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 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.
Unable to find any sources providing WP:SIGCOV about this team to meet the WP:GNG, which has been tagged as unsourced since 2015. From what I can tell, the team isn't ranked by the WBSC as seen at [[1]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions on this from experienced editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:31, 3 August 2024 (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.
Delete - I did my own search, and found nothing that looks reliable or about him (as opposed to more coding jobs In Nigeria). Bearian (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2024 (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.
Non-notable Democratic Party official. He received some in-depth news coverage when he was first elected county party chair, but ever since then, pretty much all coverage is passing mentions. It doesn't seem that Texas media considers him an especially notable figure. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The initial mistake combined with divided opinions among the other participants unsurprisingly produced no consensus after multiple relists. RL0919 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question does not meet the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) cited by 3rd party sources other than websites that repeat his bio as an official founder of Samuel Adams beer (2) known for originating a new concept [see point #1] (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) He is not cited as by peers and 3rd party sources for the work that is well-known or significant. The article was written by a blocked user and could primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk)
Hi Folks, My apologies, I actually meant to nominate Harry Rubin (virologist) Late night editing got the best of me. Upon a 2nd look at this article in particular, I found new reputable secondary sources to that show indeed this Harry Rubin was indeed a Samuel Adams co-founder. I'm closing going to close this deletion nomination in favor of doing some work to improve the article itself. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe delete both of them.
Being a minor, behind-the-scenes partner of a business does not make someone notable.
In the spirit of WP:GD I'm going to suggest that we pursue a constructive alternative such as improving or cleaning up the article. Two main reasons (1) Being one of the Samuel Adams founders both within the beverage field and just generally is definitely a major contribution. It looks he was not the frontman, but, indeed, he's been recognized by multiple secondary sources as being a founder and his involvement in various beverage investments is notable enough to be topic of headlines. As you probably know, media outlets have full control over headlines, which means that these media outlets viewed his involvement as "the story". On a more basic level, Samuel Adams is also billion dollar major conglomerate, it's widely recognized, and is part of the American social milieu (2) I digged into other secondary sources and there's quite a few other significant achievements such as being one of the people who started GT Interactive, which launched DOOM (a major video game) (3) This nomination was a careless mistake on my part so it's kind of a fluke nomination. My apologies again to all for that bonehead error and for wasting folks time reviewing this!
re: Harry Rubin (virologist) Even though I intended to nominate it, I also now lean towards keeping it. Mostly because his achievements within his specific domain are quite significant.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors as the nominator states they didn't mean to nominate this article (so a withdrawal of sorts) but an editor is arguing for deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an investor in the IPO of Boston Beer Company in December of 1995, I recall that in the final offering prospectus filed with the SEC, Harry M. Rubin was listed as one of the largest owners of the company. Hence, he had to be one of the significant original partners and not a minor behind-the-scenes partner as queried in the 21 July comment above. I did not retain the SEC offering prospectus, but it can be requested from the SEC from their archives. Pete S Williams (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2024 (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.
Keep the NY Times and SF Chronicle are good sources; I found this [2], from the Evening Standard (which is sort-of RS), so we should have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2024 (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.
Comment I can't evaluate the source reliability due to the language barrier but the idea that it is unsourced is false, there are two sources here and at least one of them appears to be from a news organization... though India has a problem with paid news organizations so that could be an issue, I am unsure. The other is a forum post. Two of the external links also appear to be news sources that I cannot evaluate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Parappurath#Novels. 2 sources on the page, one is an unreliable forum thread and the other is a news site Mathrubhumi. Fails notability because the book has not been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. RangersRus (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2024 (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 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.
This article has been around for 15 years and has not included reliable secondary sources showing notability (and I am unable to find any). Not to mention it's written in a promotional tone. I tried to remove the non-neutral wording but it does not leave much to indicate significance. ...discospinstertalk17:56, 3 August 2024 (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.
Keep. The article as nominated already had enough in-depth sources about his books (four about one and three about the other) for WP:AUTHOR. Citation counts are often not meaningful for academics in book-publishing fields. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2024 (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.
Delete: This is an obscure character in the Book of Mormon, and thus it is unlikely for there to be significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Left guide (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A religious figure who is only mentioned in one book agreed to as canonical by one denomination fails WP:SIGCOV. Compare this with a figure who is the subject of academic research based on scriptures agreed upon as canonical or worthy of study. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2024 (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 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.
