Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< December 28	December 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 23:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lex Barberio

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

Promotion. From one of the sources: "Promoting something is the most effective when you have multiple points of contact. For this exhibition | created promotional videos for each model that tease exhibition, and the longer, more in depth stories of the models. I'm also fortunate enough to be working with Guild Magazine on this article to further announce and invite people to experience this exhibition". Vexations (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Nothing in the article to indicate notability. The references aren't enough to show significant coverage. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The artist fails WP:NARTIST. The article is an egregiously promotional article with way too much primary sourcing. Looking at the history, it was created for a class and was presumably vetted by the professor and Ian (Wiki Ed). It never should have made it to the main space. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO. Subject of the article does not meet criteria for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NARTIST Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SudShare

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

Accepted it only to propose it to AFD after discussing it with the creator. There are some grounds for notability but I have been on the fence. Hence, bringing it here for community to decide. My discussion with creator is here [1]. There is some more legacy discussion at deletion review that is worth looking at [2]. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The writing here is pretty strong, despite the paid contributions template it is generally encyclopedic. The citations from a diversity of news sources suggest notability. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Caleb Stanford with regards to why the paid contributions template is there, the article previously did have legitimate WP:PROMO issues, though I believe those have since been resolved. In the article talk page, I was told that the template would be removed once brought to mainspace, though clearly that hasn't happened yet. It may be because of the ongoing AFD nomination, but as this is my first AFD, I'm not sure if that's standard or not. Hope that helps to clarify :) Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm very much biased here, being both the author of the article as well as having a declared conflict of interest (I was a paid employee of SudShare at the time, and though I have since parted ways, I still personally know a number of people involved), but I would like to voice, for the record, my opinion that this article should be kept. I've participated in an in-depth discussion about this previously (as linked in the nomination above), but very briefly, the citations should meet notability criteria, what was previously flagged as being WP:PROMO has been removed, and I'm personally of a generally inclusionist ethos when dealing with edge cases (though I'm not sure this even is much of an edge case), leading to an overall strong keep from me.

Use this opinion as you will, acknowledging that it should be read as less of a vote, but more of a statement of my general position for reference purposes. Yitzilitt (paid) (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Abundant RS here discussing this Company, which also is of note for establishing a novel new business in a large number of cities in the US. Easy decision to make it a keep. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yulisa Ahmadu

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

Paid promotion. Two main sources, [3] and [4] have more in common than their title; they're the same article, but only one has a disclaimer: "The views/contents expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of ModernGhana. ModernGhana will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article." Vexations (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and there's no assertion of notability in the article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: What I created on Yulisa Ahmadu was a stub and I will add more details soon. But for the meantinme, here are major news coverage on the entity that shows his notability:

[12] Jibodi (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://salonejamboree.com/how-men-really-feel-about-valentines-day-celebration/ is a dead link. Vexations (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles written by the subject do not establish notability, [13] and [14] for example. One also wonders why the phrase "With an extensive background in digital content production, strategic communications, and marketing, Yulisa ..." turns up in more than one source. Vexations (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable spam. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable person. HelpingWorld (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tiran of Armenia. Sandstein 09:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artaxias (son of Tiran of Armenia)

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

Contested prod. Obscure royalty that died before acceding and doing anything notable. There exists no coverage aside from the name itself being preserved in a primary source. No grounds for a standalone article (fails WP:GNG). Avilich (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to fatherTiran of Armenia. This ends with a list of his children, which might usefully be converted into a bulleted list, with brief details of their careers (one sentence each). One became king and has (and deserves) an article. The other two have a little more information than the present subject, but not much. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge, this particular individual is just a name drop. Avilich (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to fatherTiran of Armenia or delete - it's basically just a one line article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge, once again... Avilich (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only notable fact is that he had a son. I've added the information to the father's wiki page.1 Ficaia (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tiran of Armenia, relevant information has been added to target article and his name could be searched for. Suonii180 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bounty, North Dakota

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

Most ND rail spots do seem to turn into actual small towns, but this one is an exception. The old Soo Line grade is barely visible, and I can't find anything that shows buildings here beyond the two bins which are a relatively recent arrival Searching turns up a lot on bounty hunting but nothing on a town. Mangoe (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Location is not notable beyond the local level.TH1980 (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Speedied at authors request. Amortias (T)(C)

List of heads of government of republics

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

Similar rationale to the nomination of List of heads of government of monarchies - it’s an unencyclopedic cross-categorisation and recent AfD discussions on broadly similar topics have reached a consensus to delete. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When it comes to heads of government, there is no differences between ones in monarchies and ones in republics but when it comes to heads of state...that is a completely different story as there are huge differences. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the relevance of what makes a head of government of a republic inherently different from a head of government of a non-republic that would need to have them listed separately but because there are so many republics, I don't think it is possible. Reywas92^Talk 21:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I decided to add a redirection as a result since head of governments are the same either it is a republic or a monarchy. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't redirect the page while this AfD is still ongoing, it prevents people from seeing what we're talking about. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear WP:CFORK. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should we merge that nomination to this nomination? There is no difference between a head of government in a republic and a head of government in a monarchy. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of current heads of state and government. Unlike the concept of a head of state (which has major differences between republics and monarchies), the concept of a head of government in a monarchy is the same as the ones in a republic. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That list is already complete. No merge required. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list isn't properly named (it only lists current leaders) and it's a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization (title X currency X form-of-government). pburka (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per request of the creator: Disregard my previous statements, I knew that I shouldn't have created the article in the first place. I knew that this article may fail to meet requirements. I wasn't sure if this article is going to stay for so long. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The only major contributor to this list has requested deletion at this very AfD. ~~WP:G5~~ WP:G7 applies here and there's no use continuing to pile on. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chess: You mean WP:G7. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I do. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DELREASON#5: Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of current heads of state and government. There is no content worth merging and I don't think this would make for a useful redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novus Anti-Aging Center

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

The Novus Anti-Ageing center is a clinic that treats erectile dysfunction. It was founded by physician's assistant Stephanie Wolff (PA-C). The clinic offers an exome product for treatment of COVID-19.

[15] is a press release
[16] clarifies that Wolff is a nutritionist.
[17] is a press released
[18] is a press release that does not mention Novus
[19] does not mention Novus
[20] does not mention Novus
[21] does not mention Novus
[22] does not mention Novus
[23] is a promotional video by the subject called WATCH THIS If Your ED Treatments Have NOT WORKED YET!.

The LA Times has a different take and cites an FDA article that warns that "certain clinics across the country" offering exosome products to patients "deceive patients with unsubstantiated claims". Vexations (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Expand) It is perhaps unnecessary to point out that the applicable subject-specific guideline for an organization such as Novus is WP:NORG, and that none of the criteria specified in that guideline are met, since there is no significant coverage of the company in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 17:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also did a search and found no notable 3rd party coverage. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, only significant independent coverage whatsoever is the LA Times piece which is a debunk of many, if not all, of the clinics' claims, but even this has many other clinics as well. I would describe this as an overall non-notable subject, which if it received much more negative press, could be notable for that reason. But in the meantime, does not deserve its own article per WP:GNG and WP:NORG. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good job by nominator clarifying the poor references. I don't see a way to make the article NPOV while finding reliable sources Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, poor references. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to M-Girls. Can be restored if better sources are found. Sandstein 12:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four Golden Princess

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

I cannot find evidence of notability for this musical group. News results are limited to tabloid type coverage for their marriages/child births, but nothing clear that they meet MUSIC or the GNG. The Chinese language article does not have anything present reliable soure wise to back up the sales figures, which might help. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Very notable band throughout China. Article is not as well written as others and not much reliable sources are present. This article has a lot of potential and it should be kept. HelpingWorld (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but recreate as draft. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- CuteDolphin712, Draftifying a 15 year old article that is not likely to receive much new coverage is not a good idea. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sales numbers alleged in the article are impressive. If true, then this group would have multiple albums certified platinum in both Malaysia and China, and one album certified diamond in China (assuming that the page List of music recording certifications is correct). This would be more than enough to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. However, the numbers are not sourced. This probably needs some attention by users who can actually read Chinese or Malay. Mlb96 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M-Girls where some information about the group is mentioned, including collaboration albums. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Jalili (actor)

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

WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable productions. Whilst Jalili does have two roles in notable productions - the role of Muhammad in Muhammad: The Messenger of God (film) was relatively minor - he only appeared briefly as 6 year old Muhammad and two other actors played the 8 year old and 12 year old Muhammad - see Variety. His other role was in the The Orphanage of Iran and this appears to be uncredited and insignificant according to the sources provided.

Aside from that, I see no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or any other claim of notability or significance. Probable COI as the article creator declares that Alireza's brother is called Amir and the creator has chosen Amir.J002 as their username. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable sources or claim of notability in the article. Non-notable actor and may be WP:TOOSOON.Brayan ocaner (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Please be patient and stop the progress of deleting this page because of this reasons:There are some sources which will prove that Alireza Jalili deserves a Wikipedia page.some of this sources are written in the article.Alireza Jalili has some upcoming movies and series which will be released in months.I will mention the name of Alireza Jalils's upcoming movies and series when they are released.Summary of the explanation : Alireza Jalili has some upcoming movies and series.There are English and Persian Websites that has written about Alireza Jalili some of this websites are mentioned in the article.Alireza Jalili has a IMDB page and IMDb is a reliable source ( IMDB has confirmed the identity of Alireza Jalili) .

If Alireza Jalili deserves an IMDB page , he deserves a Wikipedia page too. Thanks for caring about Wikipedia

Comment on the above: don't worry, if this article is deleted now, it doesn't prevent there being an article on Alireza Jalili in future, should his upcoming roles be significant. WP does not predict the future and write about those who are likely to become notable, it writes about the past, and those who obviously already have been noted. It may be WP:TOOSOON. Elemimele (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note WP:IMDB, which states that IMDb is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not an IMDb mirror either and many articles get deleted every month on actors and filmmakers who have IMDb pages. Significant coverage needs to be in reliable sources, not IMDb. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardali (talk • contribs) 15:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure this is keep is from a WP:SLEEPER account, and very likely has a COI based on their contribs. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a bit hard to fathom, as some of hte references are in Persian, but it would appear there is not much RS here and he hasn't had many roles at this point in his career. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at the the sources, even accepting that machine translations can be problematic, its still very clear that the coverage is just mentions which are far short of what would be called significant. -- Whpq (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR drivers who have won in each of top three series

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

Fails GNG. The sourcing in the article is inadequate, citing the homepage of NASCAR.com, as well of Racing-reference.info, another Primary source which is owned by NASCAR. A WP:BEFORE check lands the actual NASCAR.com page on this topic, however the notability of this list is not established as there are no secondary sources covering it. As such, this appears to be pure WP:CRUFT. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 18:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While the nomination makes sense in that this isn't covered very heavily, I did find one other source here [24]. 36 drivers have accomplished this, which inherently makes it noteworthy. Just my two cents. Spf121188 (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Per nominator, this currently lacks sufficient sourcing. If proper sourcing can be found I would prefer for this article to be kept, but as it stands it isn't up to scratch. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the reasons given by the nominator MWright96 (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Poorly sourced and trivial list Frank Anchor 00:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominators, lacks sourcing Nascar9919 (talk)

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce, Burleigh County, North Dakota

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

The east end of a passing siding outside Bismarck; as the article admits there's no sign there was ever any settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This locale is only notable at the local level.TH1980 (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 04:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take On the World (Pseudo Echo song)

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

Blank and Redirect to Race (album). The song does not meet WP:NSONGS. Its closest argument for that is winning the World Popular Song Festival, but that is not considered a major music award per NSONGS. The song itself does not seem to have WP:SIGCOV that would bring it to meeting WP:GNG either. snood1205 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. snood1205 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. snood1205 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. snood1205 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. snood1205 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Race (album) Simple search returned no sources to contribute to GNG, song does not appear to be notable, redirect per WP:NSONG Justi yaya 19:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't think that winning a significant music reward is by its self enough to establish notability. Winning a significant music reward would "suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful" per WP:NSONG. Justi yaya 19:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No brainer, 100% keep. This song won a well-known (at the time) international song competition. I’m not sure why this was even considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyjamesaus (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Justiyaya's comment above, a song winning an award does not make a song inherently notable. snood1205 02:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tobyjamesaus: My comment above states that based on WP:NSONG, simply winning a major music reward is not enough for an article to be notable... Did I misinterpret the wording of the NSONG here, or is there another guideline/policy that I'm not aware of? Thanks, Justi yaya 11:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winner of significant (albeit historical) international song comp, ergo WP:NSONG. MagentaSwann (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Won a significant international song comp to meet WP:NSONG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Geschichte (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mervyn Sayers

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

Upon WP:BEFORE he seems to have a borderline pass of WP:NCRIC but complete failure of WP:GNG. I cannot really seem to find very much about him at all. snood1205 17:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. snood1205 17:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. snood1205 17:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. snood1205 17:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Western Australia first-class cricketers Does pass WP:NCRIC, but with only 1 appearance it's a cursory pass only. In terms of GNG there are passing mentions but not enough for a GNG pass in an online search, there may be more offline. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to List of Western Australia first-class cricketers. A garbage sub-stub creation that points up the longstanding deficiencies in NCRIC, this is a complete failure of the GNG. It's not even so much that significant coverage is lacking; it's that there isn't ANY coverage worth the mention. Ravenswing 19:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Western Australia first-class cricketers. That is the correct way to handle statistical database scrapes such as this one. Reyk _YO! 19:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If no one can find anything detailed on him, then I'm happy with the redirect as suggested. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Western Australia first-class cricketers as proposed, however passes WP:NCRIC. MagentaSwann (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. SpinningSpark 11:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Old Catholic Church

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

WP:NCHURCH; I found nothing on this denomination apart from its website and the seminary mentioned in the article.
The "Further reading" section was added years after the article was created by @Kiwimac: (who is not the original creator of the article); the books in it likely do not mention the subject, as they are about the global independent bishops phenomenon, so such a small denomination is unlikely to be mentioned. The Independent bishops: an international directory contains no "Reformed Old Catholic Church" in its denomination index (p. 497).
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is an American company correct why then are they playing fast and loose with the First Amendment? Which guarantees freedom of Religion. The Reformed Old Catholic Church is a Independent Catholic Church.It should be noted that not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. This is discrimination. The Church has a large Church in Kimbolton New Zealand and is very large across Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.86.88.78 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions from wiki have been due to the Church being inclusive and accepting of LGBT persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.86.88.78 (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP, the deletion proposal is made due to the denomination's lack of WP:NOTABILITY. Please do not attack others. You have not provided any reliable secondary source which describes this church. Veverve (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, a body that has a web site and a seminary obviously really exists, no matter how small it might be, so deletion of the article does not seem appropriate. A small organization that's relatively unknown can become significant in ways that are sometimes unexpected, and Wikipedia is particularly useful as a reference because it often contains information on organizations that are small and obscure. Of course, we should do whatever we can to bring the article up to standard by (1) ensuring that the content is current and verifiable and (2) removing references that prove to be irrelevant.

