Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 21 November 23 >

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. Daniel (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Carević

Lazar Carević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm just gonna copy the previous PRODs here for reference:
  1. 19:30, 9 April 2019 Explicit talk contribs deleted page Lazar Carević (Expired PROD, concern was: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL) (thank)
  2. 19:21, 10 July 2020 Fenix down talk contribs deleted page Lazar Carević (Expired PROD, concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.) (thank)
Obviously the first PROD should have made the article ineligible to a second PROD but this one slipped through the cracks once. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A number of sources have been suggested which warrant further consideration. Feels like WP:BLP1E at the moment as they all refer to the same thing, but at least indicative of some level of coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time to see if anyone has any thoughts on the sources presented by GauchoDude.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:44, 22 November 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 SpaceX Mars program. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Base Alpha

Mars Base Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV stub on a topic with no independent notability spun off from SpaceX Mars program. Sourced to a tweet (inadmissible per WP:PRIMARY) and some fluff websites; the only reference that remotely approaches decent does not actually mention "Mars Base Alpha". XOR'easter (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Stubbier than a stub, and the little content, while amusing, is not particularly reliable. I really am amused by the infobox item "Government: Imperator Elon Musk", directly under "Direct Democracy", but that amusement doesn't mean the article has any relevance. This is a variation on "too soon" in some minor key. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect back to SpaceX Mars program. (This isn't really an Astronomy topic.) Praemonitus (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But according to WP:P Deletion doesn't meet criteria for it to happen, because its follow independent and reliable source, as long as its verifiable and also gained serious attention. Worth notice that content of subject cannot be made up/interpret by individual unless there is primary and secondary sources in order to support the cause, while in these case Elon Musk proclaims himself as Mars Imperator, colonizing mars, imposing his own law for Mars Base Alpha is well-know publication in media is cleary not. Therefore could resume its existence.

MrHerii (talk) 03:55, 23 November 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. The initial discussion was about whether the sourcing of the article - both at the nomination and sources added later - meets the various WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPROF prongs; it seems like the consensus on that point was trending in favour of them meeting it. The accusations against the nominator are not a particularly good keep rationale. The later keep arguments along the lines of WP:NAUTHOR have gone uncontested from what I can see. All this suggests that people here have come to a keep consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taner Edis

AfDs for this article:
Taner Edis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources either have conflicts of interest with the person or are reviews of his book rather than sources about the person. I therefore believe (and a DuckDuckGo search confirms) that outside of sources he has a COI with, his own publications, or niche blogs there is not enough coverage of him to merit an article based on lack of notability. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 22:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources (per diff)

  1. Literally his CV
  2. He is a "Scientific and Technical Consultant" for the parent company of this source
  3. Same as (2).
  4. This is a publication for the company he is a consultant to
  5. A lecture given by him as part of a panel to approx. 100 people does not indicate notability.
  6. This is a non-notable conference.
  7. This is a citation to his own book. (Sidenote: Prometheus Books was founded by the co-founder of the company Edis consults for. Not that I think that's necessarily a COI, but worth noting.)
  8. A review of his book
  9. A review of his book
  10. A review of his book
  11. The award is given by the parent company to the one he consults for.

As can be seen, there are no reputable, independent sources that show Taner Edis is notable.