This seems wrong to me. First Bbb23 removed all text from the article, then nominated it for deletion. See the version of 04:45, May 3, 2023 by GoodDay for what it looked like before all content was removed. It seems to me that Mr Brandegee was a minor painter but he did exhibit at notable venues (the Society of American Artists, the Exposition Universelle (1889), the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, the National Academy of Design, and elsewhere). As these were juried shows, he seems to meet at least notability citerion 4(b) "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". with best wishes Daderot (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added inline citiations, connected to Category:Robert Bolling Brandegee. Work in the National Gallery of Art. This can be expanded, but I think I have brought it up to notable. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations added by WomenArtistUpdates to National Academy of Design and National Gallery of Art show this meets WP:ARTIST guideline of "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Elspea756 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This edit needs a strong trout; just because the article has general references rather than footnotes does not mean it is unsourced, and it certainly does not necessitate axing the whole article down to one sentence. Rather, the nominator should have simply turned the general references into footnotes (considering this is a quite short article, it wouldn't have taken more than a few minutes). Notability clearly demonstrated through WP:NARTIST#4d. Curbon7 (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2024 (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.
Lack of notability. Note that the first cited source, which is the only one of any seeming solidity, is about the father of the article subject. TheLongTone (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's usual to redirect non-notable individual peers to the articles on their peerages, but the title as it stands is incorrect: it should be David Baden-Powell, 5th Baron Baden-Powell. The present title is an implausible search term. Ingratis (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2024 (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.
Delete: Minor acting roles; some interviews and stories about her beating cancer found in Gnews, but not really helping notability (most are about a "local person that beat cancer and helps others"). Her philanthropy is fine, but not that much different than any one else really. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (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 SAF was a splinter of the SAC which existed for 10 years, between 1928 and 1938, before merging back into the SAC. As far as I can tell from sources, it didn't do much other than criticise the SAC for certain tendencies it disliked. It has very little significant coverage in reliable sources. The cited SelfEd chapter (not what I would call a reliable source) gives it two paragraphs of attention.[8]Gabriel Kuhn's history of the SAC only devotes it a single paragraph.[9] This is the extent of coverage I have found in sources; no more. In both cases, it is only mentioned in the wider context of the SAC, not as an independently notable organisation.
As this article is unlikely to grow much larger than the stub it has existed as since 2008, I don't think this organisation is notable enough to merit its own article. If it needs to be discussed, we could very well give it a mention in the main article about the SAC. Grnrchst (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Soman has just rewritten the article using a source I hadn't found, removing the previously-cited SelfEd source. Lennart Persson wrote 4 paragraphs about the SAF, which are more or less what you can see paraphrased in the article now. While I appreciate the attempt to rectify this, I'm still left thinking that this organisation isn't independently notable of the SAC and information about it could easily be merged into that article (albeit in summary style). --Grnrchst (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is expanded and sourcing improved now. From what I gather SAF was a notable phenomenon at its time, a militant union movement with thousands of members, with 50 local federations and a weekly newspaper. Eventually the organization was unsuccessful, but during its existence was notable. I'm looking at kb.se for newspaper clippings, which I can't access due to copyright, but the snippets are interesting. See [10], talking about a revolutionary strike called by SAF and the entire factory staff arrested. There are a number of other articles on the SAF in same newspaper (constituting in-depth coverage) seemingly on the same strike and the following court case. [11]Dagens Nyheter and [12]Aftonbladet followed the case. If we had full access to contemporary press archives, the article could be expanded and improved significantly. --Soman (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Soman has done a lot to improve the article, using sources I hadn't found, which I think sufficiently prove the organisation's notability. Previously all I could find on the SAF was largely about their ideology and a bit about their internal structures; that they organised a strike is, I think, proof they pass the minimum standard of notability for a trade union. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2024 (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 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.
Fails WP:GNG. This is a complementary list to an article that was redirected in 2018 for having no sources. Looking at the article, it consisted of original research and synthesis, and should probably have been deleted rather than redirected to Ariosophy, which it says constitutes one part of its subject.