Additionally, articles about denominations that self-identify as "Catholic" but are not part of the Catholic Church should contain clear indication of that fact to avoid confusion, either in a header note or in the introduction (and this should be standardized). One can cite Annuario Pontifico (preferably the current edition) as a source for the lack of affiliation. Norm1979 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Norm1979: Are you arguing that a group which does not meet the WP:NCHURCH criteria can be kept on the ground that it may or may not potentially meet said criteria within the next 25 years or so? As a general rule, Wikipedia should contain subjects which meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria and are not Wikipedia:Fringe theories, the opposite of obscure information.

Also, having a website does not prove anything; I could also create my own website with my own made up denomination and another website for my alleged seminary. Moreover, having a website is not part of the WP:NCORP criteria. Veverve (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is either encyclopedic or it is not. If it is then this article should stay, The ROCC is present in a number of countries including the UK, USA, various African countries, NZ and Australia. The assertion that the denomination is not notable ignores the simple, salient fact that it is notable in the lives of it's members. As well this article provides a jumping off point for LGBTQIA+ people looking for an accepting church home. I recommend retention. kiwimac (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)kiwimackiwimac (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwimac: WP:NCHURCH does not mention notability is established once a denomination is notable in the lives of it's members. Veverve (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I note that you describe yourself as Consecrated Bishop in Aotearoa by the Reformed Old Catholic Church in 2019; to me, you arguing to keep the article on the religious organisation you belong to in this AfD seems like a clear Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (COI), and COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. Veverve (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Said person didn't even !vote and disclosed their affiliation. I don't see how this violates COI. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user ended his/her post by "I recommend retention." Due to the user's apparent lack of experience on WP, I interpret it as a way of voting. Veverve (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very few closers would count that towards their tallies. I think Kiwimac has followed the rules well here. I'm against the kind of extreme anti-CoI position that inists CoI editor's particpation should be rstrcited to unbiased recitations of facts: I've seen CoI editors be persuaded by the delete case in AfDs so the fact of support is not entirely information-free. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, instead of taking a user who self-identifies as a bishop of that denomination to task, why not solicit that user's assistance in improving the article? That user probably has access to sources that the rest of us don't have, and thus could make a valuable contribution. Norm1979 (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Norm1979: feel free to ask the person yourself; I have nothing against WP:HEYMANN. I have already done my own research on this group and found nothing supporting its notability. Veverve (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- This seems to be a real denomination with (if their website is to be believed) about 60 clergy in Nigeria and Cameroon and rather less elsewhere. As with some other recent cases we have discussed, the website has no addresses of places where congregations meet for worship or of the leaders, who often have titles that sound very grand. If we have some one from the church listening to this discussion, you need to provide INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE that the church meets for worship (and where) - rather than just an e-mail contact address. If this were a serious denomination, I would have expected to find a "Join us" section, listing places where congregations exist and meet for worship. In the absence of that, I have to remain in doubt as to whether the church is seriously engaged in Christian ministry. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't see any evidence of notability, either in the article or per a Google search. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- limited sources (all by the denomination itself) doesn't suggest notability. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If we decide not to keep, is there a suitable merge/redirect target? — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no other article on WP which mentions this group. Veverve (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's always List of Independent Catholic denominations. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Str1977: That would be circular, as the page is a list which only contains article which have an article on Wikipedia. Moreover, since it is a list it will not give details or history about any of those denominations; this means that redirecting Reformed Old Catholic Church to List of Independent Catholic denominations would make is so the target article contains no information on the subject (the redirection). Veverve (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be "just a list" and there's also another article mentioned. I was just trying to be helpful, not taking over responsibility where the two lines of information can be moved to. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has been a good suggestion, and I am open to the possibility that redirect/merge is better than draftify. I only favour draftify because in part (i) AfC's former reputation as a Bermuda Triangle process where content goes to meet a mysterious end no longer is fair, but mostly (ii) we have a CoI editor who would be freed up to improve coverage and I'm gambling this will be good for the content. Normally merge is to be preferred if there is true, encyclopedic content, because it keeps the verifiable content in articlespace. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails to be a citable and notable subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - No evidence of sources that would allow the church to pass our notability criterion, but an actual and interesting thing; I cannot rule out the existence of adequate sources, so I am reluctant to delete. In the absence of merge/redirect targets, draftification offers an opportunity to find out a better way of documenting the entity. It also frees CoI editors from articlespace restrictions: this freedom can be useful in getting drafts over our notability threshold. — Charles Stewart (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for improvement as the written sources need proper authentication, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify seems to be the best solution, as it keeps the (admittedly limited) content accessible to Wikipedia users while clearly indicating that it is still a work in process and not of encyclopedia quality. The availability of information that's not readily available elsewhere is a feature that makes Wikipedia more useful than other references, and it also makes it easier for those with actual knowledge and access to sources to improve it. Deletion would require recreation at a later date if/when reliable sources become available. Norm1979 (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lanka Premier League records

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

Fails WP:NOTSTATS as it is basically just copied from Cricinfo, while all the prose at the top is unsourced. A similar AFD about a T20 league stats article here was deleted as well. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with a lack of prose this data is meaningless. Links to it from the LPL page would be better. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Yet more pointless LPL rubbish. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and others, fails WP:NOTSTATS. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. A summary of leading run scorers and wicket takers at the end of a tournament article should suffice. StickyWicket (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Arnzen

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

Fairly borderline n notability; largely self-sourced by obvious SPAs. Qwirkle (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an expert on horror fiction but I figure winning the Bram Stoker Award would pass notability guidelines. I was able to dig up some sources [25] [26] [27] [28]. So I feel he meets GNG as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oh my how embarrassing, an afd of someone who clearly meets WP:ANYBIO as having won four Bram Stoker Awards plus nominated for another three (see here), and WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reviews of his works (some have multiple reviews meeting WP:NBOOK and could have their own wikiarticle) in Locus, Fangoria, CyberPsychos AOD, Science Fiction Chronicle, Realms of Fantasy, Star*Line, Strange Horizons, Cemetery Dance, Dead Reckonings, Bifrost, Xenophilia, 2 AM Magazine, Horror: The News Magazine of the Horror & Dark Fantasy Field, see listings by ISFDB (a first port of call for any editor looking at any scifi/horror/fantasy author) here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Wong (Professor)

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

WP:BLP of an academic, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for academics. As always, simply holding an administrative role with a university is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but seven of the nine footnotes here come from primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as his faculty profiles on the self-published websites of the university departments that employ him, press releases from the university and an article in the student newspaper of the same university, and the only two independent footnotes in real media fully independent of his own employer are both glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial way. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get an academic into Wikipedia, vice-president of a university division or not — he needs much, much better sourcing than anything that's been offered here. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I am the author/creator of this article) He meets WP:ACADEMIC criteria 5 "The person has held a named chair appointment...." as he was the Canada Research Chair in health, democracy and development (see https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/profile/wong-joseph/ - note also acceptability of academic primary sources for things like this) I could expand upon all the other notable aspects, but this meets the criteria alone, so I don't think that's necessary CT55555 (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Post-script: I'm just re-reading the comments in WP:ACADEMIC about acceptability of primary sources and realizing that first we need to establish notability through secondary sources, sorry, I thought there was a bit of a lower bar for academics, I have have over stated it above. I'm now a bit less sure of myself, I guess it hinges on the criteria 5. I'll look for stuff that backs that up more independently in the short term. CT55555 (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PPS There is actually an overwhelming volume of content about his work as the Canada Research Chair, but it's overwhelmingly him being interviewed and therefore primary sources. I might not have time/energy/motivation to put that much effort into this one, I started it because I thought it was easy article but that seems to be an error. I'll see what others think here before putting tons of work into this article. CT55555 (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACADEMIC includes the statement that for criteria 5: "For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source." So his faculty bio at the University of Toronto may suffice to establish that the subject has held a CR Chair. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Others have pointed out that the chair alone satisfies the academic notability criteria. CT55555 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As both a CRC holder and "Roz and Ralph Halbert Professor of Innovation" he appears to have a double pass of WP:PROF. Citation counts are hard to obtain because of the common name. But the article is in bad-enough shape to make WP:TNT come into play. Hint: this is an article, not a curriculum vitae. It should consist of text, telling the important points in the story of his life, with all claims fully backed by published reliable sources, as our policy on biographies of living people requires. In its current state it looks like an indiscriminate listing of minor accomplishments, randomly ordered, making it not useful as a biography. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @David Eppstein I take your point about how it's written. I was keen to avoid anything seeming promotional, so aimed for a very simple narration of facts, but since your comments, I've made it a bit more narrative. I'll keep thinking about this and maybe try to make more improvements in coming days. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The initial concerns about how this is cited are valid and I apologize for them, I misread WP:ACADEMIC. Specifically I erred in thinking that primary sources were good for academics. But WP:ACADEMIC says they are only good once notability is shown through secondary sources. It has not been easy as he has a very common name, but I have now added in secondary sources, the AfD process has a time limit on it, so this has put me under time pressure, but I'm optimistic that the re-write to address style comments made above and citation concerns by Bearcat are addressed CT55555 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Profs tend to pass WP:AUTHOR with two books that have reviews from reliable sources, as this one surely does. But you have only one review cited for each right now. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very helpful tip, thanks. I've added a couple of reviews to each. CT55555 (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: looks like this has WP:NAUTHOR now too. I checked on the cites and they look fine, but this isn't my field so I'm not familiar with all of these journals. I know do know JEAS is solid though. -- asilvering (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clearly passes WP:NPROF #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Coomans

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

In October of 2021 a decision was made that only those who won medals at the olympics are default notable, and those not winning medals are not default notable for participation, although they may be notable if we can find enough sources to show a passing of GNG, or show other signs of notability. Coomans article currently has only one source, sportsreference.com. This is a source that is so comprehensive while providing little coverage of those included, that it is generally not considered to add towards passing GNG. GNG also requires multiple sources. I did a google search and found no substantial references to Coomans. The article says of Cooman "he competed in the C-2 1000 m event, but did not finish." which is not exactly the wording that suggests that his olympic showing was notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOLY's new standards by quite a bit and I seem to find more information on (but not WP:SIGCOV on either) the 17th Century Frenchman by the same name. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO via WP:NOLY. snood1205 16:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch

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

WP:NCHURCH; I could find nothing on this denomination apart from its website.
This denomination is not to be confused with the equally non-notable Nicene Apostolic Church, a.k.a. Nicene Catholic Apostolic Church (Autocephalous Catholic Church of Antioch) (see here) whose head is mentioned here.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was fully not expecting this to meet WP:GNG based on the wikipedia article, but there is a little bit of coverage in about it. I'll make a source assessment table to provide my arguments for this maybe passing WP:GNG. I don't love not having a good third source, but also with the extensive coverage in the first book, I feel that it is likely a third source is out there. snood1205 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:snood1205
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Other_Catholics/88V1CwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Catholic%20Apostolic%20Church%20of%20Antioch%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA64&printsec=frontcover	Julie Byrne does not have a known association with the Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch outside of doing research it appears	Julie Byrne is a professor of religion	The book largely covers the church	✔ Yes
https://www.independent.com/2010/09/09/roman-catholic-rebels/	Santa Barbara Independent is not associated with the church	Generally reliable newspaper	More of a passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

@Snood1205: Thanks for your great job! However, the second mention only gives a Wikipedia:Passing mention to the topic ("Gradually, each sister moved out on her own to continue to search out God’s will. After serving at the Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch (not under Rome), Love began to explore her call within the RCWP community"), so I do not think this one counts as coverage. Veverve (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Fair enough! I agree that is more of passing mention than I initially judged. I'll change that from yes to no for significant coverage for the second source. I'll still take a look to see if other sources are out there. snood1205 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has its own entry in The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions under "Church of Antioch". The article needs to be rewritten, though, to match that information. St Anselm (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (only) -- The website appears to show a handful of real people undertaking Christian ministry in several countries. However, I see no links on the website to actual congregations, only that it claims to operate in several countries, with leaders using titles considerably above their likely prominence. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable book sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Russof

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

Total absence of suitable sourcing and pornbio is no longer an argument & this BLPfils GNG and ENT. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All coverage is either non-notable porn stuff or junky gossip rags. Nothing that I can see to qualify the subject for WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Missvain. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. No independent RS coverage in the article. An independent search for RS coverage gets interviews and incidental mentions in relation to Pierre Woodman. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Joseph

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol Zero real sources amongst the zillion links listed. Was converted from a redirect. Some concern that the editor is obviously experienced, but has only 19 edits under that user name, all on promotional-appearing work on two artists. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Many of the "zillion links" to sales pages have been removed. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and all the significant coverage in reliable sources is about projects this person has participated in and not about the person. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Eggishorn - there are a bunch of references here, however none of them are specifically about the Felix Joseph, and there is not other information here that established his notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Disability Awareness

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

The subject does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. My WP:BEFORE search delivered no substantive coverage in reliable independent sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 08:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, my research showed no significant coverage.
Delete as it fails WP:NORG, the proper notability criterion for this subject. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article. SN54129 — Review here please :) 20:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Cummings

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

No reliable sources are given to establish notability, and when I searched for them, none seemed to exist. He also doesn't seem to match any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks far WP:TOOSOON for any of the WP:NPROF criteria for this 2016 PhD; I've added their Google Scholar profile to the article for clarity, as there is a physicist of a similar name. The subject appears to also have a real analysis textbook [29], but I don't see any sign of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR nor of widespread adoption. No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TOOSOON. From reading just the titles of his papers, finding a new lower bound for van der Waerden numbers could be a cool result that might get more attention with time, although my perception of its relative importance might be skewed from these dudes being at my university. JoelleJay (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, TOOSOON for WP:PROF notability and I don't see the critical attention to his two self-published textbooks that would be needed for WP:AUTHOR notability. (Self-publication is not the problem here; it's the lack of reviews.) There has been a bit of a breakthrough in vdW #s recently [30], so when I saw that in the AfD I thought there might at least be some publicity for Cummings out of it, but no. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPROF and WP:TOOSOON, as suggested above. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Snape