Survey

  • Keep. When nominating for deletion, what matters (per WP:BEFORE's due diligence) is the not the sources used, but the sources that could be used. That Edis is quoted in conventional media (e.g. the New York Times, Reuters, and several national-level foreign-language news outlets) as an academic expert in his field is evidence of notability and that he rises above the level of "average professor". I shall try to add some of the sourcing to the article to make this more apparent. Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 2 sources you have added to the article the quotes mentioning him are as follows:
From "Creationism, Minus a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World":
One of the conference participants, Taner Edis, said he never encountered creationist undertones when he was growing up in Turkey in the 1970s. “I first noticed creationism when I came to America for graduate school,” said Dr. Edis, now a professor of physics at Truman State University in Missouri. He thought it an American oddity. Some years later, while browsing a bookstore on a visit to Turkey, Dr. Edis found books about creationism filed in the science section. “It actually caught me by surprise,” he said. In Turkey, officially a secular government but now ruled by an Islamic party, the teaching of evolution has largely disappeared, at least below the university level, and the science curriculum in public schools is written in deference to religious beliefs, Dr. Edis said."
I don't think this is evidence of much notability aside from the conference he attended. In fact, other people mentioned in the article are referred to as "prominent" (i.e. Dr. Hoodboy) while Edis is not.
Note, the article "Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World" is not about him. The only mention of Edis is quoting him:
Who finances these efforts is “a big question that no one knows the answer to,” said another recipient, Taner Edis, a physicist at Truman State University in Missouri who studies issues of science and religion, particularly Islam. Dr. Edis grew up in a secular household in Turkey and has lived in the United States since enrolling in graduate school at Johns Hopkins, where he earned his doctorate in 1994. He said Mr. Yahya’s activities were usually described in the Turkish press as financed by donations. “But what that can mean is anybody’s guess,” he said. Support for creationism is also widespread among Muslims, said Dr. Edis, whose book “An Illusion of Harmony: Science and Religion in Islam” was published by Prometheus Books this spring. “Taken at face value, the Koran is a creationist text,” he said, adding that it would be difficult to find a scholar of Islam “who is going to be gung-ho about Darwin.”
The sum of these quotes basically say he studies science and religion, grew up in a secular household, that Turkey is increasingly nonsecular, and that the Quran is creationist. This does not show he is notable enough for a BLP, but that he could be a valuable reference in articles such as Islamic_views_on_evolution. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 07:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that being quoted in conventional news media is a criterion for an academic's notability? Alexbrn (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to be per WP:NACADEMIC if you take the perspective he should be assessed as an academic for notability. Note that in one of the sources he is quoted by virtue of being one of the speakers at the conference (not that the writers went out of their way to get his quote) and in the other his book is mentioned in passing and he is quoted for two sentences about Turkey and the Quran.
Per NACADEMIC: 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.
In Scopus, (see here) he is shown to have an average of 5 citations per published work. That is not high enough to argue he has had wide academic impact on the discipline. 67 of the 119 citations, by the way, are about his physics work ("Kosterlitz-Thouless transition and charge redistribution in the superconductivity of YBCO/PBCO superlattices", from 1991).
I hadn't checked the scopus link until now, but seeing how low his academic impact is (36 citations for 13 non-physics works at an average of 2.8 citations per work). I believe even more strongly he is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 08:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So he's been cited by in New York Times, Reuters, The Sudan Tribune, T24 (newspaper), Tirto.ID (Indonesia), etc. These are not local news media. Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Add) Also, Scopus is not very useful for attempting to track citations in the humanities space because of its limited scope. It won't pick up that Edis' work is apparently important to current scholarship in many religio-political areas, as found in scholarly monographs and collections. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[The Reuters article] says this about him: “That seems implausible -- this book is expensive,” said Taner Edis, a Turkish-American physicist whose 2007 book “An Illusion of Harmony” analyzed Islam’s approach to science. “And to my knowledge, it’s not selling like hotcakes.” Edis doubted the rumors of funds from U.S. creationists, saying: “American creationists I talk to basically envy Harun Yahya’s financial resources. If there were any fund flowing, it would be from Adnan Oktar to the creationists.”. Again, a passing mention about him where Edis's work isn't discussed at all. He is just talking about an islamic creationist having a lot of money. Additionally, my point was not the locality of the news, but the frequency and prominence of his mentions within the news articles. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 08:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Sudan Tribune article's complete coverage of Taner Edis is a single phrase: In his paper “‘Quran-science’: scientific miracles from the 7th century?”, Taner Edis notes that “Astronomy is fertile territory for the imaginations of apologists seeking to show that the Quran exhibits knowledge far beyond what would be possible in the 7th century environment of its origin”. The paper? a blog post. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 08:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edis' work is not "discussed" in these new pieces of course (we'll get to that with the book reviews), but establishes that Edis is cited as an academic in a range of quality international news media. That bears on his notability and helps us with weighing up whether he passes the "average professor" test. Alexbrn (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3 quotations by RS (I'm not including the Sudan one because that sources his blog post and not his academic work, and the T24 I would consider both a) a local source as his work is very focused on Turkey per his other mentions in the sources provided and b) an interview made during CSICon, which he has COI with as a CSI consultant) is in my opinion fitting of A small number of quotations is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you're arguing that for a person who spent their childhood in Turkey, Turkish national news coverage counts as "a local source"? By that argument the New York Times is "local news" for every American, right? I am beginning to wonder about the good faith of this deletion attempt. Alexbrn (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If both NYT and the Reuters post quote him exclusively when talking about a Turkish celebrity or Turkey then yes I would consider it news local to the subject of his work. Not to him. Hope that clarifies my statement above. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An example would be that I would consider it local coverage if the Boston Herald cited an academic architectural critic specializing in Boston architecture, if that makes sense. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably WP:CIR then. National newspapers don't become local newspapers on the whim of Wikipedia editors. Turkey is a nation state, unlike Boston which is a city. Coverage of national topics in a national news source is by definition "national". Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC); amended 09:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. I understood national as a subset of local but if I misunderstood that then that's alright. I still think that the interview in T24 is immensely short (one of the 3 questions is just to repeat what he said in his speech) and that altogether his coverage by sources is not very indicative of notability, though. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See your topic ban. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What? What does that have to do with this. I am blocked only from ANI. Your statement above is still a hurtful personal attack, and I ask you to please apologize and move on to discussing the actual content of the AfD.Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See here for your antagonism toward GSoW. -Roxy the dog. wooF 09:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy the dog please keep the discussion in this talk page relevant to the AfD and don't attack me. It is hurtful, unconsiderate, and disruptive to the discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz (talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I notice the nominator has now modified the nomination to include the assertion book reviews added to the article merely "cover [...] Edis's books rather than Edis himself I still believe they don't indicate he is notable". This is to swerve around the guidance in WP:NPROF that, when considering impact, "Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations". If indeed it is the case that the nominator has misunderstood that the (copiously reviewed) output of Professor Edis somehow "doesn't count", then perhaps they could withdraw this deletion nomination and save the community wasted time? A biographical article covers the subject's life and work (except where the body of work is so notable it needs to split off). Alexbrn (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The goalposts are moving so fast they're in danger of falling off the edge of the world. As you can find by searching, Edis's books are reviewed in many select academic venues, and I don't propose to include every review. What matters is what is out there not what is "in the article". Getting an academic book reviewed in New Scientist is kind of a big deal. Alexbrn (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how a review in a magazine by a political philosopher (and not a science philosopher) indicates he had a big impact on the field or that the works are highly cited. You don't need to include every review, but indicating some metric as to how cited he is is much more objective than saying a citation in a non-academic non-peer reviewed ("popular science and technology") magazine shows his influence on the field, per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes: To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books. and There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others. Additionally, For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, [...] Ordinary colloquia and seminar talks and invited lectures at scholarly conferences, standard research grants, named post-doctoral fellowships, visiting appointments, or internal university awards are insufficient for this purpose.. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 12:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small aside, I am in no way implying New Scientist is not reliable or whatnot (see WP:NEWSCIENTIST), just that it's not academic.Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 12:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Citations" and "book reviews" are different things, and you're quoting text about citations. Book reviews are by their nature rarely "peer reviewed". The fact that you think the New Scientist has chosen the wrong type of professor as a reviewer (at the time Gray was a Professor or European Thought) doesn't really weigh in assessing notability. The fact is that Edis's work gets attention in good RS, and that counts towards notability, contrary to your assertion in the nomination. I'm not sure why you're quoting guidance about colloquia and seminar talks, etc. It seems completely irrelevant. Alexbrn (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Edis was the co-author of "Why Intelligent Design Fails". This book has been reviewed in peer-reviewed journals like The Quarterly Review of Biology [1] and Politics and the Life Sciences [2]. There are also reviews of his books, The Ghost in the Universe at the NCSE website [3], and in the peer reviewed American Journal of Theology & Philosophy [4], Islam Evolving in the Publisher's Weekly [5] and Journal of Religion and Science [6], etc. Also reviews of his book An Illusion of Harmony in journals like Die Welt des Islams [7]. I could cite many more. This afd should not have been filed. The article can easily be updated. Many reliable book reviews have been published that mention Edis both in peer-reviewed journals and on reliable websites. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:subject is notable per sources shown by Alexbrn and Psychologist Guy. Also, this AfD proposal smells of WP:HOUND, as Roxy the dog so gracefully pointed out. Or did he? BTW, @A. C. Santacruz: when you say the sources have a "conflict of interest" with the subject of this article, I think what you meant to say is that they are not independent of him, which would be the relevant thing to bring up in a discussion of notability. VdSV9•♫ 21:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Here from watching WT:SKEPTIC, in case anyone is wondering.[reply]
I'd have said "bluntly" but "gracefully" is good. -Roxy the dog. wooF 22:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are accusing me of hounding, VdSV9, you should point at the specific editors which I am hounding. None of my edits are made to cause distress and I avoid personal attacks, nor do I follow anyone's edits. The burden is on you to provide evidence of hounding if that is the case. I made this AfD in good faith seeing how a DuckDuckGo search and a google scholar search did not show many citations. Users above have found a number of them, that if the community feels is enough to warrant keeping this article can be used to improve the article itself. How is that inhibiting any editors' work? How is that indicative of me following others around? Is the net result of this AfD, if the article is kept, not a net positive seeing how many new sources have been found that can be added? Is the net result of this AfD, if the article is removed, not a net positive seeing how an article meriting deletion would have been removed? What exactly is the issue that keeps being raised about me in no certain nor cordial terms? Calling me an ape and a hound and making rhetorical questions does nothing but clutter and distract the discussion from the valuable inputs that Psychologist Guy and Alexbrn have raised. If you have issues with me I'd warmly encourage you to instead go to my talk page so that we can have a calm, good-faith conversation there and keep the AfD on-topic. I've made peace with Roxy before, and don't see a reason not to do it now. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 22:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DINC. I think what might raise eyebrows about this AfD is stuff like the description given to reference no. 4 in the nom. What does "a publication for the company he is a consultant to" even mean? and why is it relevant? A lot of effort seems to have gone into teasing out hinted at "conflicts of interest" - rather more than into finding sources. It will likely not escape users' attention that reference no. 4 is also by Susan Gerbic, the very user at the centre of the ANI mess the nominator was deeply involved in. Gerbic is also the top editor of this article by added text. During the ANI mess, the nominator said they were building a "case" on GSoW and believed "there is something to gain from poking around a bit". Is this AfD part of the poking? Alexbrn (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject's notability had not been proven to pass guidelines before raising this AfD (and I still believe it hasn't), so linking DINC does not seem applicable here.
  • About ref. 4, if a source is "closely affiliated with a subject" (as this conflict of interest would indicate), it cannot be used to gauge notability (see WP:INDY).
  • Again, if you are going to accuse me of something I suggest you do so in the proper channels and provide diffs. Ad hominems and rhetorical questions do not benefit the discussion. I'm more than willing to discuss the issue in my talk page, and encourage you all to go there if you wish to have a constructive dialogue in good faith. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 11:19, 24 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Chicken

Iowa Chicken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Political event from the 2008 Republican presidential primary with no lasting impact or political implications. All sources mentioning the Iowa Chicken are about the presidential candidates (McCain and Giuliani) with no more than one or two lines about the individual in the chicken costume. I did not identify a suitable redirect target, as it is not even mentioned on the Iowa Straw Poll page. Enos733 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 Broke Girls: A XXX Parody

2 Broke Girls: A XXX Parody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This film fails to meet notability per WP:NF or any other measure. I did try to find additional coverage before nominating. The sources for the article are by no means reliable. One is a blog and the other two are even listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Generally unreliable sources. SVTCobra 22:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 22 November 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 23:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nite Flyte

Nite Flyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced band stub, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage other than one album review from All About Jazz. Article itself doesn't provide any claim of notability or even any information other than a discography. Lennart97 (talk) 21:46, 22 November 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.

Palestine Solidarity Campaign

The result was Keep per withdrawn by poster. WP:TNT wasn't necessary. (non-admin closure) Bob drobbs (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Palestine Solidarity Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly hopelessly WP:PROMO. Maybe WP:TNT? If you remove all of the unreliable sources it's not clear it meets WP:GNG. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think it passes the notability requirements. It is poorly written (overly promotional, many POV issues), but that's not a reason to delete. It should just be fixed. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inf-in MD: I was originally looking at WP:TNT -- Is so much of the article promo and so many of the sources biased/unreliable that the article should be blown up and started again from scratch? But looking at WP:ATD, maybe a reasonable approach would be reduce to stub by removing all, or almost all, of the info that isn't from reliable secondary sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, stubbing it may be the way to go. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- deleting this article about a notable organisation would not be a good look, in light of WPs well-known zionist leanings. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that perhaps 2/3 of this page is WP:PROMO referencing their site, or other direct supporters, or from other unreliable sources. That's why I pondered if WP:TNT is the fix. Would you support a major truncation of this page, deleting almost everything that comes from non-reliable or primary sources? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am in general in favor of removing material not cited to reliable sources. However material cited to the organization itself is usable per WP:ABOUTSELF. That is besides the point here though, and if you no longer favor deletion you should withdraw the nomination. nableezy - 21:35, 23 November 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 23:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centurion Life Sciences

Centurion Life Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage, all sources are directory entries. Couldn't find any other coverage online. The first google result (for me) is the linkedin profile of the CEO, who happens to share their name with that of the article's creator... 15 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 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 23:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great and Lady Soul

Great and Lady Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO; I can't find any significant coverage of this band. Apparently signed to a major record label, but only released two singles and no albums; no other claim of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 20:00, 22 November 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. Deleting this based on lack of coverage and such to qualify for WP:GNG. If someone wants to "morph" it into something else, I'm happy to userfy for you, just ask.

