage, nothing in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Was deprodded with the addition of single source of short, routine sports coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is a big ten coordinator, besides him being first team all big ten and playing a bit in the nfl makes him notable.

• Comment - none of those things passes GNG or NSPORTS.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG / SIGCOV. E.g., this (part one/part two), this (part 1/part 2), this, this, this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sourcing provided by Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly notable having passed WP:GNG with ample sourcing from a variety of sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources provided by Cbl62. Clear pass of WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 03:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User talk:Cbowers77 07:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - obvious GNG pass. Rlendog (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : Satisfying WP:NFOOTY. Tictictoc (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG.HennSw123 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2023 (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!} 19:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Mall[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NGEOPLACES and GNG. I searched all 5 pages about Gulf Mall and found one usable independent source from 2015 which still was WP:TOOSOON. The article was this one from Doha News. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - yet another of these non-notable mall/building articles by this same editor. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - poorly referenced. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2023 (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 Lakewind Sound Studios. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Lavery[edit]

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

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a record producer and songwriter, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is winning a regional music award, which would be fine if the article were well-sourced but isn't a national award for the purposes of conferring a free pass over NMUSIC #8 in and of itself -- but the only footnotes here are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and even on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources I get a lot of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, but virtually nothing that's about him for the purposes of building passage of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Studio he operates seems notable [16] and [17], perhaps redirect there? Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to above - @Oaktree b:. Good idea Oaktree. I have now created an article for Lakewind Sound Studios. If the AFD discussion leads away from a keep, if could possibly be merged and redirected to article, this preserving the history. Thanks for taking the time to do some research and bring up the studio. Karl Twist (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for several reasons. First off, with only two citations, one of which is a governmental tourist board, there is a lack of significant coverage. Second, producers do not automatically pass WP:CREATIVE or WP:NBAND; there must be evidence they produced a notable work of music or album. Finally, producers are usually, as with this person, run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect & merge. Fred Lavery did compose the regional hit "Song for Noel". I just had a look at his credits on Discogs - here and it is fairly impressive. Also a C&P from the page content here "In 2001 Lavery won ECMA SOCAN "Songwriter of the Year" for "Get Me Through December" a song co written with Gordie Sampson recorded by Natalie MacMaster and sung by Alison Krauss. In the Spring of 2007 Alison Krauss included this song on her Rounder Records US release "A Hundred Miles or More". I haven't got time to do any more research. But anyway, if the article leans away from Keep, a redirect will preserve the history and when any more info is forthcoming, we could look at it as a standalone. Karl Twist (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional comment, gosh the article is so poorly sourced. It needs a fair amount of work to get it up to scratch Karl Twist (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2023 (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!} 19:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netgate[edit]

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

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

Its notability cannot WP:INHERIT from pfSense. Before search for Rubicon Communications didn't yield anything ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find sales and technical info about the product but nothing independent about the company itself. Lamona (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2023 (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!} 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Hristov (footballer, born 1985)[edit]

Nikolay Hristov (footballer, born 1985) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found a few bits of routine sports coverage but these mostly seem to relate to Nikolay Hristov (footballer, born 1989). I found Gol, which I presume to be about the 1985-born Hristov, but it's only a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 13 January 2023 (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!} 18:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoodie artefact[edit]

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

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

This topic lacks significant coverage; there's not even enough sourcing to establish the context or significance of the "nail". The only sources are an 1845 primary-source description in an apparently reliable journal and a modern "debunking". These do not provide enough information to write a balanced article or meet the basic requirements of GNG. I did not find further RS coverage in my BEFORE search. –dlthewave ☎ 18:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. –dlthewave ☎ 18:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only sources I see are literal conspiracy theories Out of place artifact style things, and it gets a blurb.

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG. -Roxy the dog 08:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The initial report of the discovery is very brief and, with the exception of Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews blog post which highlights some of the issues and gives some useful context, subsequent mentions do not add further detail. On balance, the coverage is not significant enough to pass general notability guidelines. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Plenty of academic coverage of valid findings from historic Kingoodie sites, nary a mention of this. This might be worth a sentence at Kingoodie if that article ever features any substantial treatment of the valid stuff. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2023 (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!} 18:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Ubović[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 22:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all I can find is Dnevnik and Ns Fudbal, both way short of requirements. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mitic[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. The sources that mention the subject are actually about other subjects, not the subject of this article directly. I see issues here with puffery via REFBOMB. The author also wrote an article about a company founded by this person and I have COI concerns around that. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete "a professional in the field" simply means he works, I don't find reviews for the one book he wrote and the rest doesn't seem much beyond routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete There doesn't seem to be much significant coverage on the subject, probably fails WP:BIO. All the given references mention him only in passing and his book is not particularly well-known. It seems that his most noteworthy accomplishment is founding the company TrustedID, later acquired by Equifax. Possibly merge into Equifax. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 17:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only passing references fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2023 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Academy Islamabad[edit]