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

College soccer coach doesn't meet GNG or sports notability guidelines. Article is sourced only with a single link from his university and I can't find any significant coverage on the article subject. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this looks like SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, BeanieFan11, thanks for adding this. I don't think it's a reliable source though. A note at the bottom of the piece marks it as "an unedited user writing submission", so similar to a Medium post really. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that this does not appear to pass WP:GNG or any relevant WP:SNG. Also agree with the concerns about "bvmsports" not being a reliable source. Didn't turn anything else up with a Google search either. Jay eyem (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – fails WP:NCOLLATH, and the prose is almost a direct copy from the Butler profile that is the only reference currently on the page. However, I found two articles that provide coverage towards WP:GNG, and then the reason that I'll sit at neutral: an hourlong podcast with Snape. I've been staring at the editing screen and this comment and haven't been able to make up my mind either way, so I'll just present what I've found and leave it up to the rest of the fine editors here. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, podcasts are generally not taken as indications of notability. They are rarely subject to editorial oversight, and in interview format, they are basically primary sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the only good source from the ones linked in this discussion is this one so does not have multiple WP:RS showing WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of films set around Oktoberfest

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

Contrary to what this article asserts, an Oktoberfest film isn’t a “genre of film”, it’s just a film that happens to be set in Oktoberfest. The article lists two films about which we already have articles, both helpfully called “Oktoberfest”. That’s it. There may be other films set in part in Oktoberfest but since this isn’t a genre and there don’t appear to be sources discussing them as a set, I think this is an invalid list about a non topic. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of references. Since the creator is a new user I'll drop them a line about what constitutes a wikipedia article. Mujinga (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have found no sources describing the concept of being set around Oktoberfest as a "genre" of film, so the opening paragraph making that claim appears to be WP:OR. This may have been a good-faith attempt to create a kind of pseudo-disambiguation page for the two similarly named films, but we already have Oktoberfest (disambiguation), which lists them both, to take care of that. As a small side note, we actually don't currently have an article on the German one - the link here is actually an external link to its IMDB listing. Rorshacma (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly formatted listcruft. desmay (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's no category for Oktoberfest in film. I can see some other films like Beerfest and In München steht ein Hofbräuhaus (film) and to a lesser degree ones like American Virgin (2009 film), Strange Brew, and Gotcha! (film). Would there be merit in having a category for this? I know that it's not a holiday film type per se, not like Christmas or Valentine films, but I can see there being a category since it would just be a "Oktoberfest in film" (or popular culture) and not "Oktoberfest film". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By lesser degree I mean that it's a visible part of the film but not a main or the main focus of the movie. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is just a poorly formated WP:listcruft article. Pahiy (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are sources that could potentially support lists of films set in a particular time of the year, like [31] But Oktoberfest is not a genre or something that has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11s up (solitaire)

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

The game is non-notable and unsourced. It is not listed in major sources like Parlett (1979) or Morehead and Mott-Smith (2001) or the more recent Parodi (2004) and Arnold (2011). Bermicourt (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All in a Row

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

The game is non-notable and effectively unsourced. It is not listed in major sources like Parlett (1979) or Morehead and Mott-Smith (2001) or the more recent Parodi (2004) and Arnold (2011). The one reference supplied is a dead link. The article has been written by Shlomi Fish (User:Shlomif) whose software solver programme takes up the biggest section of the article; this may be in contravention of WP:NOTADVOCACY. Bermicourt (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited refs do not support stand-alone notability, and the nom's BEFORE seems reasonable. Ping me if better sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerold Rechle

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

Bio of a recently deceased mayor of a town of 22,000. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That 22,000 figure is precisely what makes him notable. There are some MPs and representatives with articles on Wikipedia who were elected to far smaller constituencies. NB - don't bother with my talk page please. Keep commwnts here. I am just popping in and don't want an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1428:C467:F0B7:ED5:AF2E:FE81 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Members of legislatures are notable because they make laws for the place the legislature covers, the size of their district does not matter. Mayors are not default notable, and we do not have the sourcing here to overcome the problem of there not being enough sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What makes members of state or national legislatures notable is not the number of people who happen to live in their district, but the fact that they all have an equal voice in making laws applicable to the entire state or country whose legislature they sit in. So no, population tests don't reify mayors into "inherently" notable politicians just because an MLA's district might have had a smaller population in it than the mayor's city has — the notability test for mayors is the ability to write a substantive and well-sourced article that explains and contextualizes and deep dives into the mayor's political significance: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects he had on the city's development, and on and so forth. Just minimally verifying that a mayor existed, the end, is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject served as mayor of Laupheim. Articles about mayors should be much more than they existed; and the sources should discuss more than routine actions of the official as Bearcat describes. --Enos733 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhana yoga

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

Article on Fringe topic with promo links to blogs. No coverage in reliable sources outside of the topic. Given sources are books on fringe theory (pseudoscience). Article also violates WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. The creator is blocked for multiple copyright violations. Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article is unrelated to astronomy and should have been placed on the Astrology deletion sort list instead. Thus: Praemonitus (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus, due to reasons unknown to me, Astrology does not show up in the option when nominating articles on AfD. Please help. Venkat TL (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Kigew

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances in matches that satisfy NFOOTY - Micronesia isn't a FIFA or OFC member, and South Pacific Games aren't FIFA A-level matches. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Igesumai, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raphael Noway. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough grounds to nominate the rest of Micronesia squad by mass Afd? None of the players are any different so there isn't really worth it going case by case. --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BlameRuiner even though they all fail WP:NFOOTBALL, I would prefer separate AfDs as it's possible that some might pass GNG - these are all individual sportspeople with varying degrees of coverage. They are all contested PRODs as well, which makes en masse deletion quite difficult. This is just my two cents, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Any further Micronesian players should be nominated separately. Giant Snowman 14:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything of substance. If, indeed, playing for Micronesia in this tournament is no longer an automatic pass, I would have to agree with deletion due to failing WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude ^talk 08:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Rahayaan

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

Does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN or GNG. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quick search on Google reveals that he clearly is notable, significant press coverage, but the results are in Indonesian. Routine coverage by regional news websites such as TribunMaluku and others (https://www.tribun-maluku.com/2021/09/tamnge-dan-rahayaan-masih-solid-pimpin-kota-tual/), concerning controversial case about rice reserves (https://beritabeta.com/ekspose-kasus-korupsi-cbp-tual-ditreskrimsus-libatkan-bareskim-polri/all), among others (https://beritabeta.com/terkait-kasus-cbp-kota-tual-ini-surat-kadis-sosial-maluku-untuk-kadis-sosial-tual/all) Nyanardsan (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Member of parliament WP:NPOL. A trout may be in order considering it is written in 4th sentence and is sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On second though, a trout might be too harsh; a {{Minnow}} may be better Curbon7 (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above he was a Member of parliament passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NBA 2K21. ✗plicit 11:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decades Arena

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

The article has no references and has no online sources (using only a quick google search) so it has no significant coverage. Don't think this would pass WP:GNG and could possibly redirect to NBA2K21? Hughesdarren (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. PianoDan (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gour Govinda Swami

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

ISKCON board member is not a notable post. Promotional bio based on self published (ISKCON) sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO due to no significant work or coverage. Venkat TL (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Couldn't find anything significant about the subject either. References included in the article are neither reliable nor independent of the subject; fails GNG to begin with. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 05:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earyn McGee

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

notable neither under WP:PROF nor GNG. The references are not substantially about her as an individual, but as one of a group who helped form a notable organization. I do not think she was the lead figure in that--apparently Corrine Newsome was. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 06:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 06:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering that a not meeting GNG argument was used, but there was no specific addressing of potential references, was there WP:BEFORE practiced?

Robinson, KiMi (December 22, 2020). "Meet the Arizona grad student and 'lizard lady' named a Forbes' 30 Under 30 scientist". The Arizona Republic.
Gilger, Lauren (December 11, 2020). "#FindThatLizard: Earyn McGee Rises To Social Media Stardom At University of Arizona". KJZZ.
Vecchio, Anna (June 11, 2021). "Earyn McGee Honored with National Conservation Young Leader Award". National Wildlife Federation.
Ford, Alexis (December 24, 2020). "'Lizard lady' McGee, ex-RJ fellow, on Forbes 30 Under 30 list". Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Kennedy, Kat (March 30, 2021). "She lassoes lizards: Doctoral student uses social media to promote wildlife science". Green Valley News.
"Grist 50 2021: Meet the Fixers". Grist. March 23, 2021.
Brean, Henry (December 24, 2020). "UA's 'lizard lady' wants to use online fame to put new face on science". Arizona Daily Star.
Barchfield, Vanessa (January 16, 2021). "Afro Herper". Arizona Public Media.
Rodriguez, Allison (December 28, 2020). "UArizona doctoral student uses passion for nature to educate". KNXV-TV.
Cahan, Eli (July 2, 2020). "Amid protests against racism, scientists move to strip offensive names from journals, prizes, and more". Science.
Berger, Erin (September–October 2021). "Hiding in Plain Sight". Outside.

Because...yeah. Her involvement in Black Birders Week is very much the more minor part of her notability. And the available sources above go into a fairly significant amount of her background and childhood. Silver seren^C 06:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example from the Arizona Daily Star source on the information given about her as an individual.

"McGee was born in Atlanta and lived there until she was about 10, when her family moved several times before finally settling in the Los Angeles suburb of Inglewood. She’s had an interest in nature for as long as she can remember. Once, when she was about 5, she and her grandmother came across a dead bird while out on a walk, and little Earyn kept begging to go back to try to save the fallen creature. “I was always super into animals,” McGee said.

As the oldest of five siblings, she said her parents always encouraged her dream of working with wildlife. Their only requirement: She had to be able to find a job and support herself, so when she moved out of the house, she didn’t come back, McGee said with a laugh. She originally planned to go to veterinary school, but all the people she knew who went that route were miserable, so she decided to study environmental biology instead. The lizard thing happened by accident. After she enrolled at Howard University in Washington, D.C., she went looking for a research lab with live animals in it, but the pickings were slim.

One of them specialized in fish, another in snails. “I thought, ‘Oh, that’s not cool,’” she said. Then she discovered professor George Middendorf’s lizard lab. Before long, McGee was spending her summers in Southern Arizona catching and cataloging the Sky Island reptiles of the Chiricahua Mountains, where Middendorf had been conducting research for decades. The lizard lady was hooked.

So, as I said, rather substantial biographical information available. Silver seren^C 06:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No possibility of passing WP:Prof. The other mentions are non-in-depth word-bites that do not pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Literally lengthy articles covering her entire life are "non-in-depth" word bites? What exactly is non-in-depth about this news coverage (First page, Second page) or anything of what I quoted above? Silver seren^C 11:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very minor publication, and the article almost appears to be an interview with her, which would not be a RS. If it were in the New York Times or similar, the matter could be different. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - We're looking at WP:BIO/WP:GNG, not WP:PROF. She's notable as a science communicator/public scientist, not as an academic. There are several profiles in reliable sources, including one distributed via the AP, and several lesser sources which are still nonetheless greater than a brief mention. Looks like a pass to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites and Silver seren. If I had to give two references to show notability, I'd give 1 and 2. Mujinga (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites. Significant media coverage and in-depth biographical pieces. We should reflect the significance giving to her by reliable sources. Llew Mawr (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the substantial coverage seems to derive from BLP1E, although I can't access the Outside piece. The NWF press release can't be used for notability since it's a press release (an announcement of the award by the awarding org is clearly not an independent source). While the Arizona Star article is significant, it's also in that flurry of coverage in December 2020-March 2021 that could reasonably be considered BLP1E. So is there anything suggesting sustained non-trivial interest in her? JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The significant coverage in the Daily Star and Daily Republic articles (noting that the Daily Star article was picked up by U.S. News & World Report), as well as the Science article which is about a movement to remove offensive names but the article is framed to start and end with McGee, and likely the Outside article, which I can only see the abstract for, meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Schazjmd (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as others have said, doesn't meet WP:NPROF, but does seem to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites (GNG as a science communicator). On top of the aforementioned profiles, McGee has also been recognized for her work in Forbes 30 Under 30, a well-established award that's been running for 10+ years.--DarTar (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Andrea (The Walking Dead). Daniel (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amy (The Walking Dead)

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

Amy is an extremely minor character in both the television and comic book series. She appears in 4 episodes of the first season of a show with 11 seasons and over 147 episodes, and only 3 issues of a comic book series with 193 issues. She has a minor and unimportant role in both, and is rarely referenced after her departure from both. Her role in the more popular television series is even less important due to the earlier death of Andrea. She is not popular among fans and critics of the show and has the same level of unimportance as other minor characters like Aiden Monroe or Jim. Overall, her character is short-lived, unimportant, and not worthy of Wikipedia's general notability. Jamalkemal (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refactored to fix substitution errors. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I believe the sources in the article do meet the WP:GNG and the reasons for deletion given above are not policy-based, but failing that it can be merged to either List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters or List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters as needed. BOZ (talk) 12:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Andrea (The Walking Dead), as Amy's most important role on TV or in the comic (as far as I can tell) is to move along her sister's character development. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to articles proposed by other users but I'd favor Andrea's page, seems sensible enough. --Killuminator (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Andrea (The Walking Dead). The text is peppered with references to her, I count 34, it's clearly the topics are closely related, and while the development and reception section is lengthy, it still seems mostly descriptive and superficial. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Andrea (The Walking Dead). The above arguments are compelling and make sense to me. This character is very much tied up in Andrea's storyline so it would be helpful to house any information about this character in that article. That way, anyone who wants to find information about this character will be able to do so. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet Wing Director of Operations (AFCW/DO)

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

Does not appear to be notable by wikipedia standards. . All sources are the USAF Academy Slywriter (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied from my (slywriter) Talk page)Hey!