Thanks everyone for participating in this discussion and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision please take it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review versus my talk page. Thanks and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Schroll

Wes Schroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP:VANISPAM with very poor references barely mentioning the subject's name. A fabulous fail of the google search smell test. Can you say "paid spammer"? db'd, prod'd, and had a fight with ClueBot and a couple of editors (admins?). WTF Wikipedia? Such an obvious case of vanispamcrutisement and we need to go to the high court about this? Weregerbil (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]

@Asilvering:The 30 under 30 is not a single list; there are 20 categories.[15] So, he got a brief mention as one of 600. It's a datapoint, but doesn't seem to do all that much to establish his notability. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an AfD on Schroll, not Fetch Rewards: all the sources I can find are about his company, but not actually about Schroll and there is little significant coverage of him. Looking at the sources raised by Willondon – from The Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Schroll dropped out of college to pursue the business"; from Business Insider: "Schroll dropped out of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2013 to build the company"; from Reuters: not even a mention of his name. Cycling through the other sources, the two Biz Journals give quotes by Schroll, but don't say anything about him; the Wisconsin State Journal only says he and his partner are "UW-Madison students"; one source is puffery from an alumni magazine; Forbes says "Schroll met his cofounder Tyler Kennedy in college and Schroll dropped out of the University of Wisconsin, Madison to build Fetch in 2013"; Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel says "Wes Schroll founded the consumer loyalty and reward app while he was a business student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2013 ... He dropped out of college to work on Fetch Rewards full time". That's it.
    That's before we take into consideration that the community has decided there is no consensus on Business Insider's reliability. So to summarise: we have a couple of sentences from two reliable sources, one halfway-decent-but-local source, and no significant coverage elsewhere. He does not meet the general notability guideline. Passing mentions are simply not enough. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morph into an article on Fetch Rewards. After seeing the comments above, I can see where the subject Wes Schroll would fail notability guidelines. But it seems there's a lot of information on a subject (Fetch Rewards) that many solid publications deem notable. I suggest that much of the article be used to create an article on Fetch Rewards. Willondon (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Alright, I see the rationale about the company vs Schroll himself being trouble for calling it "significant coverage". But turning this into an article on Fetch Rewards would be laundering the work of a suspected COI editor, who has not responded to this AfD (and so, seems unlikely to do that work themselves). I'm sure everyone else can think of better ways to spend their time. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 29 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NovaPDF

AfDs for this article:
NovaPDF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened yet with the speedy deletion tag. That is strange. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Declined by admin due to being different from deleted version. SL93 (talk) 02:29, 24 November 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 23:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FD Iskandar

FD Iskandar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. None of the (working) references in the article are independent, and all I find on Google search is press releases. If kept, the promotional tone of the article would need to be addressed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:53, 22 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sørensen (footballer, born 1989)

Chris Sørensen (footballer, born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not to be confused with the much more notable Chris Sørensen. No professional appearances listed at SofaScore but there is one minute of football at Super Stats meaning that Sørensen has, at best, a weak presumption of meeting WP:GNG. Searching his name in conjunction with the clubs that he played for brings back no apparent significant coverage of him. Clear consensus that GNG is far more important than any presumption of notability gained from playing one minute of professional sport. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:05, 22 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burke Slusher

Burke Slusher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:COI issues since its inception in 2007 and has even been edited by Slusher himself at one point. This explains why this article is currently a CV rather than an encyclopaedia article. Content issues aside, this also has WP:NFOOTBALL concerns as the subject only seems to have, at best, been an assistant coach in a semi-pro league. The only somewhat decent coverage is on his USL Soccer profile page. Everything else is either insignificant or non-independent. ProQuest and Google News come back with nothing. Google itself is filled mostly with Wikipedia mirrors. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:35, 22 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arvid Maciej Slusarczyk

Arvid Maciej Slusarczyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amateur footballer who has only played at a very, very low level in Poland and Sweden. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL due to only playing at amateur level and WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in Swedish and Polish searches. Also tried a search using Maciej instead of Arvid with no success. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:18, 22 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Real Victoria Carmen

Real Victoria Carmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and cannot find WP:SIGCOV or WP:VER from any primary or secondary source. Team never competed above the fourth level nor in a national cup competition. --dashiellx (talk) 16:17, 15 November 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 23:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roxboro, Washington

Roxboro, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searching is impossible, but this was clearly a station on the now abandoned Milwaukee Road line, and the grain elevators are still standing next to where the track was. No evidence of a town. Mangoe (talk) 16:46, 22 November 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 23:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anuranga Walpola

Anuranga Walpola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can see, falls short on WP:NRU and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search was attempted and yielded only a passing mention in Daily News and another in Sunday Observer. Full source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://archive.ph/20141201103434/http://www.dailynews.lk/?q=sports/havelocks-out-retain-division-league-rugby-title Yes Yes No Mentioned once in article and once in squad list at the bottom ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20160304044835/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/07/29/spo05.asp Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042848/http://www.ceylontoday.lk/3-71625-news-detail-ibrahim-to-coach-sri-lanka-juniors.html ? ? ? Broken link ? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20140924034236/http://www.thepapare.com/index.php/rugby-football/national-rugby/5371-podi-tuskers-aim-to-create-history Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
http://ceylonsports.blogspot.com/2014/08/ibrahim-to-coach-sri-lanka-juniors.html No No Blogspot is unacceptable No Contains some okay coverage of Nilfer Ibrahim but very little about Walpola ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20160203154127/http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2010/8/59857.html Yes Yes ~ This brief news story about testing positive for cannabis is the closest to WP:SIGCOV that can be found ~ Partial
http://archives.dailynews.lk/2006/11/23/spo03.asp Yes Yes No Routine transfer news, such coverage is always considered insufficient ✘ No
https://www.sundaytimes.lk/140706/sports/then-came-the-green-shirts-and-worked-their-threes-105844.html Yes Yes No Nothing substantial ✘ No
http://www.dailynews.lk/?q=2015/11/28/sports/army-skipper-robs-navy-win Yes Yes No Doesn't seem to be mentioned at all ✘ 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}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:33, 22 November 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 23:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheham Siddik

Sheham Siddik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Sri Lanka Rugby Championship and Asian Schools Rugby Championships don't seem to count towards WP:NRU and Sri Lanka isn't listed as a High Performance Union either. There is no evidence that he ever played for their senior team anyway. References to date consist of two passing mentions and one very brief death announcement, which is short of WP:GNG's clear requirements. I found nothing better in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:17, 22 November 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 23:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weber, Washington

Weber, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First place I look at in Washington state, and it appears to be Mr. Weber's farm. It's not even clear whether the post office was there, as a 1926 topo shows a second Weber to the southwest which appears to be a station on the railroad, a common location for a post office. The place names origins book calls it a "town", but the track record on that isn't good: these books are pretty accurate when they say something isn't a town, not so good when they say it is one. At any rate all the aerials I found show the same farm that's there today, right up against the road. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 22 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Seyf Ahmadi

Reza Seyf Ahmadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been in place for over 2 years and Ahmadi has still not made their debut. According to Soccerway, SofaScore and BeSoccer, his career has consisted of sitting on the bench once as an unused substitute. FlashScore has nothing.

Nothing in the Persian article indicates notability and searches of "رضا سیف‌احمدی" yield only passing mentions like Varzesh3, which fail to meet the standards required for WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:37, 22 November 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 merge to Hindu astrology. The most substantive "keep" opinions have been rebutted, and the others offer scant evidence of notability, only assertions. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandanta

Gandanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due Lack of coverage in independent general media. Terminology from Fringe topic and violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given source is book on WP:FRINGE theory (pseudoscience WP:PSCI). Venkat TL (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SpinningSpark 15:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These books/publishers are neither WP:Mainstream nor independent of the subject (astrology), they are books on WP:FRINGE theory (Jyotisha i.e. Hindu astrology). Such sources cannot be used to gauge WP:GNG. Only those aspects with coverage outside the WP:NFRINGE sources are notable and this is not. Please see the old discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). Venkat TL (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How are you determining what is mainstream in astrology? It is as ridiculous to reject a book on astrology in an astrology article as it would be to reject a book on physics in a physics article. Reliable sources on science topics are written by scientists, reliable sources on astrology topics are written by astrologers (unless we're discussing evidence for whether it actually works or not). SpinningSpark 16:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The idea that we should accept books about astrology written by astrologers because we accept books about physics written by physicists is not tenable. Physics is a generally accepted mode of inquiry with clear standards for truth and falsehood. Astrology is not." I request you to read the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). I could not explain it any better. In short, There is no mainstream in astrology. Only those aspects of Astrology that are covered in mainstream media (not related to astrology) are relevant enough to be covered on Wikipedia. And this is not one. Hence my nomination. Please read WP:NFRINGE too. Venkat TL (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete An "integral part" of a fringe subject is a fringe subject, and the available sources are not up to the standard we need for writing about such a topic from an outside, encyclopedic perspective. Sources have to be reliable in order to count towards GNG, and the Google Books results are particularly unimpressive in that regard. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the Arkana Publishing book mentioned above: the authors call themselves the only Westerner ever to become a licensed Ayurvedic physician and someone who has been studying and practising Vedic astrology since 1968. It's very definitely in-universe, not a view from outside. XOR'easter (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Hindu astrology. To the extent that there is any content here, it belongs as a couple of sentences in the general treatment - where its status as a pseudo-science is clear - not as a stand-alone article without appropriate context. Modest Genius talk 14:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with VenkatTL's reply to SpinningsPark, and we are not a dictionary. I request the closing administrator to weight the editorial experience of the participants. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a plausible search term, so it shouldn't be a redlink. Encyclopaedists are educators, and we have a basic duty to debunk this kind of rubbish. I mean, Wikipedia isn't Snopes, but we do have to cover fringe topics in order to protect people from woo and disinformation. If it's not notable enough for its own article, we should redirect it to Hindu astrology and add a couple of lines to that article.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such basic duty. Moreover it will be impossible to debunk stuff which the mainstream media believes is not worth talking about. Lack of reliable sources is the concern. Venkat TL (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, it is not for Wikipedia to tell people what they should and should not believe. Our function is to provide factual information. It is a fact that astrology exists, it is a fact that a lot of people follow it, and getting to the relevant point, it is a fact that "gandanta" is a feature of Hindu astrology. Wikipedia can, and should, quite legitimately report that fact. There is really no need for all the hand wringing about it all being just a heap of nonsense. It is, but that's not our concern – soap operas and pokemon cards are nonsense as well, but we don't feel the need to have to constantly point that out to our readers. SpinningSpark 13:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion flies in the face of WP:NFRINGE, WP:Fringe theories and WP:MAINSTREAM. I suggest you read them. Venkat TL (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. MAINSTREAM is an essay so I'm going to ignore that. NFRINGE defines fringe as an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The particular field this belongs to is astrology. I don't think this departs from the mainstream view of astrology at all. So that leaves NFRINGE, but even if it fails that, it should still be merged somewhere per WP:PRESERVE and not deleted. One can't define mainstream as "scientifically valid" unless one wants to delete all articles on religion as well. If we allow articles on major religions, and sub-articles on their concepts and ceremonies, then their is no objective reason not to treat astrology in the same way. SpinningSpark 17:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree on all points. Why are we not preserving the the Anti Vaxxer BS (in their POV) and loads and loads of QAnon BS (in their POV) by the same logic? Millions of people believe in them too. In any case, this fails Wikipedia's WP:GNG. Venkat TL (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Strawman argument. I haven't argued anywhere for preserving astrologers' (or anyone's) POV. SpinningSpark 17:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are using Strawman too. Right from your first comment you have argued for using Astrology Books to gauge notability of astrology topics. That is the same as using Antivaxxer / QAnon blogs, for gauging notability of Antivaxxer/QAnon topics for Wikipedia. This article in question covers Astrology in Astrology POV using Astrology books. Venkat TL (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Modest Genius. There is not enough content on Google Books to pass WP:SIGCOV. However, the content does fall within the scope of Hindu astrology and should be included on that page per WP:FAILN. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hindu astrology per those above. There is enough content to support a mention, and we should describe what the word means, but this is not an independently notable topic. BD2412 T 20:00, 30 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Pason

Andrea Pason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and politician-specific guidelines due to a lack of independent or in-depth sources. User:Namiba 14:08, 22 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Euri González

Euri González (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. This and this are the closest things to SIGCOV I can find, which isn't much. JTtheOG (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe he was the WBO inter-continental welterweight champion, despite what BoxRec says. Boxrec also shows a fight for that title, listed as vacant, 10 days later between Antonio Margarito and Golden Johnson. Stronger evidence still that the fight was likely for the Latino title (which does not meet WP:NBOX) not intercontinental, is from the WBO rankings themselves. In its 2007 world rankings [21], the October 2007 rankings show no Latino (Latino-Int is different) champion and no intercontinental champion. The November 2007 rankings show Gonzalez as the Latino champion and Margarito as the intercontinental champion. Papaursa (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I explained above, I don't believe he was the WBO intercontinental champion (at least the WBO records don't show it). However, he was ranked 8th in the world by the WBO in November, 2007 and that is sufficient to meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:26, 22 November 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Byram

Stephen Byram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. Non-notable graphic designer. SL93 (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • More sources I'm unsure about notability, but I searched for "Stephen Byram Album Covers" and found sources that speak about his work for Beastie Boys[22] and Slayer [23]. That 2nd source described Stephen Byram as a "renowned designer" and that Slayer hiring him was a "stroke of genius". So, maybe hold off a bit and more research before deleting? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow sources provided in this AfD to be evaulated
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:25, 22 November 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Egipt

Harry Egipt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably fails WP:SIGCOV. I finded only one biographical sentence in EFIS Estopedist1 (talk) 13:13, 22 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ABN Assets

ABN Assets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello! I wanted to give you some more information on ABN Assets. They are an active scam community that are impersonating ABN AMRO, a legitimate financial institution. They message people on facebook trying to get victims to send cryptocurrency to their website www.abn-assets.com . The entire webpage is fake and I am actively looking to take them down. The Wikipedia page is the first thing that comes up when you google the company and I noticed people have removed the deletion flag on the page. I am not too familiar with how Wikipedia operates, but if you can help me out and get this page taken down it would be greatly appreciated. Just trying to prevent more people from getting scammed. Thank you very much, have a great day. UnrealFinancial (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's not a hoax though I can't see any sources to show the company meets WP:CORP, just a few mentions involving ABN AMRO (a completely different and legitimate bank). Hut 8.5 20:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may not be a good idea if they are using the existence of the Wikipedia page to bolster their credibility in any way, they could do the same with a listing there. Hut 8.5 08:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I was approached by the person online, they were using wikipedia to prove they were a legitimate financial institution. I noticed they also started a youtube channel [28] with a video uploaded a few days ago. If you guys want to help me take these guys down, please report their youtube channel for fraud. Currently when you google the company, they also have a 5 star rating on trustpilot with positive reviews made all in the same few days. Do your part and leave them a bad review to prevent more people from getting scammed. UnrealFinancial (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of whether they are a scam, there is no coverage of "ABN Assets" that is separate from ABN Amro.--Mvqr (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find coverage that says that they are a scam, so I can't make any judgement on that front. Regardless, I don't see anything indicating that the company passes WP:ORGCRIT and I see no real place to redirect this. I'd be OK with salting if there's good evidence that this is a scam. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:34, 29 November 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. While WP:NFOOTY is generally a lower bar than WP:GNG, meeting it nonetheless requires evidence from sources reliable enough to satisfy WP:V. There is consensus that such evidence is absent here. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nidal Fadlallah

Nidal Fadlallah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source that mentions her is the squad list of the called up players for the 2021 Arab Cup. There is no mention of her actually playing a game; she could have just been an unused substitute. Nehme1499 17:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think a social media post with "Nidal" is enough, nor is us matching the face with another post. For now, I don't think the article should be kept. Hopefully database websites (namely Global Sports Archive) will add her, so we can verify that she has indeed played a senior international game. Nehme1499 17:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no database on the 2021 Arab Women's Cup even from Global Sports Archive. Yeah but that does not mean that the person does not meet NFOOTBALL. This is not the first time a social media post has been used to verify a statement. Once I have got an some information that verifies that's the person, that's my vote. Ampimd (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't understand this argument. Just because it's difficult to find sources, doesn't mean we should lower our standards. A Facebook post with "Nidal" is anything but a reliable source to prove that the player has played at the international level. Nehme1499 09:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also important to note that NFOOTY doesn't superseed GNG, which this article does not satisfy at all. Nehme1499 10:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nehme1499 where is Nidal mentioned in these new sources? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amara94 uhm, why did you sign with my own signature?? Nehme1499 15:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sorry i m still neew here so if yo check facebook and tweeter you find her in arabic langage نضال" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amara94 (talk • contribs)
There is a lot of unsourced info in the article. Where did you find her date of birth, or the fact that she is an attacking midfielder? We are basically dealing with an article whose notability depends on a Facebook post that says "Nidal". I can't see how this is enough to confer notability. Nehme1499 16:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Nehme's concerns. While it's likely that there is a 'Nidal' from the social media posts, we essentially have an unsourced BLP here that clearly violates WP:V and WP:NOR - these are Wikipedia policies and therefore supersede any essays and even any guidelines. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia should err on the side of verifiability, meaning that we shouldn't reiterate what a barely intelligible source says and massage it into what could possibly be the reality, because we have some urgent need for this particular page. It doesn't hurt to wait a bit until a more unequivocal source surfaces. Geschichte (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V; all living people should have at least one reliable source verifying at least one statement from the article. WP:NOR also applies; the entire article, from top to bottom, is the creator's own original research and we have no way of confirming whether any of it is correct. I believe that these two policies supersede any guidelines or essays that people may attempt to use to keep this article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Facebook posts in no way count toward notability, and the mere existence of a player who might have been capped at a national level does not overcome our requirement for actual coverage. A region's football players may be undercovered on wiki because their media have other priorities; enforcing our expectation of notability based on how much attention players in the West get doesn't suddenly conjure up encyclopedic biographical material. JoelleJay (talk) 19:21, 30 November 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 Joe Rogan. No prejudice against merging some of the content. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rogan: Talking Monkeys in Space

Joe Rogan: Talking Monkeys in Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Been a stub for 10 years, not notable, fails WP:GNG. No articles link here except navigation bar Template:Joe Rogan, making it effectively an orphan.