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

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

Promotional article about a private school without any coverage. JamesH567 (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2023 (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/2023 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Insight 3 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just an ordinary college and nothing notable, which does not fulfill the WP:NSCHOOL. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2023 (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 Rugby union#Variants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten man rugby[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I could not find any sources which go beyond a mere mention. Steelkamp (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Rugby union#variants Not enough for a standalone article, some of this information can be merged to the main rugby union article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps Merge with Rugby union gameplay or Glossary of rugby union terms. CUA 27 (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Due to the ambiguity with other variant names and usages - the inclusion within the glossary would be very helpful JarrahTree 03:37, 10 January 2023 (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. Editors are encouraged to make improvements to the article, as indicated in this discussion, to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 13:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NER Class Z[edit]

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

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

Aside from being virtually uncited, Can't find enough in-depth sourcing to show that other than existing, it was notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is plenty of material available (although I expect that some of it is duplicatitive), it just needs somebody to visit their library and write it up properly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually can't find more than 2 duplicates of sources Ilovejames5:) 10:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I mean that two sources may actually provide the same information as each other. Nock, for example, is famous for plagiarising his own books - his prolific output is partly due to him lifting paragraphs (even whole chapters) from an earlier book in order to quickly fill out a later book. I wouldn't be surprised if portions of Locomotives of the North Eastern Railway (pub. 1954) also appear word-for-word in British Locomotives of the 20th Century: Volume 1 1900-1930 (pub. 1983). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I understand. Also, do you like my new signature? Ilovejames5:) 12:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So, do you use the sources with earlier dates if they are duplicatitive ? Ilovejames5🚂:) 03:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You probably won't be able to get hold of them all, use the ones that you can find. Yesterday I added some info from Ahrons. If you have several, use the most reliable - definitely The Engineer, if you have a subscription. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lots of sourcing given in the article and identified above. Article does need a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is poorly written and its original author incompetent, but the class of locomotives is notable. I'm seeing results such as [18], but I'm not having great success since I'm in the US and not very familiar with U.K. sourcing. Going to AGF that Redrose64's sources are significant coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It takes time to add sources. Also it appears Onel5969 is bullying me, as he is removing my uncited info but keeping uncited info by others, so this shouldn't be deleted Ilovejames5:) 08:14, 9 January 2023 (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. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Twar[edit]