Not too sure why this article is up for deletion... not every source is from the Air Force Academy, and the content is relevant for all cadets at USAFA, grads, prospective cadets, and their families.Airportexpress (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airportexpress, the dissertation, published by RAND, is the only non Air Force reference and looking at the sections where the position is mentioned does not show me that the subject is all that notable outside the halls of the Air Force Academy. Also, The AfD itself is a better place for this discussion. Slywriter (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DO is a standard position in most Air Force organizations, and not unique to the USAFA. Not especially notable in my view. Intothat darkness 15:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing. A single PhD thesis from Rand is hardly WP:SIGCOV, so a standalone article seems a bit much. The content could easily be folded into the main article, resulting in one stronger article rather than multiple weaker ones. The same applies to Cadet Wing Commander (AFCW/CC) as well. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a merge in both cases. Cadet Wing Commander isn't a unique position, either. Intothat darkness 22:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing No evidence of significant coverage as an entity independent of the parent organization. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and no indication one will emerge after a month. Star Mississippi 20:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baye McNeil

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

I came across this article and found it contained a lot of problems (Too one-sided, rely on self-published sources and notability issues). I actually took a couple days trying to improve it but the problem still exist after I edited it couple times.

There are several problems with the subject Baye McNeil.

(1) The subject have problems with notability. He basically is a blogger, self-published book author and part time columnist (Mainly The Japan Times). Although he wrote several pieces to more well-known news media like The Washington Post, I dont think it's notable enough to have it own page. The only thing he did that could be considered somehow notable is his involvement in the 2018 Fuji TV "Blackface" incident. But his involvement was mainly just wrote some op-ed to protest and some of his remarks was picked up by some US news media. Although the subject name pops up here and there in some big media coverages, almost all of them are just asking his thoughts about Fuji TV "Blackface" incident. Most of the other news pieces that include him were just like that. Other than that, he is, to put it mildly, a nobody (Except his remarks last year cause some backlash in Japan).So I think he fails WP:GNG

(2)This entry seems relies heavily on self-published sources or interviews about himself, which is not reliable sources.The whole "Early life" basically came from his self-published books, his blog or interviews with the subject. Almost all of them were subjective. I already cut out quite a few paragraphs that were poorly sourced. Like the previous edits claimed he is a lecturer in couple Japanese Universities but all I found is the subject posted some pictures with seemingly students in it. I couldnt found any official records from those universities. So it's almost impossible to tell if he is a lecturer or just some guy who happened gave out a speech in those places. The editor Ray Jameson, who created this page, also included a section name called "Ariana Miyamoto and Naomi Osaka" but the whole section just talked about McNeil had wrote some columns about them and gave out his personal opinions, which is hardly worth metioning in a wiki page. The whole previous page seems more like a self-promotion page as most of the things there were overwhelmingly positive and the used of words were quite subjective. I already tried to clear out this problem and balance both opinions but I think it's worth mentioning here.

Someone97816 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Someone97816 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep But very weakly. I agree with the issues of most of the refs being WP:INTERVIEWs and self-published sources, but a GNEWS search, along with results of his work for The Japan Times, brings up non-interview articles where comments from him are cited for topics besides the Fuji TV incident, especially on Naomi Osaka. That would not be a strong enough case, however, and he needs a lot more nontrivial coverage about himself for my !vote to be stronger. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 03:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment@HumanxAnthro: I checked those articles where his comments were cited but every pieces are the same quotes(Chinese and English alike) How about we put his opinions on the Naomi Osaka page instead of having its own page? Seem more fitting that way.Someone97816 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I for this article being merged into that section as well, or maybe an article about the Fuji TV blackface incident where his involvement can be discussed there? 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @HumanxAnthro: Agreed. I think a section named "Controversy" in the Fuji TV page explaining this incident would be just fine. This incident did not last long nor really that "noticeable". I doubt that it would have much contents and sources for its separate standalone article.Someone97816 (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep For western ex-pats (and possibly also non-western Black ex-pats) in Japan, at least those of my "generation", McNeil is something of a household name, and while I don't think being relatively famous within a certain small community merits a standalone Wikipedia, nor do I find the fact that he is frequently cited in articles running in The Japan Times (his "employer" in a manner of speaking) compelling, but excluding those results still leaves a number of articles on Naomi Osaka, etc. in various international papers. However, I do think that we should be more vigilant about this article's content and cut anything that can't be attributed to a reliable secondary source, as was done some years ago with Debito Arudou; if, once this is done, the article turns into a permastub, then we can probably come back here, or perhaps someone could boldly redirect it to Japan Times (since, unless I'm mistaken, most of the time someone cites him they are citing something he wrote for that paper). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Hijiri88: I see. How about create a section on the Naomi Osaka page, explaining the incident and include his opinions in it instead? Seem more fitting.Someone97816 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Fails notablilty and full of unreliable sources. As user HumanxAnthro above point out, the Fuji TV incident should be merged into that section of the Fuji TV page instead. The subject need a lot more nontrivial coverage about himself to have a standalone Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone97816 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like three of us agreed that the subject is not specially notable and most sources about him are unreliable. The subject's commentary about the Fuji TV "Blackface" incident and Naomi Osaka were sought out by some media outlets but that's about it. User HumanxAnthro and I both agreed merging his remarks into the sections of repectively articles insteads would be a better ideas.Someone97816 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this a promotional page or an attack page? It seems both at once. I invoke WP:TNT without comment on his notability. Ifnord (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIf u look back those early version, it's definitely feel like a promotional pageSomeone97816 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 13:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article needs cleaning up to tone down the possible self-promotion, but it already includes sourced information critical of him (thanks in part to Someone97816). It also includes citations of articles in major media that introduce him such as the NYT. Further searches see him on the BBC [32], Reuters [33] [34], Christian Science Monitor [35], etc. He's also appeared on news shows in Japan (as noted here: [36]). For reasons beyond just the 2018 incident he has become for major international media a go-to person for commentary on the place of Black people in Japan. You also see him giving invited talks at universities and academic conferences on the subject: [37] [38] [39] etc. He has, in a sense, become an authority on the subject. Given that his commentary has gone beyond any one incident, it makes no sense to merge this with any one incident. Michitaro (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like it contains some weasel terms, like "early interest." Also, looks like an advertisement. --I.hate.spam.mail.here (This is YOUR page) (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atanu Bhuyan

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

Bhuyan is a journalist from North-East India who does not seem to meet WP:BIO. None of the six sources cited in the article constitute significant coverage; and a search on Google turned up no significant coverage either. There's a few mentions, largely quoting him or his tweets, but no actual in-depth discussion. Due to the lack of significant coverage, Bhuyan fails WP:BIO. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill coverage that most local journalists receive (a brief shout out in another article as a source, etc). Nothing I can find online shows me the subject meets WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This source on the article and this one (which is not) together indicate notability to me. Mujinga (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: see WP:TOI. Also, the article in The Telegraph does not quite discuss the subject in detail, i.e. it is not significant coverage. Java Hurricane 17:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of WP:TOI, doesn't change my opinion about an article in TOI about Bhuyan's resignation being significant coverage. Likewise, the Telegraph article is about Bhuyan entering politics and is significant coverage in my book.Mujinga (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find it somewhat surprising that your views on significant coverage and RS seem to differ so significantly from what I've seen to be the community's attitude generally. Java Hurricane 02:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ToI article linked above entirely consists of his quotes. Telegraph's was routine election coverage (btw he decided later to not even contest in that election). Even hindi/bengali searches (https://www.google.com/search?q="অতনু+ভূয়ান"+OR+"अतनु+भुयान") don't turn up anything. I note that neither bengali nor hindi wikipedias have pages (hitting some bug, can't properly linkify the search link) --Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond of controversy, he is not having any coverage. --Arunudoy (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance

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

My PROD nomination was unfortunately removed with the suggestion it should be a PROMERGE. However, I don't believe any information from this page should be merged into the other page, as it already mentions his school proportionally. This article reads like promotion for the school and includes texts that are clearly taken from the website (borders copyright violation). Furthermore, I don't believe this school is relevant outside a mention on the page of the university (which is already the case). Dajasj (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like an admission brochure. - Hatchens (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like an add for the school, from what I can tell isn't notable, and is already mentioned in the article that has been mentioned as a possible merge target. Not that there's anything worth merging anyway. So deleting it outright is the best option IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is consensus to keep the content. Should it be eventually merged, that's an editorial discussion that doesn't require a further extension of this nearly month-long AfD. Star Mississippi 20:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interventionism (medicine)

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

@Arms & Hearts: as original nom. Article was originally proposed for deletion by Arms & Hearts, but I objected and think this should be taken to AFD. They said: "Doesn't appear to be a notable topic: I haven't been able to find sourcing beyond the single source cited, which doesn't meet WP:MEDRS." ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. @Plutonical: Do you want to explain why you think the subject is notable? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It asserts notability and brings up cases that are notable. As such, I'd like to have a community discussion on it. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 20:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I actually think this is notable, but that the scope is poorly defined and too narrow in the current article. For example, here are many other sources which discuss this term in significant coverage enough to make it notable in my opinion:

(as a type of paternalism/utilitarianism favoring medical care instead of religious or ethical non-intervention, including end of life which is the topic of the article at present) [40] [41]

(as an overall attitude of "better to do something that may not work than stand by and do nothing" in cases of clinical equipoise) [42] [43]

(as a type of paternalism favoring vaccine mandates in dire circumstances like a pandemic) [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

Just my thoughts, that if kept, it could be made more expansive to allow for more sources to be used. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Unnecessary_health_care No reason to focus on a neologism (at least it's a neologism for medical contexts) when there's an appropriate place in wikipedia already to include this materal. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is a suitable merge. The target is about unnecessary interventions for financial reasons. This article is about desperate, but well motivated, medical interventions that have only a small chance of success, or marginal effect. Of course, one may lead to the other, but they are not the same topic. SpinningSpark 13:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shibbolethink. It is undoubtedly a notable issue in medicine of doing "something rather than nothing" and giving patients hope rather than forcing recognition of the true prognosis. Not sure that the title couldn't be improved though. It's not immediately clear what it means. SpinningSpark 13:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This relates to the prolonging life/death and end-of-life experience conversations, all of which are notable topics that fall under bioethics. This page just needs more sourcing, and I agree with Spinningspark that a new title may be more appropriate. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriza Hussein

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

PROD declined on the grounds that there seemed to be a feature in the Star. However I'm unable to find that feature or any other indication Hussein met NAUTHOR/ACADEMIC or the GNG. Star Mississippi 19:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copying note from Talk page. Thank you, VarlamTikhonovich for your comments and link to further resources. I'm including a link here so they're seen as part of the discussion and no one misses your input. Star Mississippi 23:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Been more than a decades since death and I can't find any coverage as well that would make the person notable. Dear Debasish (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the Star feature and added some other references too. Mujinga (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New refs are not adequate secondary. RemotelyInterested (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG, Hussein's only(?) book, Legacy, held in under 20 libraries which doesn't bode well review wise, a gsearch under "legacy by "Shahriza Hussein" book reviews" brings up zero reviews additional to The Star reviews/obituary already in the article, as the author of the Star obituary was close enough to refer to him as "uncle" (and helped to prepare the body for funeral arrangements) and Hussein was a regular writer for The Star, i have WP:COISOURCE concerns with these, similarly with the Victoria Institution piece (he was an alumnus), and the 4th reference is from his book publisher. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gorham, North Dakota

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

This is one of a number of problem ND cases where I can get some information, but it is hard to add it all up. It's also a good example of why the euphemism/WP-term-of-art "unincorporated community" needs to go. Now, there are a fair number of "in/near/from Gorham" references, so there is some degree of "place-ness" to it. So we go to the maps and aerials, and find that GNIS places it in a small rectangular area separated from the surrounding fields by lines of trees. Old enough aerials and topos show a few buildings of uncertain character, but there's nothing there now and there hasn't been for decades. I did find one reference which stated that "Prior to the 1930s , Gorham boasted a grocery , church , lumber yard , dance hall , school , and post office" ([sic]—- I'm relying on GBooks interpretation here because I can't get the snippet to show up.) It's frankly a little difficult to believe that all that fit into that small rectangle, but in any case by far the most common hit on the place is for St. Josephat's Ukrainian Catholic Church. It was located about 3/5ths of a mile south of the supposed town, but has been gone for some time, survived by an extensive cemetery. There are a number of pictures of both versions of the church (the first one burned only five years after its construction) and it is typically referenced in discussion of Ukrainian immigration into the area, but I cannot find a date for its closure and/or destruction. So here's the problem: reading between the lines, there was something here which originated maybe just before WW I and which maybe got snuffed out by the Great Depression. But that is taking a great deal of synthesis, and even the most basic fact— that whatever it was, it's not there any more— requires resort to primary sources. I'm just not seeing how we can justify an article here. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 20:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 20:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ...