Content should be placed into Joe Rogan, if appropriate. Re-point the associated redirects Talking Monkeys in Space and Talking Monkeys In Space to Joe Rogan. Platonk (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Joe Rogan: Although it might technically meet GNG, it probably would serve better if it was merged. The references and external links have more content than the actual article. bop34 • talk • contribs 13:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Joe Rogan. The article is only a very short one and does not contain much information, and a merge should not be difficult. If, as the nominator says, the article has been a stub for ten years, it seems unlikely it will be expanded. YTKJ (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and/or redirect to Joe Rogan. There is enough sourcing to write about it underneath Rogan's page, but I don't think it's quite notable enough for its own page owing to the relative dearth of coverage. The current page doesn't have much material to begin with, so writing the material on Rogan's biography page from scratch might be better than merging outright. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:37, 29 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khaas Re TV

Khaas Re TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable Youtube channel. Advertisement of a non notable Youtube channel. References do not show notability of the channel. Lack of siginificant coverage from independent reliable resources. DMySon (talk) 12:26, 22 November 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maxblizz

Maxblizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite claims of notability due to being in the same league as Deadline Hollywood and Collider, which allows this to escape WP:A7, I'm not seeing anything towards WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. I could not find any in-depth coverage from a reliable and independent source. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 22 November 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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 01:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Lenti

AfDs for this article:
Marissa Lenti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this voice actor's article sufficiently sourced? —S Marshall T/C 11:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any offence caused. At the time, the article had lots of instances of labelling Lenti as an 'actress'. This threw me, hence the erroneous tag. I've changed 'actress' to 'actor' now as this is clearly Lenti's preferred term and also appears to be standard practice for similar cases. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+There also isn't any specific tag re: gender for a variety of reasons, and why the article was written (at least to start) as Actress - but that's not the reason for this review - so tl;dr - don't stress about it. That's on me for not being more confident in my editing. I'll leave a comment addressing the AfD overall shortly. Canadianerk (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are you requesting that the article be deleted for lack of notability? Discussing the subject's gender preferences should be on the regular talk page. Same with content within the article, whether certain entries should be included/excluded in the subject's filmography. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm expressing a general concern about the article's sources. In terms of Wikipedian rules, this amounts to both WP:N and WP:V. In terms of WP:V I'm saying that everything in the article is "challenged", so if it isn't given an inline citation to a reliable source, I may remove it after the AfD; and in terms of WP:N I'm saying that if I remove everything that doesn't have an inline citation to a reliable source, then what remains doesn't amount to an article.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In reply to both of your comments, Marshall - per WP:BLPSPS, WP:A&M/RS, WP:FACEBOOK and WP:TWITTER-EL, self published primary sources are useable on Wikipedia, and it's explicitly written in WP:BLP they are to be avoided unless written (and verified to be written) by the subject of the Wikipedia article. They are. In the worst possible scenario for the article's content, where the filmography must be without any twitter sources, there are still 4 lead/main character roles with secondary sources, only losing 1 - still meeting WP:NACTOR. -Canadianerk (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In comparison to the previous AFD, they now have convention appearances in 2019 and 2021 according to Fancons. https://fancons.com/guests/bio/6738/marissa-lenti I still have yet to see any regular news articles to be written about them though. Can you present some of those? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak to conventions or their relevance, but I'll provide what info I can about secondary coverage. The closest I got to "regular" news articles are in the article - an interview at a convention with a small (at best) anime outlet and one with voyagedallas. I couldn't find any other interviews that weren't a podcast or a youtube video. They're the basis for the biography section of the article, as English voice actors still (5 years later) really don't get secondary coverage - I've been relying on NACTOR from the deletion review forward. -Canadianerk (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding primary sourcing, you should use secondary first, and then consider primary closing credits, cast announcements (from director or organization), press releases. I would not use Twitter unless the title has the person's name is officially credited in the closing credits without specific role, and then the voice actor is tweeting to clarify their role. If the sole source for the credit is the resume/website/tweet, then hold off from adding those to the table. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the process - went to secondary sources first - ANN, then Funimation blog, etc. The majority of tweet sources in the filmography are replaceable with cite episode. That progress began prior to this AfD, in the aftermath of the talkpage discussion. At time of creation, I was not familiar nor comfortable with the cite episode template, so it wasn't something I utilized when initially writing the article. I started learning, motivated by the talkpage discussion, and took a break from Lenti to work on some drafts. I learned the template with practice in draftspace, and already replaced a few cite tweet sources this past week on Lenti, it's in the page history. My approach since across all articles has always been to try to turn to cite episode/av media to avoid tweet sources, because I learned very quickly that there are wikipedians who take serious concern with them. Now, we're here - debating the same issue which can be fairly easily resolved. -Canadianerk (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strikethrough'd "the majority" as that has proven not to be the case. What remains are either not replaceable pending a news article/interview generating a secondary source, or are an anime awaiting a home video release - Link20XX was right in the talkpage comments. I will keep looking, but options to reduce further are limited. -Canadianerk (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The VoyageDallas one is mostly Q&A primary but it's at least something that wasn't coming from within the production company's media. If you find others, that will help. See Trina Nishimura's article where she did get some external news sources from Dallas and other areas that cover her career. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some poking around in local media and found this. I admit I am not familiar with this too much, so I will keep looking. Link20XX (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors and other WP:ENTERTAINERs clearly states they are notable if the person "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;". Link20XX has given clear examples of this. Dream Focus 06:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (was involved in creation) - seconding Dream Focus and Link20XX. Additional reasoning: This conversation didn't need an AfD - concerns about sourcing can and should have been addressed in other ways. Nominator is arguing for a higher standard than is the norm and making claims which aren't supported by the evidence - policy references to date that have been presented, in my opinion, failed to justify this strict approach. The article can (and will be) improved - and would've regardless of this AfD nomination, the only difference is I'll put all else aside to ensure it happens - starting immediately. -Canadianerk (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy at WP:BLP is clear that I should be very firm on the use of good sources. As an alternative to deletion, I will be content to return this to draft space for you until you have finished sourcing it properly?—S Marshall T/C 10:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the offer of an alternative, sincerely - but that just isn't a solution that would work if you and anguswolf maintain your positions - especially when what remains are mostly unreplaceable at the moment - I'll address that below. First, anguswolf's point on Lenti's talk page, that there is the very limited exception for use of a tweet source: Pokemon-style credits, where actors are just listed without roles attached - a practice which is increasingly rare and limited, and one which isn't common practice amongst any of the major anime dub producers anymore. In video games, it's more prevalent - but this is a discussion about someone who is primarily an anime voice actor. Even then, it's an exemption which isn't wikipedia nor wikiproject policy, and it only applies to Lenti on possibly one credit - Super Hxeros, which utilizes Lenti's resume for a second character, with a secondary source stating the first.
    To illustrate the current status of the Lenti article, I just sorted through every cite tweet/facebook source in the article, and removed all I could find a replacement for. There are 19 left: 3 are for the biography subsection (birthday, pronouns, when Lenti started as a director at Sound Cadence) which shouldn't be an issue at all; 3 sources weren't replaced because I cannot legally access a cast list (if there even is one) without buying something; 3 remain because the home video for those shows aren't out (2/3 have release dates, subject to change); 8 of the sources are likely to remain self credited pending a change in how a company operates (two are mobile games, 6 are tied just to Heroes of Newerth); The Silver Guardian's tweet source wasn't replaced because the english cast wasn't credited in the uncut (home video) release at all; and Konosuba Film's credit cannot be replaced until a home video release is announced and released, which remains up in the air for the foreseeable future.
    I maintain that these are not ideal sources, nor ones I prefer, but that they are a necessity if they are going to be credited for these roles on wikipedia, until Funimation, Crunchyroll and others change their practices to post an episode-by-episode complete cast list online, or every anime receives a home video release with full credit. Neither of these are guaranteed, nor necessarily common practice. It also affects the rare but occasional recasts for the home video vs simuldub editions of shows, where if the HV via cite episode is the only source, actors can lose credit from no fault of their own. Funimation used to do the former, but that stopped being a thing awhile ago. If you aren't on the initial castlist for the first episode, you're out of luck until home video release, or forever - that is why it has become so common practice to ensure they self credit. An example - where a reviewer has to guess because they didn't see the tweet from Lenti. If they included with confidence, the only source they could have gotten it from is the voice director, and/or the actor posting on social media - both sources which have been deemed problematic by this interpretation of policy. The likely consequence of implementing this interpretation you are arguing for, appears to be the mass removal of hundreds of credits across the anime and manga wikiproject, and more AfDs like this one - or continued lax enforcement of this interpretation of these policies. All due respect - my naivety is probably in play here - but it's a result I'm not just going to accept at this point in the discussion. A request - if this discussion continues, can you please point to the specific WP:BLPSELFPUB/WP:BLPSPS policy that you believe these sources are violating? Just stating that BLP is violated because it isn't a "good source" isn't something I can discuss nor defend. -Canadianerk (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, let me define what I mean by a "good source" in this context. It's a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. (I've taken this phrasing directly from WP:REPUTATION.)
    I can see from what you say above that we're experiencing a fundamental clash of philosophies here. Your position is that there's information that you can't include without referencing Lenti's twitter feed or other similarly low-quality sources, and my position is that material that isn't based on good sources must, and should, be removed from this biography of a living person.
    I'm fully respectful of the views expressed by you and Link20xx, as the article's authors, and of Dream Focus, but you do need to know that the sources offered so far are way short of the level of reliability that's needed here. Dream Focus has piped up to agree with you, but most Wikipedians who participate in AfD would expect Dream Focus to !vote "keep" on this topic and to opine that virtually any source is adequate. I would urge you to reconsider returning the article to draft space.—S Marshall T/C 14:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you referring to the sources I provided? Because if you are, WP:ANIME/RS considers them reliable after much discussion. Is your only problem the Twitter sources? Because if it is, that can be fixed to an extent, and AfD is not cleanup. Link20XX (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'm justifiably confused. If WP:BLPSELFPUB or WP:BLPSPS aren't violated, then those policies indicate that this sourcing is allowed to be used in the biography of a living person!? -- I'll start with this: "you do need to know that the sources offered so far are way short of the level of reliability that's needed here." That is not true if there is no violation of the aforementioned policies, which deem them as acceptable sources. You're welcome to have an opinion to the contrary, but that is not what is written in the policy. I take no pleasure disagreeing with a veteran wikipedian, but - that is why I keep asking whether they're actually violated or not - I bring up these policies precisely to indicate a willingness for me to learn and take appropriate action on the article. I removed as many cite tweet sources as possible without removing info from the article, to further demonstrate this.
    Your point that "most Wikipedians who participate in AfD would expect Dream Focus to !vote "keep" on this topic and to opine that virtually any source is adequate", and that Link20XX and myself are expressing a different philosophy doesn't change what is Wikipedia policy and what isn't. I agree to some extent - I think it's clear we have our differences. We agree they aren't preferable sources. But Dream Focus and Link20XX cited NACTOR as their reason for keeping the article - while I 100% agree with that, I think I've put a fair amount of time and effort into trying to understand your view, and repeatedly asking for the policy which endorses your perspective, and sought additional reasons to keep the article. Instead, you're citing WP:REPUTATION - a consequences of sockpuppeting article? The redirect you linked specifically discusses "SPI" (Sock Puppet Investigations), I couldn't find anything related to what you're saying - there is no mention of primary sources in that article. You're claiming that a tweet from x actor states that they play x character in x show, requires interpretation, and their use indicates that Wikipedians using them are violating original research/interpretation rules? -How? My comment above was an overly long explanation why I believe there's often no good alternatives to self-published primary sources in these cases, and that I believe that their removal needs to be justified by policy, not opinion - not just leaving the credit locked off of wikipedia because of the whims of companies. I've argued that they should be evaluated based on WP:BLPSPS and its sibling shortcut - that is it. It is not my opinion that X was cast in y role, it's an opinion formed based on my understanding of the policy. I'm confused why that triggered this response, unless you're intending to accuse me of something. I've intended from the start to operate in good faith, which is why I've devoted the time to expressing my understand of policies, held off voting for awhile to give you some time to express your arguments, and have asked multiple times to hear about how these sources violate WP:BLPSELFPUB or WP:BLPSPS. And now, if there is a violation, why is it so serious that the whole article should be deleted or returned to drafts? If you aren't going to argue based on the relevant policy, I don't see a reason to change or soften my position - that the article should stay where it is, as it is. Nor am I going to accept being threatened, whether with a sockpuppet accusation, or that myself and others are posting our own opinions within mainspace articles. -Canadianerk (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't feel attacked. I'm questioning the sources in an article. I have not questioned your integrity or that of anyone else, and for the avoidance of doubt, I make no accusations or allegations about sockpuppetry, conflict of interest, UPE or bad faith editing of any other kind. I do think Dream Focus has a history of poor editorial judgment at AfD, but I think he's in good faith. I don't know what's hard to understand about WP:ANYBIO.—S Marshall T/C 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am well aware of WP:ANYBIO, though WP:NACTOR is also a valid SNG, which this person has been shown to meet, thus whether they meet ANYBIO is irrelevant. Link20XX (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my understanding that anybio is one of several additional criteria under WP:NBIO. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards" - including WP:ANYBIO. If Lenti meets WP:NACTOR, none of the additional criteria in that section - including anybio - are necessary. I'd assume it helps if multiple additional criteria are met, but NACTOR is arguably met. If you wish to dispute that, there are at least 5 credits which are arguable to count towards NACTOR: Yuna in Kuma Kuma Kuma Bear, Shoko Majima in Kokkoku, Chiaki Hoshinomori in Gamers!, Alicia Florence in Aria the Animation and Moze, one of 4 playable characters in Borderlands 3. If your position on sources remains and you wish to pursue it instead, again, while I appreciate you took the time to quickly respond to my concern about your comment alleging something, you still haven't addressed whether the sources violate WP:BLPSPS, and why it is such a significant violation that the article should be deleted. Without either of those arguments, I have no reason to change my mind - I'll repeat again, I'm open to doing so. I'm not going to keep asking you to demonstrate, or at least provide some arguments that the specific policies are violated. If you can't or won't do that, there's little point continuing this AfD, unless someone else wishes to chime in and argue either of those points. -Canadianerk (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Notability A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right;
The subject specific guideline for people is at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. And then shows categories for different things. Under WP:ENTERTAINER it shows what makes voice actors notable, as I just stated. I have been in enough AFDs over the years for voice actors to know this is always the case, they are kept if they have major roles in notable series. If three people say keep for this reason, and you S Marshall are the only one saying delete, perhaps you are the one with "poor editorial judgment at this AfD" not me. Dream Focus 17:46, 23 November 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 10:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Palli