There is no useful definition of what to include in the glossary; it says the list "should also not include terms not specific to German mysticism", but most of the entries are about runes or from medieval and early modern Icelandic culture. If we remove those entries, what we are left with are two entries from Ariosophy (Armanen runes and Armanen), one from a 1990s novel (Black Sun), one from 19th-century vitalism (Odic force), one from Nazi esotericism (Esoteric insignia of the Schutzstaffel), an academic field (Runology) and an outdated philological theory (Uthark theory). Rather than a defined subject, it comes off as a list of someone's personal interests at a particular point in time. Ffranc (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2024 (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 article has numerable issues, it relies on questionable sources, and as well as contains original research. But most of all, it seems to be a WP:POVFORK of Human rights abuses in Balochistan. It doesn’t have a really good verifiability argument. Any content that is reliable should be moved to the Human rights abuse page, as this page is better established and has more to say. This page just seems extremely unnecessary. VirtualVagabond (talk) 05:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a single source refers to a "genocide" and barely any scholarly sources, usually news sites being used for making exceptional claims and commentaries which would need further review. WP:TNT applies. Would also support merging anything reliable to the Humans rights abuses in Balochistan page, which this article is a content fork of for which the reliability of content is to be first established per consensus. Axedd (talk)
Keep: The topic is worth keeping as it does appear in academic literature, the article does need an overhaul, and as some commenters here know (due to their active work in the article), we have already improved it from it's poor initial state. As some examples of of the literature, from a quick search:
Sarwar, Azam (2024). "Living ghosts and the Laapata: the episode of genocide continuum in Pakistani art". Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies. 38 (2).
Nawaz, Maryam; Akhtar, Shahzad; Asghar, Muhammad Faizan (2023). "Drivers of Ethnic Terrorism: Case of Baloch Nationalist Movement (BNM)". Global Social Sciences Review. 8 (1).
Patel, Pinal; Sharma, Saurabh (2022). "Enforced Disappearances: A Major Human Rights Issue in Balochistan". Journal of Social and Political Sciences. 5 (4).
Muzaffar, Muhammad; Karamat, Sidra; Saeed, Khalid (June 2018). "Balochistan Insurgency: Causes and Prospects". Orient Research Journal of Social Sciences. 3 (1).
Dashti, Naseer (2017). The Baloch Conflict with Iran and Pakistan: Aspects of a National Liberation Struggle. Black Lacquer Press. ISBN978-1-948288-10-1.
Prakash, Aarushi (2013). "Peace or War Journalism: Case Study of the Balochistan Conflict in Pakistan". Strategic Analysis. 37 (5).
Dashti, Naseer (2012). The Baloch and Balochistan: A historical account from the Beginning to the fall of the Baloch State. Trafford Publishing. ISBN978-1-4669-5897-5.
Wirsing, Robert G. (April 2008). Baloch Nationalism and the Geopolitics of Energy Resources: The Changing Context of Separatism in Pakistan. Strategic Studies Institute.
Bansal, Alok (January–March 2006). "Balochistan: Continuing Violence and Its Implications". Strategic Analysis. 30 (1).
Grodsky, Brian (2012). "When two ambiguities collide: the use of genocide in self-determination drives". Journal of Genocide Research. 14 (1). - also details the Balochi Provincial Assembly's accusation against the Pakistani central government in 2006 of genocide against the Baloch people in 2006.
In previous example sources they discuss the claim of genocide, or state the reporting of a genocide against the Baloch people. And again, these examples are from a very short cursory search. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful. If an article is merged, it is usually changed to a Redirect, not Deleted. I'm not sure where you got that idea, VirtualVagabond. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked some of Cdjp1's sources and they only had passing mention of genocide, often just passing mention quoting partisan op-eds and the like. As far as I can tell Ethno-political Conflict in Pakistan: The Baloch Movement. doesn't mention the topic at all. There was nothing that could support a stand-alone article about "genocide" or debate over a possible genocide. (t · c) buidhe00:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cdjp1: can you respond to this? If you still think there is WP:SIGCOV, please provide the top two sources and indicate the number of sentences they devote to the genocide discussion.VR(Please ping on reply)15:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I looked at Grodsky 2012 and Mullick 2015 (arbitrarily chosen), neither contained SIGCOV. From the article itself, I looked at Siddiqui's South Asian Press article and the World Without Genocide post. A redirect to Human rights abuses in Balochistan seems appropriate, as discussed above. Suriname0 (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2024 (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 Fake news in India#Modes of distribution. While there was strong early numerical support for 'keep', I find hinnk's contribution persuasive, as did most people who contributed in the second half of the debate. Early statements attesting that this passed GNG were therefore considered refuted, and without them (and disregarding a couple of low-quality contributions), there is sufficient consensus to redirect. In terms of merging the content, this can be done at editorial discretion (the content is preserved behind the redirect). Daniel (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NEO. The topic is better covered in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution, and the term is not separately notable. Many of the sources here just contain uses of the term but actually cover the topic (and not the term). Maybe merge a brief mention of the definition in the NDTV article. hinnk (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the references added, keeping my !vote as is. These links [13][14][15][16] were added to support discussion of a Kerala High Court case. None of these