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

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

She gets a few mentions, but couldn't find a single source which goes in-depth about this individual. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn - by nom. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:POLOUTCOMES - Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US states, Canadian provinces, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. Bridget Twar is a member of the executive arm of government as the Commissioner for Women Affairs and Child Development in Taraba State, Nigeria. As User: Goldsztajn correctly pointed out in this AfD discussion, and as other editors pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulu Abdullahi Sifawa, "Commissioners are a constitutionally defined, state-wide office, requiring approval from the State Assembly." She meets WP:NPOL. Shoerack (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Shoeracks arguments. Kaffe42 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2023 (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 EVT Limited. czar 09:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British Empire Films[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. They do appear to have distributed notable movies in Australia though they don't appear to have significant coverage about their film distribution as a company. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Business. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Book searches show a little coverage of BEF, though in relation to the associated Cinesound: example. Perhaps redirecting to Cinesound Productions is an alternative to deletion? AllyD (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure a redirect works or a merge if relevant to Cinesound Productions. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete— I really could not find any sources on it other than maybe this journal. I can't access it, but possbile merge if it states that Cinesound Productions and British Empire Films are connected. Also, I'm not sure if this page copied the Wikipedia article or vice versa. 🧐 Mike Allen 16:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would have thought there would be something for the company, plenty of hits for films about the Empire, nothing for the company. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think there's enough coverage in Trove Newspapers to suggest notability. Looks like it was established in 1932 (first link). A lot of the hits will probably refer to films from the British Empire rather than production company but there are over 6000 hits for "British Empire Films". The most recent hits are from the 1990s which refer to it as defunct. Piecesofuk (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fun find, though most appear to be what often would be considered press releases or just information about on-going business such as a review of a movie they were the distributor for. The Monday 7 January 1952 one does have potential to show a bit a notability. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that 1952 article is about the company or just a film from the British Empire. I think this is a better search for the company in Trove , gives far fewer hits but more likely to be about the company. It might also be worth searching in archive.org as there are hits for it in a number of books on the history of cinema, eg its formation is mentioned in John Sedgwick - Towards A Comparative Economic History Of Cinema, 1930 to 1970 & Studies in Australasian Cinema - Volume 1 Issue 3 which seems to compare it to other distribution companies like Warner Brothers, United Artists and Twentieth Century Fox. According to the BFI here was a production company called British Empire Films that existed in the 1910s but probably nothing to do with the Australian distributor. Piecesofuk (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've noticed that at some point the company changed its name to BEF Film Distributors and has a production credit on Picnic at Hanging Rock (film) (BFI) Piecesofuk (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  and according to History and heartburn : the saga of Australian film, 1896-1978 BEF changed its name to GUO Film Distributors in August 1976 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any information of what name it went under before becoming BEF? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It was formed in 1932 as British Empire Films (source). Not sure when it was renamed to BEF Film Distributors but there's an article in the Times from 1970 that refers to it as "B.E.F. Film Distributors (formerly British Empire Films)" Piecesofuk (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually it seems that there was an earlier incarnation from 1930 called Union Theatres Feature Exchange, see https://caarp.edu.au/company/view/570 "distribution company established by Union Theatres in 1930 as it sought to re-enter film distribution. Previously the distribution arm of the company had been Australasian Films. During the 1920s the distribution business of the company had dwindled as American companies moved to direct distribution and the Australasian/UT combine had centred its activities on building and operating cinemas. With the financial crash of 1929, UT reopened its distribution business as UTFE and specialised in British films. This became the basis for its later name British Empire Films (BEF)" Piecesofuk (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, maybe someone can look into new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per piecesofuk, looks like enough sources in Trove. Deus et lex (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepas per the additional reliable sources identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC) changing to Merge to EVT Limited Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to EVT Limited. It is a confusing story and I'm not even sure I've managed to get it all in order .. but this book about the history of Amalgamated Holdings Limited (AHL) is very helpful and I believe this is a copy which can be viewed online. From what I can see, BEF changed its name to Greater Union (GUO) Film Distributors (page 186) in 1976. This was eventually acquired by Amalgamated Holdings (see page 219). They changed their name to Event Hospitality and Entertainment Limited and its ticker changed from AHD to EVT on the Australian Securities Exchange in 2015. I'm !voting to merge because it makes the most sense to expand the EVT article with a key component of its past. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to EVT Limited As per HighKing, I would support a merge/redirect. Equine-man (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to EVT Limited. There have been significant discoveries (above) since my last comment. Mike Allen 17:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As the opener of the AFD based on the research found during the AFD I think a merge sounds to be a good plan. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2023 (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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of trees of Denmark[edit]

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

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

PROD was removed but I felt the reason still applies, thought to put it up for AfD afterwards "In the category 'Trees by country' this is the only one that is a list article; would be better to delete and tag species as such for a category in line with standards." per Kazamzam --Izzy Moony_{Hi new friend!} 11:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this discussed for deletion exactly? Im new at W:AFD. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Lists, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and create and populate the category Category:Trees of Denmark instead. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a pointless list. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unclear scope. The title would make one think this is about individually notable trees, but its not. I do not see how "List of tree species of Denmark" is useful either, as above better as a cat. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus against deletion, and no consensus to move to draft, where a clear consensus would be necessary, bearing in mind this article's age (more sources have also already been added since the "draftify" votes) so I'm closing this one as keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Excelencia[edit]