This book describes Gorham as a short-lived "official North Dakota town" with a post office. The snippet view cuts out the rest of the description, but it says it may have been named for Frederick Eldridge Gorham, a local settler.
This source calls Gorham a village, and has an entry for Gorham in the appendix.
This source says, "Louis moved to Gorham, Billings County, North Dakota".
This source describes a proposed railway "to Gorham, Billings County". There was also a survey for a railway to Gorham. Another mention of the railway, with the name of a contact person in Gorham named J. Evoniuk. That fellow, John Anthony Evoniuk, has an Ancestry.com entry that says he was born in "Gorham, Billings County, North Dakota".
Gravestone for a fellow born in Gorham.
Obituary for someone born in Gorham. I found at least 20 obituaries for people born in Gorham.
This describes the founding of Gorham as a community.
This describes Gorham as a "former town".
Some photos of the store in Gorham. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Doremo (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Ethiopia

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

Long list of redlinks and no sources. Fails WP:NLIST. Per WP:CSC: "lists devoted to a large number of redlinked (unwritten) articles, for the purpose of keeping track of which articles still need to be written—don't belong in the main namespace." There are 7 citations: 5 are external links to hospitals (violating WP:ELLIST) and the other 2 don't verify. Platonk (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Withdrawn by nominator - Wikiproject Hospital has taken it over, improved it, added citations, and is still going strong. Platonk (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment The "for the purpose of" guideline is subjective and in practice is generally disregarded because it makes obvious sense to (for example) list the species in a genus article even if those articles haven't yet been created. Conversely, the creation of stubs specifically so they can be included in these lists has proven to be a terrible idea. Frankly I've come to the conclusion that stubs shouldn't be created at all. Be that as it may, I suspect my opinions on the notability of hospitals is out of step with consensus. But if hospitals are generally held notable, then this list will surely be created anyway, and if lists of hospitals in a political division are a usual thing, then again this list will (and does) exist. The fact that it is a collection of redlinks doesn't seem germane; the question is whether in general we make such lists of hospitals. Mangoe (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from WP:Hospitals This article needs sourcing and a discussion of notable hospitals in the history of Ehtiopia. Recommend not deleting. All countries should have sufficient sources to describe the number of hospitals, historical background, organization of hospitals, and links to articles of notable hospitals. The article just needs some more research and deletion of red links or article creation.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals -- Talk to G Moore 16:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't think another relist is likely to achieve a clearer consensus. Only one keep has made an effort to explain a rationale though overall I don't think it's clearly a keep outcome. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Portillo

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Did not play professionally as a player nor has he managed at a professional level. Simione001 (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have you done a decent WP:BEFORE? I did a bit of web searching and feel there is enough to pass WP:GNG. There are news stories for this manager on El Salvador news websites, elsalvador.com [49], that was one of the latest ones, there are tons of news stories with this managers name on to go through on that website alone. Multiple more news hits on a different site. [50] @GiantSnowman: there are sources to be found. :/ Govvy (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where are 2/3 good, in-depth sources? Giant Snowman 10:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passes WP:GNG. A brief web search brings up more than enough verifiable content. --Jimbo^[online] 15:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Lord (academic)

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

Non-notable academic. Despite what the article says, he is not a professor--references from his college specify he is an Assistant Professor. Very few assistant professors are notable, especially those still in their second year. He has a great many publications, but Google scholar shows that none of them have been cited more than 13 times. Therefore he fails WP:PROF. All the references are either the announcements and faculty page from his college (which are reliable for plain facts, but not for notability ) or directory listings, or interviews with him where he says what he cares to. Therefore he fails WP:GNG. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's my impression that law is a low-citation field overall, so low numbers on GS aren't very indicative one way or the other. However, I'm also not finding a lot in the way of news coverage [51][52]. XOR'easter (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This bio is so over-the-top, especially for an academic profile, that I almost find it hard to believe. It could almost be tagged for being too promotional. And, strangely, the article creator authored an article (now a redirect) on a completely different Phil Lord so I sense some family connection or other COI. But the bottom line is that I don't believe this assistant professor is notable by Wikipedia's standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. BLP is so boosterish that I wonder if it is a joke. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. It is difficult to see how any Assistant Professor can be notable unless it is for reasons unconnected to being an Assistant Professor, and that is not the case here.--Bduke (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Subtly promotional and fails to meet any criterion from WP:NACADEMIC. Celestina007 (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG fails WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and I don't see one emerging with an additional relist as established editors provide good reasons for each take. Star Mississippi 16:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congelation

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

Uncited, and is basically just a dictionary definition page. I also don't think this'd benefit from a redirect since its an unusual word. Thus, putting it up for AfD. Not doing it via PROD in the off-chance it might be an obscurely relevant term. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 05:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete conditionally that another editor doesn't come along with a very compelling reason for this to be an independent article. This to me does seem very much like it should remain as a dictionary definition and given it's been an article for 16 years and practically unchanged, it doesn't seem likely to be expanded. I may be wrong though, so would withdraw if a valid reason for doing so is offered. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that it's not notable per WP:NOTDICT, but I also want to point out the hilarious fact that in the Turkish Wikipedia (the only other one to include the term), it is listed with the category template, "Alchemy." PianoDan (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand by translating the French article It's not a rare term. I think this may have been nominated without checking Google. [53] which shows 24,000 references. It's used in English. French and Spanish, in physical chemistry, geology food science, sociology., including by Nobelist Peter Debye ( Debye P, Hückel E. De la theorie des electrolytes. I. abaissement du point de congelation et phenomenes associes. Physikalische Zeitschrift. 1923;24(9):185-206) . I'm not immediately clear about the exact difference in usage from near-synonyms, but there see to be a basis for an article here.

And looking further, I see there most certainly is basis for an article, and the usage can certainly be clarified. The French WP article [54] isn't listed in the language list, and in frWP the enWP equivalent is Frozen food, which is one of the many gross semantic errors deriving from Wikidata.[55] Congelation is not just the equivalent of freezing, as the use in soil science illustrates. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: It's worth scrutinising that further to understand if there anything to it, as I noted in my !vote. I do however observe that the french wiki article you linked essentially translates to a page which discusses freezing and google translate directly translates the word to freezing (or deep freezing, to be precise), so of course there will be tens of thousands of literature on the topic of freezing, in any language. What confuses me with the French wiki setup is that the article Solidification is what seems to be the french-wiki equivalent to en-wiki's 'freezing' article. Neither seems particularly relatable to the en-wiki Congelation article in question. I also can't ascertain if 'congelation' is just a french word for 'freezing' by co-incidence or if it's a more specialist topic relatable to the subject of the afd. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss DGG's comments more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the French source, it's an article on a phase change that is not necessarily freezing in the usual sense, but solidification or thickening-- such as the geochemical changes discussed in the article: they are sol-gel transitions, not freezing. The material in our freezing article is contained there, but so is much else. Theway to proceed will be I think to expand this article to match thefrWP, and then deal with duplications. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced in its credibility as an article, particularly as similar terms like congeal and congealment do not have articles (although the former redirects to this). There may have been a consideration to redirect to solidification if that were an independent article like on french wiki, but on en-wiki that just redirects to our freezing article. Reading your rationale DGG, i'd wonder if it would be more logical to create an article built around the broader term solidification (using fr-wiki as a basis) and then redirecting congelation to that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why should similar forms of the word have articles also, like congeal and congealment? We're not a dictionary. congeall is a verb, and we do not usually make articles for verbs , and whether it should be the spelling 'congealment" or "Congelation" depends on what the more common form is in English. "Solidification" certainly is a possibility, but we need to look if it's a true synonym and covers all the cases. But I agree that "Congelation" sounds awkward in English. DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my poor phrasing, I just meant the other terms are also in wiki dictionary only because, like congelation, they're a definition too. If I thought congelation could redirect anywhere, i'd have suggested that but replicating the french wiki in this instance (and redirecting to freezing) would seem inappropriate. I still consider deleting this article is probably the best approach and then if someone thinks a standalone article for solidification could be made, that can be done irrespective. It just seems congelation and it's variants appears too narrow a subject. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's an operation in alchemy listed and linked in Alchemical symbols, not explained elsewhere on Wikipedia or even mentioned in Alchemy. Yes, the article needs to be more than a dicdef, but its a needed article and shouldn't be deleted. Skyerise (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the article contains very little information, the topic has been much studied. Most of us know it as congealing, and congeal is a redirect to it. Wikipedia has an article about how blood congeals, called coagulation. If your blood does not congeal properly, you have a disease called haemophilia. Blancmange and porridge congeal during cooking. I once attended a one hour lecture by a doctor of chemistry from I.C.I. about how cement particles behave as cement congeals, and how by modifying their behaviour during this process, his team at I.C.I. had produced a new inorganic material he called N.I.M. (New Inorganic Material) that was basically cement, but behaved very differently from cement (you could make spoons and window-frames from it for example).-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no idea whether the English term is used anywhere in modern science, but Holmyard 1957, pp. 150, 271 uses the term as the name of an alchemical process which is apparently synonymous to crystallization. Perhaps the use of the term in alchemy derives from the De congelatione et conglutinatione lapidum, an extract from Avicenna's Kitab al-Shifa which was for a long time thought to form the last three chapters of the fourth book of Aristotle's Meteorology (see Linden 2003, p. 95), in which Aristotle described physical and chemical processes like solidification, evaporation, combustion, etc. However that may be, Linden 2003, p. 17 attributes the term to Sir George Ripley in his Compound of Alchymy, which seems to establish that the English term was in use among alchemists in 15th-century England. Searching Google scholar for "congelation" alchemy also reveals that the term is at least mentioned here and there by historians of alchemy.

However, I doubt that this will ever be much more than a mini-stub. Surely, it would be better to treat the topic within the framework of an article like Philosophers' stone or Magnum opus (alchemy), where all of the 'stages' or 'operations' involved could be explained in their proper context. Then again, these articles need a lot of work and do not seem ready to just merge in the material from our article. I will not !vote since I've been summoned here, but other !voters may want to take a second look after today's updates of the article by Skyerise and me. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who already !voted for review: Tautomers Bungle PianoDan Caleb Stanford DGG Chiswick Chap Skyerise Toddy1 ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the work on this! I'm a bit confused by the current draft: is this article solely about the alchemical usage? If so, the first sentence could be improved by adding a scope ("In alchemy, ...") But the article is also suggestive that this word has a modern scientific meaning. The draft is much better but I'm still not convinced of the scope or notability, and it hasn't moved too far beyond WP:DICDEF. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I asked an inorganic chemist about the word, they said they have never heard of it used in a chemistry context. That seems problematic. Polymerization is used instead and related. A Google Scholar search reveals many papers (particularly on oil congelation?) but not much WP:SIGCOV material. Difficult ask for a keep vote on present evidence. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this article at its first creation in 2005 was intended as an article about the alchemical operation, and it has stayed that way until last year when I –somewhat infelicitously– removed the bit about alchemy because it was unsourced. But here's an idea: we could turn Congelation into a disambiguation page briefly explaining that Congelation (alchemy) is an archaic term for various forms of solidification such as Freezing, Crystallization, or Coagulation (another word with a background in alchemy, see [56]) with perhaps 'see also' links to Congelation ice and Congelatio (though the latter term is not mentioned in its target article). Then again, it may even be better yet to simply remove all references to modern physico-chemical processes and just turn this into an alchemy stub, as it was probably originally intended (as I said above, it should definitely be merged into another article at some point, but the other articles are not ready for that). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: If that's a potential direction of travel, why not just make solidification a DAB linking to the articles you already mentioned, with a reference to congelation linking to the dicdef? I still don't feel overly convinced in congelation as a standalone article. Maybe congelation could then redirect to solidification at a push. Although my delete !vote wasn't with much conviction, I remain steadfast in my general opinion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: I understand why you hold on to your previous opinion, which I do not consider by any means invalid. Just to be clear: yes, Solidification may be a better candidate for DAB, but what do you mean with linking to the dicdef? A link to a standalone stub on congelation in alchemy, or to the Wiktionary entry? Because the latter does not contain any info (as our stub does) on the term's historical background in alchemy, on its being one of the principal operations in the works of pseudo-Khalid ibn Yazid, Sir George Ripley, etc. I agree that congelation in alchemy is barely notable as an independent subject, but it is more than a WP:DICDEF now, if only ever so slightly. If the term 'congelation' as used in alchemy is not found to meet (a lenient interpretation of) WP:SIGCOV (it is often mentioned, but apparently not in-depth), there should not be an article on it, and in that case I don't see a need to disambiguate it at all. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a scenario whereby congelation is present on a hypothetical solidification DAB, i'd have suggested maybe linking to the dicdef page, unless there is another existing article which could suitably house the minimal stub info regarding congelation as an alchemy term (and in that instance, then to a sub-section of that parent article). The issue now may be that the viability of the article rests somewhere between being perhaps slightly more than just a dicdef, yet not quite significant enough for an independent article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caleb Stanford: Polymerisation is a different thing. With polymerisation, lots of small identical molecules daisychain to make big molecules. It is of course true that polymerisation may make liquids get thicker or it may cause them to precipitate (i.e. for solid particles to appear in the liquid).-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the term (or process) is notable withins alchemy, I thik it woul be less confusing to have a separate article for that. But as for the comment not knowing whether the term is still used in modern science, seeGoogleScholar ,limited to English and since 2018 --1530 hits (tho about half arenon-english articles, that happen to have an English language title. The current use is apparently mainly in geology and food science, not chemistry. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the scholar results, despite the English search, are actually in French, or are dual language English/French with the term only appearing in the French text. We need to be careful not to cover French meanings of the word on the English Wikipedia. I am particular dubious about extending its meaning to freezing. Not sure that that occurs in English. For instance this one translates French congelation to freexing in the English version. In any case, grouping crystallisation, congealing, and freexing in one article is getting into dictionary territory. These are not the same thing to modern science, although I'd be fine with an article on congealing proper. If alchemy made such a grouping as a single phenomena, then this should be an exclusively alchemic article. If they didn't, and its just the same word being used in different contexts there is no justification for it at all. SpinningSpark 19:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Im saying keep because seems like a word that people want to learn and what better place is there to learn then here? HelpingWorld (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The correct place for material like this is on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.Iskandar323 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immersion Corporation

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

Many claims, but no actual notability. They have tried to introduce may things, none of them notable. Most of the references are mere notices, on suing and being sued for infringement, supplemented by a few promotional interviews.

This is part of a not very skilled promotional campaign for its sister company, Immersion Corporation, and their founder, for whom see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis B. Rosenberg. (I am not nominating Immersion Corporation--I think I may have been able to fix it, but it anyone thinks it's still promotional and non-notable, please let me know when you place the AFD. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the person who originally raised the COI on Rosenberg, my impression is that even with COI Immersion Corp and Unanimous are notable. Whether their clear promotional nature warrants them for retributive deletion is another question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs) 06:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not notable. I agree with DGG. Mommmyy (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite into normal past tense instead of historical present. Most of the promotion is gone, and the company has been around long enough and in the news a number of times to be notable to me at least. I also ran across the article Immersion v. Sony which is n linked from this one but hidden behind a pipe. Not sure if that was intentional. There was a bit of coverage of that case, and there are 20 years of SEC filings, including a recent take-over attempt not mentioned. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4280751-immersion-corporation-activist-shareholders-circling-company https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/immersion-elevates-legal-head-to-ceo-after-waging-patent-battles

As per the original comment, please clarify. It sounds like user DGG did indeed nominate this article to be deleted. The sister company might be Unanimous A.I., which has been around much less time and seems more dubious, claiming to be able to predict events that are in the past? W Nowicki (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Open-source video game#Greater organization. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Games Collection

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

Non-notable compilation of puzzle video games. None of the sources cited in the article are reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG and BEFORE searches do not return any further sources that could be used to support the article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is accurate this appears to be a standard inclusion for the GNOME operating system so maybe a redirect to that article could work since there is a small section about the included games.--67.70.101.198 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Jakks Pacific § Plug It In & Play TV Games~~ Open-source video game § Greater organization, where it is mentioned. No need for merger, as there is nothing sourced to merge. czar 21:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:, sorry, I don't follow this. Where on that page is this collection mentioned? I don't follow the rationale for a redirect there? DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, clipboard malfunction :) Updated target czar 05:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes more sense, thanks! :) DocFreeman24 (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per czar. Nothing left to merge. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per author request (WP:CSD#G7). Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 02:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PreScouter

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

Previously deleted article about a company that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Checking the sources, there's a press release, the company's own web page, a self created profile on a biz listing site, and ONE actual article. Would need considerably more 3rd party sourcing to be valid. JamesG5 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deleted - WP:G5. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Tabrizi

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

I admittedly do not read Persian but from what I can see, these references are generally passing mentions that do not establish notability. I had PROD'd this article but the tag was removed by the article creator. In my BEFORE search, I only came across other individuals named Hossein Tabrizi, not this film director. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the references appear to be substantial. This may be eligible for WP:G5 depending on the outcome of this SPI. I'm getting a real sense of déjà vu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Martínez (footballer, born 1981)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Christ's Assembly

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

WP:NCHURCH: I found nothing on this supposed denomination apart from its website(s?) and Facebook page.