mention the case at all, and none discuss WhatsApp University beyond using the phrase in a headline (two are political cartoons). The statement that "The phrase has…been a subject of stand-up comics" is referenced to a short review of a single comedian, where the topic is recapped very briefly. To Grabup's question below, the existing coverage isn't significant, and we're seeing how trying to present it as such means misleading readers. hinnk (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources are cited to establish the subject's notability. In my opinion, if there can be a standalone article with sufficient coverage, what is the reason to redirect? GrabUp - Talk03:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Sufficient sources have been added to make a reasonable case for inclusion. I am somewhat dubious that this will develop into a full article, so a merge could make more sense down the road. We can cross that bridge when we get there.--Mojo Hand(talk)14:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For now, however, should be reviosited and if still not fleshed out, should be Redirect as that would be the best move if there is still not much thereCassierREDDDD (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a very common topic in India so it is notable. Perhaps a disambiguation page pointing later to the real Whatsapp University. Sectioneer (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Can we have a clearer discussion of the sources and whether they contain significant coverage of the topic? A source table would be helpful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a stab at a source table. The strongest candidates appear to be a short article in the Navbharat Times, an opinion piece in The Hindu, and an in-depth blog post of questionable reliability. That last one is really a stretch, and I think we'd be hard-pressed to hit WP:3REFS. Even more so to get something large enough that it'd merit being split off from Fake news in India. hinnk (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Whatsapp University is a real University of India, They even have a Linkedin page
Note, also, I just rolled back an addition about the actual "Whatsapp University" as it is patent nonsense with 4 followers on linkedin, and does not add to actual article notability being debated. Shotgunheist💬05:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EXPLAIN: On behalf the Whatsapp University I would like this listing for Whatsapp University to be remove ASAP. The Whatsapp University and Whatsapp College is well known brand names of Brahma University since at least 2016. Associating with BJP party and disinformation and misinformation by Wikipedia is causing a great confusion and commotion in minds of the students. Hope you understand and remove this listing in your online directory immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShymalWhatsappUniversity (talk • contribs) 09:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested or Keep as atd. This smells very dictdef to me (unlikely to be expanded). It's clear the quote has caused a fair reverberation, but I concur with those who'd like to see these sources presented in proper context. BusterD (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion an actual institution exists is farcical (and apparently based on our Wikipedia coverage). There are ZERO reliable sources which support the assertion this is an actual place of learning sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in an online encyclopedia. The source analysis above by User:hinnk seems to indicate the subject is of only marginal notability. BusterD (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2024 (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.
Delete - sources in the article mostly don't even mention the Order, and there doesn't appear to be even a single additional source available to help get it over the line. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there appears to not be a single source containing in-depth coverage of this, so far from WP:GNG. (Question by the way: Is there a specific notability guidelines for things like this? I haven't found one but they don't always have the names you would expect). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:11, 3 August 2024 (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.
Very little in-depth coverage, 3/5 of which comes from EssentiallySports, plus a college newspaper and The Poke. ꧁Zanahary꧂04:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 1 in the article is a mid-level reliable source (yellow per Highlighter), the rest don't impress me as being much better. The coverage isn't there, not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically why I tagged the article for notability in the first place. Unreliable/questionable sources, barely any proof of notability. If being popular is enough for notability, should we make articles on every popular TikTok? (Hint, obviously not.) Spinixster(trout me!)09:43, 5 August 2024 (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 subject fails the criteria for WP:SINGER. Subject also has no music chart history, notable awards, and notable featured articles. It might as well be delete for its lack of notability and significant coverage. Sackkid (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much of any kind of coverage found; [17] is just confirmation of a performance. What's used in the article isn't helpful (a profile on Billboard and an iTunes listing). Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The closest I found to an independent source was this: Soultracks, and I'm not sure how independent it really is. Everything else was streaming of her music. I don't know if there are reliable sources for soul music that aren't showing up. I will cycle back to see if anyone finds some. Lamona (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2024 (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 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 only coverage that I can find are announcements about the company from Dayton, Ohio sources which fails WP:CORP, including WP:AUD. A company that performs there is at AfD as well - Human Race Theatre Company. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2024 (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.