Bruno Palli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find significant coverage of this racing driver who apparently only competed in minor series. A Castilian speaker may be able to find offline sources, but for now I do not believe this article's subject meets the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:25, 22 November 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 10:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Branden Lee Oxley

Branden Lee Oxley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a young racing driver who has only competed in very minor series. A WP:BEFORE search returned WP:ROUTINE coverage in this Autosport article, but otherwise most of what came up was either blog posts or Formula Scout (which some editors do not believe should be used to determine notability). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:06, 22 November 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 10:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tarantula Hawk (band)

Tarantula Hawk (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Truly awesome name for a band, and from what I can see on YouTube great music too. This article was created in 2008, and given its longevity it would appear to merit an AFD discussion (if only pour encourager les autres as a long-standing article from Wikipedia's elder days). WP:BEFORE done, and fails WP:BAND, WP:GNG and any number of other policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not Encyclopaedia Metallum, though we sometimes wish it might be. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note - If the band's article is deleted, the hatnote at the top of Tarantula hawk (the insect) should be removed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:57, 22 November 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 10:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Llobell

Arturo Llobell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely unmaintained WP:BLP of a driver who only competed in minor series. A WP:BEFORE search shows about a paragraph of coverage in El Mundo and little else, so I do not believe this driver meets the general notability guideline. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:23, 22 November 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 10:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew MacKenzie (racing driver)

Andrew MacKenzie (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find significant coverage of this driver who apparently started one British Touring Car Championship race and finished seventeenth. Unlikely to meet the general notability guideline unless some offline sources come up that show this article's subject was in some other way notable. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:10, 22 November 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. Taking into account the deletion review, it is likely that that the article may require cleanup to comply with WP:NOTADVERT; editors are encouraged to continue to improve the article (until all promotional wording issues are resolved). (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brusnika (company)

Brusnika (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was speedily deleted as advertising (WP:G11); Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 12 sent it to AfD instead. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 09:08, 22 November 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 11:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Portman

Alex Portman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BEFORE search for this driver returned few sources, with this Daily Sportscar article coming closest to providing significant coverage. The entry for this driver in the Motor Sport magazine database is also decidedly sparse but does at least confirm their date of birth. Unless some offline sources turn up I do not believe this article's subject meets the general notability guideline. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:53, 22 November 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) 03:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugandan Australians

Ugandan Australians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very small ethnic/diaspora group. Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. The sources are about Ugandan Americans. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 22 November 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) 03:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Taylor (racing driver)

Alan Taylor (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced WP:BLP of a driver who had a brief career as a backmarker in the British Touring Car Championship. I am unable to find significant coverage of this driver, although my WP:BEFORE searches were admittedly complicated by the fact that there seems to be a motoring journalist by the same name. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • NMOTORSPORT actually underwent quite a thorough revision recently which changed most criteria. Despite a consensus to implement it, it hasn't actually moved from the talk page to the policy page and now it's been archived. I will prioritise the GNG issues in this case because there's simply no coverage to write an article with. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:30, 29 November 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 Speedy delete as part of the mass deletion of articles created by Djoshuau67 (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Jone$

Dave Jone$ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. No significant coverage from WP:RS currently cited and unable to locate any in my WP:BEFORE. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:24, 22 November 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 with the option to draftify. There's consensus, albeit not the strongest, that the topic is notable, but the article is not in a fit state to be published. Concerns about paid editing have been raised, and remain unresolved. I would be willing to entertain a request for draftification from established editors with no previous history of editing this article, or alternatively from an editor willing to commit to independent review via AfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RattanIndia

RattanIndia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is all corporate puffery. The references are churnalism and cannot be used to verify WP:NCORP. It has been draftified once already as corporate puffery and potential COI editing, and passes the duck test as UPE. I would send this back to draft again but that would be move warring and against policy, which is why I have brought it here.