The current website the link in the article redirects to never calls this denomination "The Assembly of Christ" or "The Christ's Assembly Worldwide". The old website is dead. This other website appears to be unrelated.
This denominations is not the same as the "Assembly of Christ" described in Melton's encyclopedia of American religions (2009), ch. 10, p. 454-5. For example, the denomination Melton describes is a Brethren; in comparison, the denomination this WP article is about calls itself "Orthodox Church of the Culdees", and is British Israelite (according to its About page) and Celtic reconstructionist Christian (according to its history page), which are details Melton never mentions or even alludes to. The old website does not match Melton's description either.

I recommend deletion due to lack of notability. Veverve (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The website (calling itself Orthodox Church of the Culdees) looks not quite mainstream to me. I could not find any reference to actual congregations, so that this denomination appears to consist merely of a website(s); thus probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Evermore (Taylor Swift album). Both songs have received the majority of their coverage as part of the album, and so don't currently stand on their own; the info should be merged into the album article. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy like Me

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

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

This song article fails WP:NSONGS. Sources used in this article are album reviews. Two sources (TuneBat and Musicnotes are primary sources, and interpretations of primary sources are potentially WP:OR. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. I suggest this article be redirected to Evermore (Taylor Swift album). Ippantekina (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: For the same reason, I propose Ivy (Taylor Swift song) for deletion (or merge or redirect). Sources in this article are limited to album reviews, and per NSONGS album reviews do not establish notability. Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Cowboy like Me", no opinion on "Ivy": I am cribbing/copying quite heavily from a similar argument I've made in regards to My Tears Ricochet because, at least in my view, these are two sides of the same coin in this instance, and I have similar opinions on both of their nominations - I'm also not giving my input on Ivy for similar reasons - Cowboy like Me is the article that I am familiar with and I'm not presently interested in judging the quality of Ivy at the moment.

Yes, "Cowboy like Me" does not meet WP:NSONGS - the majority of its coverage is established from reviews of Evermore, but I would argue it meets WP:GNG. Evermore, as an album, recieved quite a significant amount of coverage, and while not every track on it is necessarily notable, I would argue "Cowboy like Me" is, as it has recieved significant coverage, even if that coverage is from album reviews of Evermore.

The article consists of about 712 words by my reckoning, and even assuming half of that would be unnecessary in the Folklore article, this still leaves 356 words of the article that would be merged into Evermore (as per WP:NSONGS, some of this material would be contained in the album article), to an area of the "Songs" section that currently consists of 52 words on "Cowboy like Me". In my view, merging the articles would be unnecessary, and simply give undue weight to "Cowboy like Me" to account for its notability. --LivelyRatification (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You acknowledge that "Cowboy like Me" does not meet NSONGS. I will break down the article:

"Background and release": can be reasonably merged into Evermore;

"Composition and lyrics": can be reasonably merged into Evermore (the musicnotes.com or tubenet sources are primary sources);

"Reception": negligible. This consists of all album reviews;

"Charts": can be seen at Taylor Swift singles discography#Other charted songs.

So this article can be reasonably merged without fear of cluttering the Evermore article. Quantity over quality. Ippantekina (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. They meet WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ivy" now qualifies the notability criteria on WP:NSONGS too following its feature on Dickinson, generating mutiple sources on the Internet. Highlighting this only because Ippantenkina stated they believed this song doesn't need an article because it didn't pass NSONGS. In my opinion, passing WP:GNG is enough to warrant an article. But now that it passes both, there shouldn't be an issue. Ronherry (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both articles are essentially WP:FANCRUFT. Very little in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject so fails WP:GNG. Just charting is not enough for these two songs as most Taylor Swift songs will do that these days. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because both are viable search times, redirecting them to Evermore (Taylor Swift album) would be more appropriate. Ippantekina (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That too makes sense! Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for futher input to establish a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Doesn't look like they meet WP:NSONGS to me. Popcornfud (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Evermore (Taylor Swift album) as there does not appear to be significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources on this specific song. As the nominator has already noted, these songs are discussed in album reviews, but further (and more specific) coverage would be necessary to support either of these two songs having their own articles. They are both viable search terms so I believe a redirect would be preferable over outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Her Defense

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

Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV; found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a not particularly notable direct to video movie which does not satisfy WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One reliable review, at CineMagazine [57] DonaldD23 talk to me 12:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the only review in a RS is in a Dutch outlet for a Canadian film starring two prominent American actors, that's a pretty good indicator that this passed by with minimal notice. In other words, fails the WP:42 test. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources for it to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kalbajar District. Treat this as a bit of a "soft" close due to the minimal participation, no prejudice against restoration if sufficient sources are located about any of these localities to pass the "sufficient coverage" clause of WP:GEOLAND. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullauşağı

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

Ağdaş, Kalbajar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alırzalar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Allıkənd, Kalbajar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alolar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a proposal to Redirect to Kalbajar District. These mass-created stubs are nothing more than a name and location sourced to GEOnet, which could easily be covered in a table within the district article. Potential for expansion is unlikely since the villages appear to have been destroyed during the 1993 Armenian occupation. –dlthewave ☎ 01:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - GNS spam. GEONet Names Server is not sufficient to show that a place is populated or has legal recognition, as it is not reliable for those purposes - see the recent consensus at RSN regarding this. FOARP (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rowing at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's coxless pair as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 12:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Heitz

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

Fails WP:NOLY by having competed in the Olympics but not having won a medal. Doing WP:BEFORE I could not really find anything that contributes to WP:GNG, but I will say that there are lots of other Paul Heitzs and I could have missed some coverage in French. With that said, I still didn't find anything that would put him at GNG or WP:NBIO. snood1205 01:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. snood1205 01:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. snood1205 01:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOLY, no medal won. Despite my research I couldn't find anything to fulfill WP:SPORTCRIT either. Lectrician2 (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NOLY, no evidence of SIGCOV. Ravenswing 07:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need multiple examples of significant coverage in sources that are both independent of each other and independent of the subject, and that are both secondary and reliable, we have one source here that is so comprehensive in its format it is of a type of sources specifically disallowed on our guidelines on sportsperson notability, and no one has argued for even one other source that would add toward notability. There are no signs of notability and we would be best served by deleting this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rowing at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's coxless pair, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 16:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alembic Group

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

Fails WP:ORG Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the article there appear to be several seemingly-reputable sources that give significant coverage to the group. And it's diversified from the Pharmaceutical division, so there's some argument against merge. It's a 100-year-old company, WP:LISTED on both India's National Stock Exchange and the Bombay Stock Exchange, with over 300,000 employees in the group, has streets named after it. WP:THREE could perhaps be Financial Times, India Times and Divya Bhaskar (here via Google Translate). Chumpih. (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC) + 2021-12-27 08:50[reply]
Comment: Most of the sources cited are not reliable or just don't establish notability for their own page in the articlespace. Forbes India, TOI, and Business-Standard are good sources but more reliable sources would be better. Multi7001 (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would Forbes India, TOI, and Business-Standard not be a satisfactory WP:THREE? Chumpih. (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chumpih., the page you linked is an essay of a user talk page and not of the official Wiki guidelines. But I do understand that three may be sufficient for some, however, it depends on the quality of the sources. For example, TOI is a questionable source in terms of reliability, so an extra one may be more suitable. The Forbes and Business-Standard written by staff writers are good sources though, since those types of articles also appear in print. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Multi7001. From here you can see that WP:THREE is not exactly an obscure standard, but you're absolutely right about the other points. Is there superior threshold or mechanism you can cite or recommend?

And re. Times of India, the consensus is that it's at its worst when pro-government bias takes over. In this case of reporting on a business group, why would you think that ToI's bias or unreliability would apply? Chumpih. (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reference about TOI was just a broad example. More reliable sources would be better in this case, in my opinion. Multi7001 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's a reasonable stance. Chumpih. (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it is probably worth bearing in mind the difference between WP:NOTE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. For sure, a bigger number of more reliable sources is better, but here in AfD it seems that we deal with what we're handed. The citations needed to support statements within an article (per WP:PRIMARY and so on.) may not all be of the quality required to satisfy WP:NOTE. (WP:MEDRS etc. notwithstanding.) So I suspect we can tolerate a number of insignificant or less-reliable sources providing there are sufficient good ones to satisfy WP:GNG.

Genuinely, is there a better threshold than WP:THREE? Chumpih. (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per WP:LISTED. Better copyediting required on urgent basis or else it will soon head for WP:TNT. -Hatchens (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [58] It's not independent news with missing author name. [59] This is the self published. [60] there is no analysis and news is given by PR agency with comments of spokesperson of the company. [61] It is just a profile link. [62] TOI is not considered much reliable also it is based on announmenet. [63] Again a directory link. [64] unreliable profile source. [65] clear promo, self published news. [66] not reliable again and based on announment with no analysis. Even the content is pure junk. Behind the moors (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Behind the moors: would [67] be acceptable as a source? It's from the No.1 newspaper in India, apparently. If it is acceptable, perhaps find a few more can be found. It would appear that 'Business-standard' is permissible. Given that, is [68] significant and reliable, etc.? Frankly, there's a big likelihood that there's some WP:GNG sources out there because it's WP:LISTED. Chumpih. (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources you shared are not in-depth or independent about the company it is about the event. We need independent sources which is talking about company and analysising it, not an event. Behind the moors (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Behind the moors: According to WP:GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So when you say We need independent sources which is talking about company and analysising it, not an event, who are we and what is the documented requirement to be satisfied? And re. independence, the two sources are national newspapers; they're neither advertising, press releases autobiography nor the company's own website. Chumpih. (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer WP:ORG for organisation not WP:GNG. Just having a coverage in reliable/national paper doesn't mean they are independent. Read them, there is no analysis of journalist of them, only the comments of spokesperson. Behind the moors (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both guidelines were read. And upon reading these, it would be clear to see that "[ WP:ORG ], generally, follow the general notability guidelines". The articles are independent of Alembic, indeed one is positively anti-Alembic, so which "spokesperson" are you referring to? The coverage is significant per definition. Where is this requirement for "analysis of journalist" coming from ? For the avoidance of doubt, these are not rhetorical questions. And once again, Alembic Group is WP:LISTED and over 100 years old, so it would be almost certain to be notable. Here's the Financial Times. Chumpih. (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Soco

AfDs for this article:

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

The entity lacks encyclopedic value WP:PROMO. Lack WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, and WP:RS. Suspected WP:UPE - because creator is also connected with Revolt Motors and Vmoto - both distributors of Super Soco electric bikes in India and Australia respectively. - Hatchens (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hi Hatchens, could I enquire about some of your edits over the past couple of days?

On the 20th of December, at 19:08 you nominated the Super Soco page for speedy deletion.

15 minutes later, at 17:22 this edit was reverted by an experienced Wikiepeida editor, @Espresso Addict, with the comment 'Declining G11, not wholly promtional.

The next day, you have nominated the article for deletion a second time.

Could I enquire why you have re-posted the deletion tag just a day after it was knocked back by Espresso Addict? Inchiquin (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inchiquin -- these are two very different deletion processes; I declined to speedy delete the article (an immediate deletion process for very clear-cut cases) but any editor is permitted then to bring the article to this forum, Articles for Deletion, for a week-long community discussion at the end of which another administrator will assess consensus on whether or not to delete the article. You are allowed to participate and argue your case for inclusion. I suggest you read the guide to deletion for information. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Please Note

Good day, my apologies about breaking up the flow of the page, however, I feel obliged to point to some errors in the first three lines of this page.

1. Firstly, Revolt Motors is not the Super Soco distributor in India, as is suggested in the third line (above). The Vmoto Soco group is the Indian distributor of the Super Soco group, and the motorcycles are distributed through the Bird Group. See source below.

Vmoto is an Australian two-wheeler manufacturing group that largely makes electric scooters. The company recently signed an MoU with the Indian company Bird Group, and will discuss collaborating for the distribution of two of its products – Super Soco CUmini and Super Soco CUx.

Source: https://gaadiwaadi.com/super-soco-cumini-electric-scooter-india-launch-confirmed/

2. Vmoto is not the Australian distributor of Super Soco, it was the international distributor, however, even that is now under question. Super Soco, a distinct Chinese entity, have challenged Vmoto's rights to distribute the brand internationally. See source below:

The world's largest motorcycle trade expo EICMA, ended on November 28 in Milan, Italy. During the event, SUPERSOCO, a world-renowned and recognized electric motorcycle brand, discovered that a company exhibited, without permission, many of SUPERSOCO's best-selling models in violation of its exclusive appearance patents and intellectual property rights, such as CPX/TC MAX/CU/VS1, and utilized the SUPERSOCO brand and some of its models for media communications...

Source: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/electric-motorcycle-brand-supersoco-issues-statement-concerning-ownership-of-the-brands-intellectual-property-rights-301434734.html

The company referred to in the statement above is Vmoto, a competitor to Super Soco.

3. Essentially, the three companies are distinct entities and competitors, and they are not subsidiaries of one another. It is not easy to understand the connections however, and I suspect the editor above may have misunderstood the relationship between them.

4. That point is important, because the allegation in relation to UPE is predicated on the assumption that these companies are subsidiaries. However, as demonstrated above, they are not. They are independent of each other, and in competition with one another.