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

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

I have been keeping an eye on this page for a few years now following the split of Orquesta SCC (both from the band itself and this article) and not only has it not been improved in that time period, about twice a year an SPA will come in and attempt to remove or rewrite the band's history using only primary sources. I can't find enough to expand or improve the article myself, and as a one-source article I feel that they fail WP:GNG. I am happy to be proven wrong but after four years of hoping someone will succeed where I failed I think it's time to cut our losses. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and New York. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no discussion yet. One last attempt at a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not exactly correct that this is a "one-source article" as the nominator states; besides the NYT article, there is an article in Latin Beat Magazine in the references section but not cited inline, which unfortunately isn't available online. Additionally, my search found this article from Indy Week; given this, I think the band meets GNG. Hatman31 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to draft pending improvement with the addition of other sources sufficient to clear the notability bar. BD2412 T 05:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per above. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hatman31; there's also a review in the Washington Post (ProQuest 757777841) as well as other sources available through ProQuest, Newspapers.com, etc. Draftifying such an old article would likely just be back-door deletion, and I don't think that's necessary since the topic is notable and the article isn't in such poor shape as to trigger WP:TNT. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Extraordinary Writ and Hatman31. I've added the refs to the article, which appear to weakly pass WP:NBAND criteria 1. While the article from NY Times uses some quotes, it has sufficient direct analysis, e.g., information on the band's commercial and critical reception and style, to pass WP:SIGCOV (or "non-triviality" as per NBAND#1). The Washington Post also gives a 275-word review that passes SIGCOV. Indy Week has a decently long article, the piece has some routine information, e.g., Also on Saturday, La Excelencia serves as the official after-party for Community Fiesta Latina at the Brumley Performing Arts Building in Durham Academy’s Lower School regarding some events, but also has a bit of analysis on their unconventional image and originality, so this piece is probably debatably SIGCOV. The University Wire write-up is SIGCOV with numerous quotes but also sufficient direct commentary to be significant coverage, though I'm not sure if it is reputable enough to pass WP:RSSM. Therefore, with two sources counting towards WP:NBAND criteria 1 and two sources being borderline, IMO NBAND is weakly passed. Additionally, given that this is an old article significantly older than 90 days, and that the article now has some sources that do not require significant cleanup or WP:TNT, I don't think drafting is necessary here. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. @BD2412: I've added some references to the article that might address some of your concerns. (Minot sidenote put in brackets: In the text section, there is just one claim now that is uncited. I'm still a bit concerned by La Excelencia#Former Members section which I could not find any WP:RS or sufficient WP:ABOUTSELF. If Extraordinary Writ or Hatman31 can find any refs to support this section ping me. Nevertheless, IMO this is fairly minor and not severe enough to merit a move to draftspace or WP:TNT). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2023 (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!} 08:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 APIA Leichhardt FC season[edit]

2023 APIA Leichhardt FC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined at Draft:2023 APIA Leichhardt FC season but then copied and pasted over to mainspace anyway. There is no presumption of notability for this season as it does not meet WP:NSEASONS. In theory, such a season could pass WP:GNG but, given that the season doesn't start until next month, it would be WP:CRYSTAL to presume that it would be notable at this moment. Looking in news articles, I can see some passing mentions of APIA Leichhardt but nothing to substantiate a stand-alone article. If anything newsworthy happens in this coming season, it should be written in the APIA Leichhardt FC article. I see no reason for a separate article for the season. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:56, 8 January 2023 (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!} 08:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Khoury[edit]

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

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

Declined 3 times in draft space then moved over to mainspace with no improvement. Subject is a semi-pro footballer with no significant coverage cited. The 2nd reference is archived here but only mentions the subject twice and it's only a basic match report. Only other sources that I can find in my WP:BEFORE search are database sites like Soccer Punter. Footballers need to meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG and Khoury demonstrates neither as he only has database coverage and trivial mentions. He wouldn't have met the old notability standards based on professional play either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, semi-pro/youth playeyer lacking significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond roster lists, no sourcing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:55, 8 January 2023 (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. Withdrew my nomination. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larry L. Meyer[edit]

Larry L. Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable author. Does not meet GNG. Reading Beans (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, and United States of America. Reading Beans (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - his author bio on his website suggests he's potentially notable (professor of journalism, longtime magazine writer) but that the sources are likely to have been published a long time ago. This article could be a good target to fix up if someone has time to do the research. Blythwood (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Keep, I think he's going to pass WP:Author.
  • Reviews of Shadow of a Continent in Louisiana History[19], The Pacific Historian(journal pg 231, file pg. 124)[20], Journal of the West[21], capsule review in Arizona and the West (journal pg 198)[22].
  • Related to No Paltry Thing: Memoirs of a Geezer Dad, a Publishers Weekly review[23], Kirkus review[24], a Daily Pilot profile[25].
  • Review of the co-authored Rancho Los Alamitos: Ever Changing, Always the Same in History Teacher[26], Pacific Historical Review[27]
  • Review of My Summer with Molly in Library Journal[28].