At present the view expressed seems to be that of the corporation with no balancing views

While an article on the entity may be warranted WP:TNT will be required, and any COI/UPE eliminated. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:HEY and WP:CORPDEPTH. Have made significant additions and deletions that I feel should satisfy the concerns raised by others. Expanded on land controversy, added a water allocation controversy and a financial mismanagement incident. Other stuff too! If this still perceives promotional and in favour of company, let me know! Explaining corpdepth now: subject passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The draftified version indeed was full of puffery. But this version is not and I am curious to learn what portions are being perceived as puffery or non-neutral. Happy to further work on those. If the concerns were with WP:NPOV, could have been speedily deleted too though. G11 is a great tool for that. Putting out WP:THREE and few more
  1. [39], a complete article on the split itself by a staff journalist Jyoti Mukul. There are many more similar articles talking about Indiabulls split. I wanted to cite one in Livemint but I remember livemint is not much of a WP:RS so will stay with Business Standard.
  2. [40] The Indian Express article discusses the company in context of the Land controversy and how it didn't file the petition and later said it didn't need to.
  3. [41] Another IE article discussing the state of Nashik Powerplant written by staff journalist.
  4. [42] A Times of India article on Adani's looking to take over Amravati plant written by staff journalist. I know TOI has no consensus on reliability but while it's not reliable, it's also not non-reliable. In this context, there is independent commentary and it can be considered reliable source.
  5. [43] This one - I find it pretty much gold standard. There is a complete analysis of the company's solar business and how it is in 'sunset' mode.
  6. [44] Another controversy talked in Economic Times about finance mismanagement by in house staff writers.

You will find many more sources about the subject if we do a WP:BEFORE. A lot of those are press releases but there are also sources that effectively contributes to notability. Also, if you would search Indiabulls Power, you will again find more. Hope this clarifies. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Thank you Nomadicghumakkad for sharing these sources.Now, let's analyze all these sources and your current ongoing edits. Please do bear with me.
The majority of the sources that you shared are related to this entity's negative coverage. Intentionally, the actual narrative was never used by the creator and somehow you simply overlooked it or subdued it, and passed it in the first place. And just to make it acceptable - you expanded that controversy segment and ended it as per the narrative which shows that this entity is not at fault.
Now, let's look at the source whose actual story was never picked up by the creator;
1.a state government taking over a power plant,
2.another company planning to buy out another plant of this company and
3. Now, after the digging, you have added the NCLT news link which talks about insolvency and bankruptcy ffiling
4.Except for this gold standard link, there was no other negative narrative in the first place.
Why these negative narratives or controversies-related edits were not added in the first place? As an AfC reviewer, have you ever questioned yourself? I would have let this pass but here our concern is not this company - our concern right now is how a reviewer who ranks no.4 in the list of top 100 AfC reviewers in the last 30 days can act so callously? Now, after holding you on these issues... you are trying to expand the article and trying to make a fool out of us.
Now comes another question, you yourself submitting the draft for AFC review and you yourself accepting it? Do you know this is not the correct way? Kindly refer to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation.
Feel free to reply at your convenience. I am looking forward to you as one of the best reviewers in the near future. Please do not disappoint me - it's a request. -Hatchens (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Hatchens, I am not trying to make fool out of anybody - only trying to address the issues that are felt by others. Like I said and told you at your talk page [45], I agree that I should have done a better job at balancing the article, which I have done after I realized that others feel that is was not balanced enough. I am unsure why you are taking it so personally. This is a collaborative project, we make mistakes and work with each other to rectify it. We can also feel differently about things and we have right to. I have worked hard on AFC project for long time and I feel I have understanding of WP:CORPDEPTH since I myself nominate and participate in articles relating to this. My AFD rate is 87% [46] for over 400 AFD discussions and my nomination is 80% [47]. When I accepted the article, I felt it qualified WP:CORPDEPTH and the paragraph I added, I felt that it was sufficient to bring a balance. Now that others have pointed out, I realize it was not as balanced as it should have been and hence worked to fix it. Not sure why you think I am trying to fool someone. Are you taking it personally because I felt differently for Draft:Vin Gupta that you wanted to accept? Like I said before, I was okay for you to accept it if you felt it passed the guidelines and I even helped in cleaning it up. Also, I didn't know that it was an incorrect way. Thanks for letting me know! Though I am reading the page and I am not finding where it's written that I can't submit and accept on my own. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nomadicghumakkad, kindly get me a better argument. Why should I bother you for Draft:Vin Gupta? Haven't you read my comments over there?
Comment 1: " I'll not override your decision. All I can do is... request you to reassess draft. "
Comment 2: "I would advise all of us... to wait for another reviewers' opinion. This way we can guarantee an unbiased outcome to this AfC. " - from where it looks like I'm offended by your denial.
Don't mix two different things. Here we are talking about your controversial editing, submission, and acceptance of RattanIndia. Let's stick to it only.
Refer this link: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Reviewer accepting their own draft. -Hatchens (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may say something but feel differently and act differently. About Rattan, I think I have already explained. I don't see it controversial. What's happening here is the due process. I accept an article because I feel it is notable as per my understanding of guidelines, others feel that it is not and they don't agree with my accept so they nominate it for deletion, I improve the draft by addressing the concerns others have raised and defend the article in AFD. This happens all the time. That's why WP:HEY exists. You are simply trying to corner me because you felt I didn't add as much controversy as you would have liked to. But that's a difference of opinion. After hearing your sentiments about it, I have added more. But you see it as a way to 'fool' others which it is not. And yes, it says strongly discouraged and In those cases, it's basically a formality, since an editor who has the ability to create new pages in article space could have done so in the first place. I feel the same way. What would have happened was - I would have asked the editor to submit it again and then I have reviewed it. So was another formality oriented step in between. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nomadicghumakkad - Pinging Primefac - not for their vote on this Afd. But, just letting them know how your viewpoints on AfC reviewing are evolving. After all, sooner or later; they need to assess a probationary AfC reviewer. All the best. I'm surrendering and signing off because of unwanted deviation which is happening over this AfD discussion. -Hatchens (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hatchens, I understand. It has been very triggering for me as well. Thanks for tagging Primefac. I am sure they will appreciate my work over a thousand reviews [48] out of which, only one so far was deleted through AFD. And if they feel my views are not correct, they will help me understand how and guide me how to bring them back to where they should be rather than attacking me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hatchens and Nomadicghumakkad I believe you have both diverted yourselves from the deletion discussion, and diverted the discussion itself. Please will one or other of you collapse the diversion, including my comment here, so that editors may not be distracted by this interesting discussion unless they wish to be?. One of the {{collapse}} templates will meet that need. I believe you should continue the discussion on one or other of your talk pages. You may disagree. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The content has changed significantly from the point of time it was nominated and hence I referred to WP:HEY. If there are POV problems in current version, please highlight where and those can also be fixed. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. I have also reworked on it in a way that it is borderline WP:TNT. Also, WP:LISTED. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
  • Comment: Thanks to MrsSnoozyTurtle for bringing out new information about the creator of this page. Still, I'm very skeptical to use such details over Wikipedia because it breaches the privacy of that person. But, at the same time, we cannot ignore it either because the creator is directly working at the Chairman's office of RattanIndia which he didn't declare it... since 2015. I'm not sure what would be the outcome of this AfD. But it is allowing us to get an opportunity to investigate such corporate reputation building on Wikipedia.