Note that I do not have a problem declaring COI if warranted, but such is not the case here. Needless to say, I was not paid a penny for writing these articles, I have never been paid for anything that I have ever written on Wikipedia, nor will I ever accept a payment for writing an article. Inchiquin (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't make out a thing. Anyway let's wait for others' assessment. -Hatchens (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At first sight this might be notable, until, that is, the references are checked. Instead we see WP:ADMASQ for a corp whose sole referencing is, broadly, churnalism. I was hoping that was not the case.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by both Hatchens and Timtrent. Furthermore, I do not see how SIRS can be applied here and if SIRS can’t be allied then invariably NCORP can’t be satisfied & if NCORP isn’t met then the article in question is clearly not mainspace worthy. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm pretty sure Super Soco is one of the biggest in terms of market share for electric motorbikes in the world, and I think its got number one sales and pretty high profile in some European countries. So no, clearly an important company in this area and definitely shouldn't be deleted. I've been searching to get some market share information, but can't find any for electric bikes. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment It is something of a mystery to me as to why this article is being subjected to an afd when there are already articles on askoll and Niu Technologies?. I'm a little curious as to why is it that those calling for this to be deleted don't seem to have an issue with these two articles, as there isn't much difference between them. (Here I am diplomatically ignoring the issue of the dubious UPE tag, which exactly no-one believes is justified, including, I suspect, the fellow who stuck it on the article in the first place). Inchiquin (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inchiquin:, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. the existence or not of an article on another company in the same industry never should impact the existence or not of an article that is nominated just because they share that industry. Unless they are nominated together, each AfD considers the articles in (relative) isolation. This article is nominated and editors are commenting on its notability and sources, not the others. You are free to nominate the others if you see fit. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eggishorn, no doubt what you say is correct. But I think one point you perhaps are not aware of is that the small group of editors who are calling for the deletion of the Super Soco article, are the pretty much the same as those who have been campaigning against Vmoto and the recently deleted Revolt Motors. So I can't help wondering why is it that these three editors are only focused on removing these three electric motorcycle companies, and not the articles on Askoll or Niu, or Ola Electric for that matter, which are actually very similar in terms of style and with respect to notability?.

By the way, in the 10+ years I have been using Wikipedia I have never nominated an article for deletion, and I don't think I ever will. Personally, I don't understand the obsession some editors have with deleting content on Wikipedia. If you have an issue with an article, surely the first option should be to edit the article?. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia, the reason the site was created?. Deleting articles is the always the lazy option, it is also a process that is all-too frequently abused, and results in perverse outcomes. For evidence of that, just look at the way in which Wikipedia has increasingly become dominated by articles focused on pop-culture minutiae over the past decade. The bottomless pit of trivial pop-cult articles shows that there is something wrong with the functioning of the afd process on this site. Inchiquin (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Speaking of popular culture and Wikipedia, it might be worthy of note that one of the countless pop-cult articles on Wiki seems to be of some relevance to the topic of Super Soco: That of the upcoming spy-thriller The 355, featuring Diane Kruger, Lupita Nyong'o and Penélope Cruz.

Apparently, there is a chase scene in the film, during which Diane Kruger rides a Super Soco motorcycle down a street.

You can view a photo showing the actor riding the Super Soco on this website: https://www.hollywoodoutbreak.com/2021/12/16/355s-international-feel-is-part-of-the-appeal-for-diane-kruger/

Click on the photo for a clearer shot of the German-born star riding the e-motorcycle. Inchiquin (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1 - firstly the content immediately above is interesting, but not suitable for mainspace unless it's been mentioned in secondary sources.
- Comment 2 - if any reviewer is inclined to slaughter the source (ferinstance as churnalism ), I have added a 2019 ref in this diff from The Vintagent's web presence; note, this is Vintagent, an occasional WP contributor. I have long-known of this, which was a WP:SPS blog and has been revamped and relaunched as a tax-exempt, alleged education portal.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment 3 I have now added a list of reliable sources at Talk:Super Soco#Reliable sources, with most having traditional, substantial, publishing-house backgrounds, The Guardian and Motorcycle News (Bauer). Dissenters please state your case here to avoid any wasted effort in working them into the article.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lipscombe-Southwell, Alice (2017-10-06). "Super Soco TS1200R: super light, super silent but super slow". BBC Science Focus. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The review notes: "What’s not so great? The Super Soco is freakishly silent. It makes no noise whatsoever, making it feel more akin to a bicycle than a motorbike. [More discussion.] ... It’s also not very fast. [More discussion.] ... Plus, despite a biker friend telling me that an electric motorbike would be “torque-y as hell”, I was left sadly disappointed with the lack of whoomph of the Super Soco."
2. Love, Martin (2019-06-09). "Super Soco CUX: 'Swift, green, cheap and fun'". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "Britain’s most popular electric motorcycle manufacturer is Super Soco. The company was only launched in 2017. Last year it became the first to sell more than 100 bikes in a year – and that was 25% of the overall market. In China, in the same period, 22.7m were sold, which is more than in the rest of the world combined. If you are an early-adopter, you’ll find Super Soco has several very rewarding bikes."
3. Williams, David (2017-11-02). "David Williams: Mr Lock-Up's passion for classic cars still burns brightly". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "Thinking of dipping your toe in the electric vehicle market? How about this Chinese-built Super Soco motorcycle? ... On the road it’s nippy and agile; the ride is reasonably forgiving and both brake levers are handlebar-mounted, bicycle-style. It generally has enough oomph to match traffic away from a standstill, but not on steeper hills."
4. Williams, David (2021-04-29). "Super Soco's CPx 'super-scooter': Going electric for a germ-free commute". Evening Standard. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "The Super Soco is reasonably well equipped, with a smart, clear LCD display, reasonably good build quality, a big, comfy (thought slightly too high) squashy seat, a tall, clear, protective screen, very decent rear-view mirrors, a useful parcel rack, a side stand as well as centre stand, and even a reverse mode (useful, perhaps, for getting out of tight front-garden parking spaces)."
5. Addecott, Fraser (2019-11-10). "Bright spark: Super Soco TC Max reviewed". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "Super Soco has tried something different here with its TC Max – an affordable electric bike aimed squarely at commuters and shorter-distance riders, with the looks and style of a mid-size naked, and with a hint of retro."
6. Addecott, Fraser (2019-05-16). "Unplug and go: Super Soco CU-X reviewed". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "And already paving the EV way is Super Soco. The firm was formed in 2015 as the result of a $15million crowd-funding project alongside Australian electric scooter company Vmoto. Super Soco machines are now distributed in 59 countries around the world. It launched in the UK in 2017 and there are currently 25 dealers."
7. Porter, Jon (2017-08-08). "Forget Tesla, I just spent three days with a Super Soco electric motorbike". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The review notes: "The Super Soco was a fun bike to ride. Its acceleration was impressive, it’s range was able to handle the biggest single journey I make on a regular basis (the 25 mile round trip to my parents’), and the removable battery makes it easy to charge. ... But the main problem with the Super Soco, and indeed all electric motorbikes, is that I don’t think the economics of them quite make sense. ... What electric motorbikes need is their Tesla moment, and as much as I hate to say it I don’t think Super Soco are quite there yet."
8. Knatchbull, Philip (2018-08-17). "Philip Knatchbull Leads the (Silent) Charge of the Green Brigade. Could the Super Soco 1500 TC electric motorbike replace Philip Knatchbull's beloved Vectrix?". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "After eight years of bliss the bike suddenly died, so when Vanity Fair asked me to review a motorbike the choice was easy. My film company, Curzon, had recently committed to a programme of eco-sustainability and I already had experience of riding 20,000 miles on an electric motorbike, so I overlooked the glamour of a Harley Davidson and the fast and furious big petrol bikes in favour of seeking out the very latest and best electric motorbike around: the Super Soco 1500 TC, a stylish, retro, Italian-looking bike that does not disappoint."
9. Morgan, Tom (2017-10-10). "Super Soco TS1200R first ride review. The Tesla of the 50cc moped world? Not quite..." Stuff. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "As a first taste of two-wheeled commuting, the Super Soco certainly made an impression. It’s fast off the line, easy to recharge, and looks pretty sporty for the equivalent of a 50cc petrol moped. Electric range is an issue, though – making it unsuitable for anything longer than a weekday commute."
10. Love, Martin (2017-12-17). "Super Soco E-Motorbike preview: 'Commuting isn't supposed to be this much fun' - A lightweight, zero-emissions electric motorbike which will take a lot of the hassle out of town travel". The Observer. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "The fun and frisky Super Soco, which comes in five punchy colours, is a glorious traffic-dodging, commute-conquering blast of two-wheeled joy. ... Launched by the Australian scooter company Vmoto, the Super Soco is probably the most affordable e-motorbike on sale in Britain."
11. "On your electric bike - Never mind Elon Musk and Tesla, the future of eco transport is here already - and it's on two wheels". Manchester Evening News. 2018-06-23. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "The Super Soco is the cheapest of the bunch, and for good reason - it's underpowered and has a short range. But that's the point - it's a commuter bike that will do no more than 30mph and has range of 30 miles (you can have two batteries installed that'll double that)."
12. Lethlean, John (2019-04-25). "Not exactly impressive but future of electric commuter bikes a slow burn". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
  The article notes: "The Chinese-manufactured Super Soco is small in all its dimensions, and at 78kg weighs very little. For better or worse, however, it is classified as a motorcycle, even if the motor is in the rear wheel’s hub and the fuel is a battery mounted beneath the “tank” along with a portable charger you might conceivably take into the office with your battery to charge for the trip home."
13. Addecott, Fraser (2020-04-13). "Super Soco electric bikes: Firm offers discount to key workers during lockdown. Britain's most popular electric motorbike company supports health care and other essential staff with savings across its range of electric vehicles". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2021-12-31. Retrieved 2021-12-31.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Super Soco to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant amount of reliable sources identified.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's large quantity of sources. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice that an editor, Inchiquin, has been canvassing for "keep" votes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers I have left a formal warning on the editor's talk page and deployed {{Not a ballot}}. It is disappointing behaviour. The editor should defend upon policy based argument, not upon canvased !votes. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inchiquin had already been advised by an admin on 26 December that the degree of canvassing was inappropriate; the same admin declined to post at AfD, and had previously declined when mediation was requested (in relation to these AfD sequences) on 22 December.

I !voted only after extensive references had been added (1 to 13, listed above), which occurred after I had posted 7 refs at the article Talk. I did not !vote at Revolt Motors, or at Vmoto.

Editors can see candid, generalised chat about the topic between 3 and 10 December at my talk page.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed Inchiquin was probably unaware about the canvassing rule, as he seemed upfront about it when he raised it on my talk page. However, that said the discussion wasn't just about that, he raised some issues about apparently being labelled as someone who had a COI and was explaining to me about why that wasn't the case. I still don't know if the accusation about the COI was warranted, he created the three articles, but as far as I can see he's not connected with all the companies and seems to have created them in good faith. I like to encourage editors and assist editors inexperienced in an area who are creating valid content in good faith for Wikipedia. It is my gut feeling he created these articles in good faith. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. There was general agreement, even amongst many who wanted to retain the material in some form, that this single study was not notable enough for a standalone page. There was also general agreement that a more general article on psychedelics and creativity might be viable. It is unclear whether or not this page is a suitable basis for constructing such an article, but there is no reason to stop editors from trying if they so wish. Hence draftify. SpinningSpark 14:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelics in problem-solving experiment

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

A single science experiment with no reliable medical sources. It was initially redirected by Alexbrn (talk · contribs) in October 2017 after sequentially removing massive amounts of WP:COATRACK and non-RS, but was unilaterally restored in December by Ianneman (talk · contribs) on invalid grounds that "[i]n the current climate of research, fully sourced discussion on this subject is impossible". Alexbrn recently did another trim and then PRODded the article, but was deprodded by Custoo (talk · contribs) without explanation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03 I'm suprised to read that you concider that I didn't explain why I deprodded. I did explain it in the talk page before doing it as instructed. As you can see in the talk page the explanation is too long for edit summary. Perhaps you didn't see my explanation in the talk page?--Custoo (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Custoo: I'm sorry about not reading it first. It wasn't very clear, however. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not-notable research experiment. The one notionally viable source (Doody) does not even mention this particular piece of research. If anything emerges per WP:NOPAGE it would in any case be better mentioned at James Fadiman where it would make better sense. Alexbrn (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: I just published a revision on the article trying to demonstrate that it can be improved. I think it can be improved even more but I could only do so much with given time since 1) it's five days to christmas so I didn't acutely have more time to work on this 2) AfD process states that articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days so I might expect someone to make the decission as soon as tomorrow 3) I don't want to spend time working on this before I know it won't be deleted and I have the necessary time to work on it without unnecessary pressure from AfD process. Currently the article reads much like two other articles Concord Prison Experiment and Marsh Chapel Experiment. These articles build upon initial experiments done in the 1960s and continue with contemporary follow-ups.

The above argument by Alexbrn that the only viable source doesn't even mention this research doesn't hold true anymore as I have provided three more contemporary sources that cite the original research. This also brings into doubt the argument that this research is not notable. It seems notable enough for the contemporary researchers so that they cite and revisit it even 40 years afterwards.

I don't also think merging the current content to James Fadiman would make much sense as the scope of the article is no longer constricted to Fadimans work and also the first author was Willis Harman. If justification of standalone article is still disputed I could offer few other solutions.

The article could be reframed not to build upon the initial experiment but to be about studies of psychedelics effect on creativity and cognition in general. I guess it might then resemble the article Psychedelic therapy which sums up the research on therapeutic potential of psychedelics even though the clinical experiments are not still finished so that that the therapeutic use could be evaluated or aproved. I doubt though there will be as much contemporary material to add in future as there is for the topic of psychedelic therapy. I'm not sure this would be my favourite solution and that is based only in not having clear vision on how to rewrite the article.

Another solution could be to start a whole new article titled Psychedelic drug research. There would also be a root category ready to go with it. That article could bring together all the different research paths. To name few there could be 1) Effect on creativity and cognition, 2) psychedelic induced mystical experiences (Marsh Chapel Experiment and follow-ups), 3) effect on prisoners recidivism (Concord Prison Experiment and follow-ups), 4) brain imaging studies, 5) research on the quality of subjective altered states of concsiousness studied with altered states of concsiousness questionaire (5D-ASC), 6) microdosing studies 7) therapeutic studies already have article about them but it could be mentioned and then redirect there 8) pharmacology. This might reduse the tendency for standalone articles of experimental and novel topics on psychedelic research in the future as they could be included in the main article. This might make a pretty long article in the long run but then again any single topic could split into it's own article if necessary.