Updated. Jahaza (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I added the reviews above to the article, and a few more besides. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per the reviews Jahaza found for Rancho Los Alamitos and Shadow of a Continent (also thanks David Eppstein for the improvements to the article) which seem to weakly pass WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3. VickKiang (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Withdrawn per the citations added by Epstein. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2023 (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. Per discussion at WP:DRV (here), the original close was overturned to delete. As noted by some editors, the AfD had already been relisted twice, and the keep !votes where either by sockpuppets or were rebutted by those chossing to delete, which had stronger arguments. The fact we are dealing with a BLP pushed some editors towards the more conservative route of deletion. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Mehmet Gul[edit]

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

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

No significant coverage from independent reliable sources found. Fails WP:BIO. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United Arab Emirates. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of RIS. Mccapra (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The majority of the references are from dependable sources, hence they satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Sooterout (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sooterout: What part of WP:ANYBIO? I don't see how the fact that majority of sources are dependable make him satisfy any of the three criteria for ANYBIO. Even if they are reliable, I am uncertain if all are independent, and they don't have significant coverage on the person. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak KeepDelete Most of the coverage is actually coverage of the hospital he runs. But he made a Forbes list of 50 leaders transforming healthcare. BruceThomson (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @BruceThomson: that forbes list is from forbesmiddleeast.com, and not Forbes itself. Anyone can nominate themselves on Forbes Middle East,[29] so this is different to Forbes. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. BruceThomson (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would have vote for delete but While making futher research I found this [30] BruceThomson Is not anybody that apply that actually get selected on Forbes middle east kindly see [31][32] According to Forbes, the CEOs were ranked based on five criteria, including impact on the region, experience, size of company, achievements and innovations.And Forbes middle east is not fake but a local edition of regions see Forbes it listed among the 45 local edition.Princek2019 (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that WP:FORBES does seem to indicate that such lists are managed by Forbes staff, and are not suspect like some Forbes articles by outside contributors. On the other hand, the coverage provided by the list itself is quite short. Being on this list is not enough to qualify for WP:ANYBIO. And there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of the subject to support general notability. BruceThomson (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google hit shows multiple reliable source from different independent reliable sources which clearly illustrates that the article has pass WP:ANYBIO. Puvasoca (talk) 6:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Puvasoca: Could you please list the sources that you found? Having results at Google doesn't establish notability, and I fail to see how that is related to WP:ANYBIO.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:46, 13 January 2023 (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. While the participants are evenly divided, I'm more persuaded by the opinions and experience of those advocating Delete while almost all of those editors suggesting we keep this article are inexperienced, have low edit counts and don't seem to understand SIGCOV. The article creator has a version of this piece in their sandbox but if they would like to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. But be aware that a swift move back to main space will result in a second article deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Kemmer[edit]

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

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

Appears promotional for a non-notable businessman, nothing found in Gnews or other sources. Google only returns his personal website and various social media accounts. Discussed technology in various sources, nothing talking about him as a person. Also created by a SPA with no edits outside of this article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Spaceflight. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just searched Gnews and lot of articles are coming up. Including articles recently in the last few weeks. Check it out: https://news.google.com/search?q=%22aaron%20kemmer%22&hl=en-PH&gl=PH&ceid=PH%3Aen. Maybe some of the recent news articles should be included on the page? Not sure why it would be deleted...

Also, I just did a check, I also don't see any social media links or links to personal websites, or promoting anything really. Can you point to where those are?

I think we could clean this up though and update it more.Mollymiller (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Mollymiller (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I’m kind of confused on the reasoning for deletion… did you get a chance to check the reference links?

Just researched this more and it looks like Aaron's accomplishments meet WP:CORP criteria and fits the guidelines of WP:NBUSINESSPERSON and related rules on companies.

https://getmagic.com/blog/the-present-and-future-of-work-magic-on-at-your-doorstep/

https://www.madeinspace.com/

This also meets WP:BIO for being recognized to lead the first program with NASA for the first manufacturing device used in space.

https://www.issnationallab.org/implementation-partners/made-in-space/

https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/22/made-in-space-is-sending-the-first-ceramic-manufacturing-facility-in-space-to-the-iss-next-week/

He also created several companies like Magic, which a quick WP:GTEST shows several pieces on.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Magic+inc&rlz=1C1UEAD_enPH994PH994&oq=Magic+inc&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i433i512j46i131i433i512j69i65j69i60l2j69i65j69i61.3610j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=Lab+At+Home&rlz=1C1UEAD_enPH994PH994&ei=vVOkY6vmBMPR-Qa4j6iYDQ&ved=0ahUKEwjruP_1oo38AhXDaN4KHbgHCtMQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Lab+At+Home&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQR0oECEEYAEoECEYYAFDgCljlDGDmDmgAcAJ4AIABAIgBAJIBAJgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Last month it looks like Aaron judged the Miss Earth international beauty pageant, hitting WP:LASTING criteria as the pageant is a long-running and reputable organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Earth_2022

https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2022/11/30/2227522/korea-wins-miss-earth-2022-philippines-top-20

I actually found some stuff that’s not there and maybe should be included on the page- It looks like there's a new article about Aaron producing an AI film out (I just found that was written today. I don’t know much about the topic so I don’t feel comfortable adding it myself), but it seems to hit WP:ANYBIO requirement:

https://news.abs-cbn.com/life/12/22/22/watch-this-short-film-was-directed-and-written-by-ai

https://entertainment.inquirer.net/477117/the-safe-zone-the-first-film-written-and-directed-by-artificial-intelligence

Also, it looks like he went to University of Florida and was listed as one of The 20 Most Notable University of Florida Alumni in Business which meets WP:GNG guidelines.

https://moneyinc.com/most-notable-university-of-florida-alumni-in-business/

I suggest editing the article to keep it updated rather than deleting. Maybe we clean it up instead?

Here are some other references I found on some quick Google searches:

https://news.google.com/search?q=%22aaron+kemmer%22

https://push.abs-cbn.com/2022/12/21/fresh-scoops/richard-juan-produces-short-film-directed-by-ai-10-204507

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/01/05/30-under-30-reinventing-manufacturing-in-a-greener-tech-savvier-world/

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/first-3-d-printer-space-makes-its-first-object-spare-n255516

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/nasa-prepares-launch-3d-printer-space