My first choice for now would still be to keep things as they are and start imporving this article as it is (in January after the holidays).--Custoo (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is most of your sourcing was unreliable (preprints? seriously?) The one review which does actually cite the experiment has little to say - not sufficient to establish notability. Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. There's an editor right here who wants to take this on. There's no sense in deleting it out from under them while they're working on it. But articles founded on unreliable sources shouldn't be hanging around in mainspace either. -- asilvering (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just like a user mentioned, the experiment is not notable and does not warrant its own page in the articlespace at this time. No SIGCOV or indication of notability from multiple reliable sources exist. One of the peer-reviewed journal articles cited is self-published and directly associated with the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for the reasons stated by asilvering. If it was not under active development by an editor I would say delete. Based on the coverage this material probably belongs as part of a broader article and not as its own page. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per POV, notability. Any relevant content belongs on the notable scientist article (James Fadiman), not in this standalone which has such limited coverage. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 13:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If a general article is appropriate, it can be written independently of tryign to reuse this. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The current article should not be in mainspace, but it feels needlessly unkind to delete it when an active editor has expressed strong interest in revising it. This and other studies done by Harman, McKim, Mogar, Fadiman, etc in the 1960s can eventually be covered in a general article about psychedelics and cognition/perception. Aeffenberger (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards draftify as a WP:ATD but keeping an open mind...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this progressed beyond pilot studies and preliminary stages of investigation or that this is an actively-debated or pursued field of study in academic research. Draftify would just leave it in purgatory. If there is legitimate research conducted in this area some day, it can be re-created. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Aeffenberger. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify I endorse retaining the original content in a modified version of the original article. Until then the original should be republished as the current version lacks useful information related to the article title. Also, I note reference above to the lack of published evidence when in fact the original study this article was based on linked to (James Fadiman) has a robust academic publishing and source in both academia and book form. Additionally, it is claimed that this is NOT an actively studied t or debated field when in fact it is. Please see NL Marson (2021) with over 10 citations for example among a number of recent studies in the last decade. Other earlier but more recent studies which investigate psychedelics in a creativity context include Janiger & Dobkin de Rios (1989). I emphasise that having an article based on a single study is not proportionate but 1) the topic is indeed being investigated, 2) significant interest is currently ongoing in psychedelics. Therefore, I suggest redraft of this article to focus on psychedelics and creativity with a subsection created for the original (James Fadiman) study with greater focus on background. I have personal interest in this topic and have used this page heavily. Dt00073 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dt00073:, please refer to WP:NOMEDICAL. Personal interest or opinions of utility do not represent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junction City Brigade

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

Non-notable team per WP:GNG; unreferenced article and a quick search returns only invalid sources per WP:AUD Headphase (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Headphase (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing to indicate the subject passes GNG. Only stuff I can find is routine announcements of results and fixtures. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wouldn't mind attending a game and that would be fun, but this is way below the standard of WP:GNG. Any information for this team can (and should) be held in the league article. It may also be possible that the league article should be deleted--but I'm not ready to touch that one in this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kabhi Kabhie Ittefaq Sey

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

Most probably a case of WP:TOOSOON Princepratap1234 (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Production commenced in October 2021. See NFILM. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NFILM. See also WP:NFF 2402:3A80:1A48:14C3:58CD:4F9F:37F2:CFE1 (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not a film. Princepratap1234 (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: passes WP:NTVNATL. Its not a likely case of WP:TOOSOON 2402:3A80:6E1:57F1:8B93:F284:4DA2:CD45 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The show is now being broadcasted daily. 2402:3A80:6F2:2B5F:6418:848A:6C0B:CA6B (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep StarPlus is a nationally-available pay network in India and sources confirm this is being broadcast there. The sourcing is heavily dependent on Times of India entertainment coverage, which can be problematic, but the corroborating sourcing and volume of coverage persuade me that this meets notability standards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The show has now started it's broadcast on TV at Star Plus as well as it's digital platform Disney+ Hotstar. Where fresh episodes are available every morning according to IST at 06:00AM sharp.Pri2000 (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Beqiri

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The child singer participated at Kënga Magjike and was featured as a artist on several project but there are no information on current events or upcoming projects. Iaof2017 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I see no significant coverage to indicate the subject passes GNG. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Will Breathe

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

Alleged to be an entirely promotional article (CSD G11), but in the interest of transparency I'm electing to go with AFD rather than CSD in this matter. Posting here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @Philoserf: for input, not the creator but the main contributor. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stands. This is a mix of promotion and a personal essay coatracking surrounding events joining everything together in an original research fashion. Article is bombarded with sources that don't mention the group and has an overly self serving reliance on the organisation's own website. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/rewrite 40 plus sources for such a small article tells me it's trying to be notable but isn't. Would need a rewrite and possibly reworking the sources to remove most of the crap ones. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: not internationally or nationally notable. the organization is locally notable and was a key part of the black lives matter movement during the events of that first summer. I helped to shepherd this article from AfC to here. I leave it to the consensus of my fellow editors on the suitability of this article for inclusion in the encyclopedia now. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a Detroit resident I can tell you this organization is not notable. Not every group of people who put a name to what they are doing and get a few mentions in news article merits an encyclopedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A recent news search suggests your views on and experience of the group are incomplete, Johnpacklambert.

Google News Search sorted by date —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TNT. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtriya Secular Majlis Party

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

The only claim of notability in this article is that they have a member in state parliament. However, looking at the sources used, the MLA himself, Nawsad Siddique is actually from the Indian Secular Front which is only loosely affiliated, ie. "on a ticket", "borrowed symbol" with this party. Even if he's actually from the party, there's not enough significant coverage to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 14:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 14:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 14:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Twotwofourtysix. It says in the article that, The Indian Secular Front party fought election under the name of Rashtriya Secular Majlis Party. Are you disputing this? If this is true, then instead of deleting, may be the better action will be to merge the two articles into a suitable target article, (may be at Indian Secular Front) Venkat TL (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no rule that Member of a party can fight elections on another partys' symbol. See - https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2019/sep/18/one-party-candidate-cant-contest-in-another-partys-symbol-eci-2035029.amp

Indian Secular Front is not a registered party. There is no name of this party in Election Commission of India's New Party Seeking Registeration since 1 January 2021 see - https://eci.gov.in/files/category/352-new-parties-seeking-registration/

I think it is a Double-faced politics played in West Bengal. If is not seeking Registeration then how Abbas Siddiqui launched party for election? See - https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pirzada-abbas-siddiqui-announces-indian-secular-front-isf-for-bengal-elections-2356170 and they also released there symbol without registration. See - https://www.indiatvnews.com/video/politics/pirzada-abbas-siddiqui-to-release-his-party-symbol-today-689141. If it is not registered then how Indian Secular Front article is live? The Wiki Mafiya (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is a Party registered in Election Commission of India. Hence the page should not be deleted. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does this political party meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NORG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ISF is a West Bengal-based political party whereas RSMP is a Bihar-based party. ISF contested the 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election under the borrowed symbol of RSMP. They should not be merged as these are two different political parties. — Diptyajit (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a registered, unrecognized party; of which there are ~3k. The only coverage, even in local media has been about ISF borrowing their symbol. --Hemantha (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus of editors is that the sources do not contain significant coverage to the level required to meet our notability requirements. Daniel (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie Database

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on this website was deleted at AFD in 2017 due to inadequate sourcing. A new article has been created today - but the sourcing problem remains. There are 14 citations on the article - 2 are to the website itself. 4 are user generated content (Quora, reddit, Wikidata, Letterboxd). 3 are to open source projects that have plugins to read the DB (Kodi, Plex) - not independent or reliably published. 1 is an indiscriminate API directory (ProgrammableWeb). 1 is an Alexa listing. The remaining 3 (IMDB, the BBC, and the Guardian) don't actually mention the topic of the article. I've looked and I can't find better sourcing. Since this article has -0- independent, reliable sources, I believe it fails both WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well as the article appears on 9 other WP languages, it clearly exists, so such articles should be given time, given it's marked as a stub, as that's what it is for the moment. Instant deletion is jumping the gun here. Jimthing (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A mass copy-edit has since been done, including some better links. While not perfect, the issue has been improved upon and somewhat dealt with. Jimthing (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is literally nothing here that shows notability. All the references, all 22 now, are unreliable, self-sourced or only marginally relevant. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'self-sourced or only marginally relevant', what does that mean? They're smaller outlets due to the nature of the subject, but news sites nonetheless. Jimthing (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'unreliable' - reddit, qoura, wikidata, blogs, all unreliable sources; 'self-sourced' - sources which are written by the subject (a blogpost and the own website); 'marginally relevant': websites that announce something about another product but do not even mention tmdb. In analogy to the initial analysis by User:MrOllie stating "There are 14 citations on the article - 2 are to the website itself. 4 are user generated content (Quora, reddit, Wikidata, Letterboxd). 3 are to open source projects that have plugins to read the DB (Kodi, Plex) - not independent or reliably published. 1 is an indiscriminate API directory (ProgrammableWeb). 1 is an Alexa listing. The remaining 3 (IMDB, the BBC, and the Guardian) don't actually mention the topic of the article" - now it is "There are 22 citations on the article - 2 are to the website itself. 5 are user generated content (Quora, reddit, Wikidata, Letterboxd). 3 are to open source projects that have plugins to read the DB (Kodi, Plex) - not independent or reliably published. 1 is an indiscriminate API directory (ProgrammableWeb), 3 are studies using said API to analyze data from tmdb, 1 is an Alexa listing. 3 are to churnalism type/crowdsourced data/personal listings (resp. Makeuseof, alternativeto and streamingsites). The remaining 4 (IMDB, the BBC, Mashable, and the Guardian) don't actually mention the topic of the article." I've been considering to suggest to salt, but I see that Ohnoitsjamie beat me to that suggestion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Still zero WP:SIGCOV on any reliable sources, and a history of aggressive promotion attempts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you using something someone else did years ago for reasoning now? That's completely unfair behaviour on editors efforts today. I was not involved in any 'promotional attempts' as you call them, so why are you tarnishing my work with those people's actions. Jimthing (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Jimthing: no, it is not unfair. We have websites that have been spamming us for more than 10 years. Continuous attempts to get delisted. Having your website (or even, your company or product) mentioned on Wikipedia is good for your business. SEO is paying their bills. This is not some stupid vandalism or against-community editing (and some editors are indefinitely banned for that), spam is paying the bills of people. The argument that this was years ago is not making any difference. The questions are: is it notable now and (for the blacklist): is it going to be of general use now. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Beetstra: Yes it is unfair. We all know that being on WP may have the side effect of being 'good for business', that's not in doubt. What is in doubt is your continual usage of that reasoning for denial of legitimate subject matter on WP. Again, you fail to answer the question repeatedly asked... Presuming citations exist for both, how is a site like IMDb allowed it's own article page (along with mass External Links section usage across movie & TV show article pages), a highly commercial website (as in, they make money from notoriety and linking to it), while TMDb isn't even allowed it's own article page (even with no External Links section usage across movie & TV show article pages)? Under your own reasoning above, both are 'spamming' (to use your terminology here), as they both link to their own respective sites. Jimthing (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  IMDb is notable, it has references that are both independent and reliable at the same time talking about it. tmdb does not have independent references talking about it (and those that are, are unreliable). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't mean to be rude, but I think you're ignoring the main question again. Let me rephrase it... providing both are cited, how is IMDb's presence on WP any more appropriate than TMDb's - given they both do the same thing? Jimthing (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  History of promotionalism is worth noting because that tends to lead to a bunch of unreliable citations that need to be weeded out (we call this a WP:REFBOMB). But the reason to delete is the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  
  No, you are ignoring the answer. IMDb is notable, big. Therefore its presence is deemed appropriate. Therefore the community has deemed it good to include the links on every page. It is a well respected, well known database. TMDb is unknown, 22 references and you are not able to show any that are independent and reliable. IMDb ismore established, TMDb is not.
  Anyway, your argument is pure WP:WHATABOUTX. We are not comparing TMDb with IMDb, we are judging TMDb on its own merits. And it fails. There is no independent reliable sourcing. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Of course IMDB's presence is deemed appropriate, but size is not the only determinant of validity. TMDb is clearly not unknown, as the sources attest to its various uses by both domestic users and companies. The sources given make that clear enough regardless of being limited in number, others have been added –including the suggested one below to the conference paper book– so saying "there is no independent reliable sourcing" is not true. Jimthing (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The use of a database in an academic study does not make something notable. Do you have the latimes writing articles about TMDb? Or CBS news? CNET? TheRegister? BBC News? SkyNews? Boston Globe? Out of (now) 27 references you have one case where an academic used it independently of the subject. But they are not writing about TMDb, they are writing about face recognition software and that they used the database for testing. As user:Jumpytoo says below: "... this is not enough to meet GNG". We are at this for 9 days, and all you have is unreliable, tangential, self published, user generated, and not even a single main news outlet who has ever written about this. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The website is not a mainstream product so is clearly not going to be covered in mass mainstream outlets is it, but rather specialist ones (like thousands of other WP articles), which are some of those that appear in the article already. Furthermore, it is a Wikidata property datapoint, yet users who want to see what the Wikidata point is, have no English-language WP page to link-through to; hence why it features on nine other WP language's accordingly. Jimthing (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  There is no exception for niche topics - everything must meet the same sourcing standard. MrOllie (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well instead of deletion, to give more time for better sources to be found, I've instead added the more reasonable "More citations needed" + stub status templates. I hope that's OK? Jimthing (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You assume they exist? The current version of the article is essentially the same as this deleted version of 11 March 2017, at 04:17 (admin only) (with as only main additions the recent history regarding other companies' use of the db, and more extensive use of the db in external studies). In almost 4 years the article has not improved (most of the prose is literally the same as the deleted article), and there has not been any significant media coverage since. It almost fits our criteria for speedy deletion CSD-G4 as it is 'substantially identical to the deleted version'. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well just found further ones (inc. Australian Govt film classification, and Empire magazine), so seemingly yes. Along with some re-writes for clarity. Jimthing (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't sources providing significant coverage, they're the required attribution notices for sites that use the TMDB API. - MrOllie (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here to say the same. So really you don’t have what we asked for for years now? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Jimthing:, can you please provide the WP:THREE best sources that you believe establish notability? The only stuff I found is this conference paper having a short section about the database, and some mentions of using this DB in some theses, but this is not enough to meet GNG. So looking to see if you have any other sources for this site. Jumpytoo Talk 00:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I added your source, with thanks. While I wish there were of course more, there are others in the article from news sources, establishing WP:GNG, along the site being used as a Wikidata property, and thus being on nine other WP languages outside of the English one. Jimthing (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV per the convincing source analysis by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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