https://www.universetoday.com/112548/3-d-printer-to-fly-to-space-in-august-sooner-than-planned/

~~~~ Mollymiller (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some/most of those aren't about him, but about stuff he's been involved with. There are no stories about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete per the sheer stretch needed to wring notability from these sparse mentions. BD2412 T 21:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep I am very inclined to believe that the person in question is notable largely due to the fact that the person is mentioned so often. Granted that yes, I would want to see more depth in terms of mentions, but I would imagine the person would have to be notable given the available sources and that it's not unusual to write an article through piecing together information from various sources. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everything I can find is about the technology, not the person, and in some of the sources here he isn't mentioned. There is an article for Made In Space which I think is sufficient for the topic. Lamona (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm checking the links and finding specific pieces with Aaron, such as the first thing that popped up my news feed:

https://www.cnnphilippines.com/videos/2022/12/26/Richard-Juan-and-Aaron-Kemmer---The-Source.html

https://moneyinc.com/most-notable-university-of-florida-alumni-in-business/

It seems people are just focused on the Made In Space part, which is understandable since a lot of the older links focus on that, but I'm finding stuff focused on Aaron when I do quick searching around. Prizms08 (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)— Prizms08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One of those is a single paragraph, the other is an interview. Interviews are not third-party sources. The former does not provide enough biographical information for an article. Lamona (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just as an aside, I'm not stating this as a potential discussion closer, but being a beauty pageant judge does not help establish anyone's notability. I think it actually might cause readers to take this biography less seriously. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think being a beauty pageant judge is just one of the factors that leans towards notability. The pageant industry has a very large fan base and has been part of so many countries culture for centuries. In fact, there are 54 WP pages in the International beauty pageants category alone. Mollymiller (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - In agreement to Sky Harbor. The subject's involvement in various projects and organizations that continuously makes an impact in technology, entrepreneurship and his recent involvement in the field of arts/cinema should weigh greatly in keeping a separate article for him.

Also, WP:WHYCITE enables users to verify information on WP through citations and references. On that note, I would rather acknowledge someone being mentioned in more than 10 references from different sources than just one dedicated reference with nothing to cross reference it with. Technically, Aaron Kemmer meets both.

Improve the article - Yes, Delete - No! Gillianreyesv (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)— Gillianreyesv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello, Gillianreyesv,

This is your first and only edit. How did you find your way to this AFD discussion? Do you edit with any other accounts? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coverage is very weak in the form of either interviews or passing mentions, and is always in the context of the companies he co-founded, whereas the notability is not WP:INHERITED. I did some cleanup on the article that was promotional with obvious WP:COI issues. Seeing multiple users that are voting in this AfD but have little no editing experiences is also very suspicious and something that should be noted during the closure. In fact, Mollymiller/Prizms08/Gillianreyesv all started their vote in a same way (Keep: with blank spacing). I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2023 (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 The Twelve (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Wonder (Timely Comics)[edit]

Captain Wonder (Timely Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Minor comic book character that seems to fail WP:GNG. BEFORE didn't reveal anything substantial, just a few mentions in passing, the article is a pure plot summary+publication history, with no reception or analysis. The best WP:ATD I can think of is redirecting this to The Twelve (comics). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Twelve (comics) comics as an WP:ATD

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:ATD. Does not seem to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2023 (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!} 03:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavik Mehta[edit]

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

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

self promotional writing. Written about the topic by a user who identified his business. Appears not to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Self-advertising. Written by himself under his company name. Most of the sources provided are about the company, not the subject. His claims are that he teaches students, he founded a company, and he once was invited to a conference. -- Alexf^(talk) 03:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nomination, and Alex leave nothing to added further. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2023 (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 AFD discussion is placed out of sync on the daily log page so this closure might be a bit early but I think the consensus is still clear and there is no editor advocating Keeping this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Nosta[edit]

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

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

This individual lacks notoriety

The current article is merely promotional

Prior final recommendation was speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopod52792 (talk • contribs)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is full of WP:Puffery and I am shocked dindn't hit G7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I understand it from the log at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=John+Nosta the page was deleted in 2015 but was then reinstated in 2016 by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SwisterTwister, subsequently blocked as a Sockpuppet. Hmee2 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a SpeedyG5, thanksAsk me about air Cryogenic air (talk) Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a recreation of previously G7'd article. No indication that it passes WP:GNG. Graywalls (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2023 (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 List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: Philip Hinchcliffe Presents[edit]

Doctor Who: Philip Hinchcliffe Presents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only things I found in my WP:BEFORE search were brief mentions, promotional material, and fan sites that fail WP:RS. As an alternative to deletion I think this article should be redirected to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish transcludes this article - so deletion as suggested would require migration of the table to that article. Other than that I abstain from voting. Dresken (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish - I found no evidence that the subject is independently notable. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish, unnecessary duplication. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2023 (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 to delete amid suspicions that this is a hoax article that keeps being recreated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Mohammadi[edit]

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

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

Article was previously deleted in 2013 and recreated, another deletion nomination in 2015 led to "no result" but when I check the sources everything about looks fake to me, he never won anything in Junior/Youth level. United World Wrestling has a nice database and there is nobody with this name. I checked World and Asian tournaments in 1999 and nobody with this name (or similar to this) won a medal. based on the page he won a "Youth" medal at the age of 19, that's not possible! in this sport Youth means Under 17. and Lyon (France) didn't host any wrestling tournament in 1999. he only won a Pahlevani title which is not notable. there is almost no coverage about him in English sources. Sports2021 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources for this person found, based on the discussion above, appears to be a hoax. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to not be a real human. Possibly an algometric error?

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2023 (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!} 03:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American International University - Kuwait (AIU)[edit]

American International University - Kuwait (AIU) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Creator is move warring, so we're here. Likely UPE and copypasta, definitely COI editing with no independent sourcing. If deleted, suggest SALT to enforce Afc until a proper article can be created. Star Mississippi 01:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Middle East, and Kuwait. Star Mississippi 01:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And indef the author for UPE. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and indef their sock, Wikicgk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm taking this to SPI now. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment creator and friends sock blocked, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juhrisel. Master wasn't blocked, so this isn't a G5. But hopefully the disruption will cease. Star Mississippi 22:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Not a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia. MER-C 04:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus here is clearly to Keep this article while the sourcing in this article could definitely be improved. The nominator should perhaps consider moving to other subject areas when suggesting articles that should be deleted as their assessments of academics are not shared by other participants in these discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Keysuk Kim[edit]

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

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The only references cited are academic user profiles and listings of self-published scholarly articles in scientific databases. Both the university profile and the database listings could actually be posted by the subject, so they are not independent sources. Furthermore, the citation count, which may indicate some importance, is merely a vanity metric and cannot be used alone to establish anything. The page is virtually self-promotional until reliable, independent sources are added. Multi7001 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NACADEMIC-5, as he holds a named chair. His work is not self published, and is highly cited. --Mvqr (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Citation count is a vanity metric and not a reliable measure of notability. It is similar to social media shares. Some of the citations can very well be friends, students, colleagues, or other affiliates who cite the work in their own material. As to your mention of the subject holding a chair position at an organization, it isn't mentioned in the article or the sources. Overall, the page reads more like a resume or portfolio than an encyclopedia page. Multi7001 (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Citations are not a vanity metric. As for the named chair, here's a citation for you: Journal of Business Research: "Stephen K. Kim is the Raisbeck Endowed Professor of Marketing at Iowa State University’s Ivy College of Business." --Mvqr (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article cited about being named chair is authored by the subject. And I don't believe that becoming chair of an organization establishes notability for inclusion, as notability is not inherited. Typical pages I've encountered on similar subjects usually have awards, honors, in-depth coverage of the subject in an academic journal editorial piece, mentions in books, and news media stories. This page just seems like an indiscriminate collection of information and self-promotion. Multi7001 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And again you call this "self-promotion". Substantiate your accusation or withdraw. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm sorry, but citations are vastly different from social media shares. Throughout academia they are considered evidence of impact. NACADEMIC gives clear instructions on how to interpret citation counts and how they may satisfy the very first criterion. Reference 2 clearly states that Kim holds a named chair. I hope you won't now argue that the university is not a reliable source for this. And you still have not addressed your accusation that this is "self promotional". --Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Holds a named chair (meets WP:NACADEMIC#5), highly cited (meets WP:NACADEMIC-#1). Several of his publications have citations running into the hundreds, that can't all be self-citations. (And if you know ow to interpret them, citation counts are certainly not a "vanity metric"). And, Multi7001, what makes you think that this stub is "self-promotional"?? Are you suggesting that Vycl1994 is Dr. Kim?? Please provide evidence for that accusation or withdraw it. --Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: The page reads like a resume and not encyclopedic. Tag added. Multi7001 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If you think this stub looks like a resume, you obviously have never seen a resume... Tag removed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please do not remove the tag until the page has been improved. Multi7001 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't put frivolous tags, that is considered disruptive. Please also see WP:BOLD and WP:BATTLE. --Randykitty (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There must be independent source(s) added, or the page should be revised because it looks promotional. The only references cited are a resume/CV and a user-generated directory by the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is clearly a renowned scholar in his field of research, and some of his works are highly cited. Scholars are not celebrities with various news coverage, and he comes from a non-English speaking country. Perhaps someone who knows Korean can contribute some Korean language sources?--Sima Sam (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The purpose of this proposed deletion discussion is not to downplay the subject's presumed notability. But rather to debate whether it is encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion in the article space. If refraining from adding independent sources and relying only on user-generated sources that the subject created is the norm for pages involving scholars, then there should be no problem with keeping the page. However, the page will look promotional. Multi7001 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have gone through the article with a fine-toothed comb. It is not promotional any more (if ever it was). There are 3 reliable sources, one of them independent of the subject. It would be nice if somebody could find some more sources so that the article could be expanded, but as it stands it meets criteria 1 and 5 of NACADEMIC. I would remind Multi7001 yet again that they still have not retracted their personal attack about this article being "self-promotional". I see no evidence that the article creator is the article subject. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Per WP:Notability: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." In my opinion, this should apply to all articles, including those of scholars. Otherwise, it will look like an indiscriminate collection of information. My intentions are in good faith and solely to encourage discussion and improve the encyclopedia. Multi7001 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep as he clears weakly NPROF, after being in the field almost 25 years these citation numbers are decent but not terribly impressive. Still there are 11 articles with 100+ citations which should clear the bar for NPROF. --hroest 03:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Named chair and some publications with over 100 citations each seems like a pass of WP:NPROF to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC) P.S. Citation count is very much not just "a vanity metric". -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: To be specific, citation counts are vanity metrics when they are inadequate and involve the counting of non-peer-reviewed work. In the case of the subject, the count is modest at best. In my opinion, there should be more than just a modest citation count. There should also be awards and honors, as well as mentions in editorial scholarly publications, books, or mass media outlets, independent of the subject. Otherwise, it would be an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You might want to be careful to not give the impression of WP:BLUDGEON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: As previously stated, my intentions are in good faith. The purpose of this proposed deletion discussion is not to downplay or undermine the significance of the article's subject. Rather, it is to encourage discussion and improve the encyclopedia. I am neither against nor supportive of the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]