Question 1: Why a company like RattanIndia suddenly became active on Wikipedia and intentionally stamping out/subdueing all negative news?
Answer: As a retail investor, when I invest in a publicly listed stock - my first important point of reference is Wikipedia because as we all know passing WP:NCORP in today's time is not every one's cup of tea. Also, we noted that, the creator became suddenly active and did the first edit of 2021 (that was in June) - after a gap of five years (his last edit was in 2017). Why? The reason is very simple; till April 7-8, 2021 the trading price of the company's share was ₹7-8 and in the first week of June 2021 the shares were at ₹17-18 but by the end of the June i.e. 30th of the month it reached ₹44 and by the Oct 1, 2021 media started rolling out the narrative how a penny stock (RattanIndia shares) became a multi-bagger. All the major positive narrative edits from the creator started occuring June 25 onwards and occassionaly the page was de-spamed by the editors like QuiteUnusual and finally the page was draftified by MrsSnoozyTurtle on August 27, 2021. Now, its very much clear that the whole operation of positive narrative building is being run from Chairman's office (of the company).
Question 2: Why I doubt the reviewer? (This is not an attack! This is a question - I hoping that I'm wrong in my assessment)
Answer: The current ongoing development where Nomadicghumakkad's edits, submission and acceptance are in the doubt. As an editor, they could have moved the page directly. Why to even bother for AfC route? AfC route is not at all a mandatory steps for a seasoned editor. If a seasoned editor chooses it, then it depicts their intent to be part of unbiased editing and approval process. Anyway, the AfC route was taken in this case (submission and the review - both are done by the same user). Now, when you get questioned - a typical self-victimization card is being played for a variety of reasons to manipulate others. I would have not objected at all if Nomadicghumakkad has added the rightful content to the draft and moved it. The needle of doubt moved towards them when they expanded the "controversy segment" with company's point of view and passing it off to main article namespace.
Question 3: What are the real life consequences of such edits? Ref: WP:WRW
Answer: In this case, the real life consequences are for two different set of people here. The first one is the company, which is using Wikipedia as one of tools to manipulate influence the stock prices. Other editors can question on this and I have no such hard evidence to prove. But, when the draft was moved to main article namespace on November 1, 2021 - the very next day the stock price of the company jumped from ₹40.70 to ₹43.15 by 10:00 AM at NSE. And most of the trade was executed by retail investor (not instituional buying). The stock was on the downhill since MrsSnoozyTurtle draftified the page (on August 27, 2021) and now today, stock is trading at ₹45.30 and moving upwards since November 2. I'm not saying that other factors are not there to influence to stock price. But, Wikipedia is an extremely potent tool when its pages are being feeded into various stock price terminals like Bloomberg Terminal, and media monitoring tools such as Meltwater, etc. So, we can easily conclude that this page (of RattanIndia) is systematically used by the company to propogate positive narrative and having a strong ulterior motive for doing something, which I believe that they have a hidden reason for doing it.
And, the second set of people who are going to witness a real life consequences because of the edits on this company's wikipedia page are the retail investors; who are not well versed to read the financial statements of the company, but depends on sites like Wikipedia to execute hunch-based buying and selling of stock.
If this kind of activity was detected in the United States, it would had been duly reported to SEC for the direct involvment of the company's higher office who have asymmetric information to influence the stock price. Kindly note, this whole analysis is based on Wikipedia edits and involvement of certain set of editors. There is no direct evidence to nail this company and put an allegation of stock price manipulation but yes there are enough evidence that this company is trying to influence it. -Hatchens (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a great conspiracy theory! [49] Page stats show 173 visitors in last 30 days. The page is not indexed I think. If you feel because 173 people (in last 30 days) found that company exists which led to the share price increase, it would be a miracle. Just for you to know, India has Diwali Festival right now. On one of the pre-diwali days, there is another festival called Dhanteras on which it is auspicious to invest in metal. But in modern times, folks also invest in stocks. Overall, Diwali festival can explain the fluctuations I guess. But, I don't know stocks too much and this is an educated guess. Yet, I don't see a scientific correlation between Wikipedia page and stock prices. I won't explain myself further. If I had intention to promote the company, I didn't even need to elaborate on controversy. You felt it was in favour of company, I didn't feel so and that's there. Best Wishes and Happy Diwali. Collapsing this again so that the discussion isn't diverted with our internal bickering. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if/when I'm going to be able to take a proper look into this; if you want timely anti-UPE advice I suggest you either contact another editor involved in this work or take it to a relevant noticeboard. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you felt that this was to be kept as per first AFD outcome (meaning you consider that the subject is notable), why would my accept appear Miraculous? As a matter of fact, if we look at first AFD, as per the sources cited there, it won't qualify as WP:CORPDEPTH. [50] North America had highlighted that they had defended the subject in past AFD but guidelines have become stricter and hence, those arguments might not be true any more. And they weren't. I had accepted it after my own assessment of new sources cited and those that I found after searching. Also, COI was already declared and informed by the creator at the same venue. I had also clarified right here that I find the company notable but have problem with WP:NPOV. To that, creator ceremonially added a line which I expanded and accepted. The key pain point here is that folks here feel that the way I expanded, it seemed like I was talking in favour of company. I felt I wasn't and was providing a balanced perspective. And when others raised that point, I expanded further to bring the desired balance. Unsure what else is expected out of me. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More uninvolved eyes would be helpful. The discussion so far seems to be between whether history of puffery/COI warrants a fresh start and the article has been modified since the start of the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with others above that the topic company is notable but the fact that there are significant concerns over WP:UPE means that the article contents, choice of language and headings, choice of references, etc, have all been guided and chosen in an underhanded way in order to influence the perception of the topic company. I say WP:TNT and wait. In much the same principle behind notability, if the company merits an article then an uninvolved third party will write one. HighKing++ 08:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company is significant, and I don't think deletion makes much sense. The article is not particularly extensive, and it should not be too difficult to re-write. Due to its structure, Wikipedia tends to be underweight corporate articles. The problem comes about because most of the pieces about companies are written up by insiders and so inevitably they tend to read like corporate spin, and thus fail the NPOV test. As such, they end up getting deleted eventually. But even though some of the entities are significant enough to warrant an article, once the article on the company is deleted, they are seldom seen again, as the most active Wikipedia editors tend not to be particularly interested in the corporate sphere. Inchiquin 14:23, 10:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:TNT is only valid if it's purely promo or senseless, which is not the case. Sources are valid and this is what afd has to decide.As per WP:ATD remove the line instead of page.Content is helpful but need to twist slightly.Sonofstar (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More uninvolved eyes would continue to be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete :No comments about puffery and other related issues. The entity fails WP:CORPDEPTH according to my analysis. I puts up WP:TNT as the best option. Akevsharma (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I intended to close this as "delete", but am convinced by arguments made in the discussion that an effort should be made to salvage the article. However, I also agree with HighKing that we can not allow Wikipedia to be used as an advertising platform, and every aspect of a UPE article is susceptible to manipulation requiring review. BD2412 T 01:41, 30 November 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) 00:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Pengkalan Utama

AfDs for this article:
Jalan Pengkalan Utama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first AFD was keep in 2013 with the reason being "Appears to be a state-level route". 8 years later and the article is still unreferenced. We can't keep an article for an unverified reason per the policy WP:V. The same editor said, "Sources will need to be found to pass WP:V, but these need not be online sources." True, but we can't just assume that it's a state-level route and that there are offline sources that say such a thing. I don't even think that it's notable if it's a state-level route. WP:5P was mentioned as a reason not deleting the article, but there is Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) which says "International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable." Typically does not mean always and verifiability can not be superseded. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2013-09 (closed as ✓ keep)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berantral The only issue is that the creator was last active in 2016. SL93 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm seeing an alternative proposed; is there any additional discussion on the appropriateness to the alternatives to deletion relative to deleting the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:10, 22 November 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) 00:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jobefile

Jobefile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article claims that a website was founded by Imran Khan as a Pakistani competitor to Indeed was launched in 2020. I can't find any search results for it on Google News or Bing News. It appears to clearly fail WP:NCORP, while at the same time it's quite possible that the parts referencing the current Prime Minister of Pakistan are either filler meant for later substitution or are a hoax. Regardless, the clear fail on WP:ORGCRIT and the advertorial tone of the page are plenty justification to delete this page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:44, 22 November 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secret of the Andes (film)

Secret of the Andes (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been unable to find significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per at least two WP:NFOE criteria. First criterion "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.": yes. See at least two articles published by La Nación and El Amante del Cine, cited in Manrupe, Raúl; Portela, María Alejandra (2003). Un diccionario de films argentinos II 1996-2002 (in Spanish). Corregidor. p. 220. ISBN 950-05-1525-3.. Second criterion "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." : yes, it won a silver Remi in the 2000 edition of the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival, the oldest indie festival in the world. See "WorldFest Houston Wraps Up Festival". MovieBytes.com - Screenwriting Contests & Markets Online. Retrieved 2021-11-22. Darius (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reasons as above. The award should be added to the article. Robina Fox (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: I don't consider the award a major award for notability purposes, but I will assume good faith that the two articles mentioned by FarSouthNavy have significant coverage. I suggest that the content of those sources should be added along with the award. SL93 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Darius (talk) 20:52, 22 November 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. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen

Konrad, Prince of Saxe-Meiningen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Independent, reliable secondary sources are limited to either genealogical directories or trivial mentions in a new story. The equivalent page on German wiki was deleted in 2012, so no trans-wiki expansion is possible. My search terms were "Friedrich Konrad" + "Sachsen-Meiningen", "Saxe-Meiningen", or "Saxony Meiningen". JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 22 November 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) 00:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Upstairs Downstairs Bears

The Upstairs Downstairs Bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable series, de-prodded based on technical quibbles (yes “no. of edits made by creator” doesn’t matter, but it shows this was a driveby creation by someone whose other edits were limited to adding categories etc.) Dronebogus (talk) 04:08, 22 November 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 merge to Tuskegee Airmen. Daniel (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Lee Hill

William Lee Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, non-notable Tuskegee Airman, source analysis follows:


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/recent_news/local-tuskegee-airmen-honored/article_46e14451-ace0-5c10-9d79-b833f13c0b8b.html Yes Yes No subscriber only content, unable to assess ✘ No
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/aerial-victory-credits-for-the-tuskegee-airmen/article_2d982758-69ca-11df-9015-00127992bc8b.html Yes Yes No mere listing of aerial victories only ✘ No
http://logicalthinker2.tripod.com/Tuskegeeaircraft.html No blog about the planes flown by the Tuskegee Airmen No blog No about the planes flown by the Tuskegee Airmen, not him ✘ No
https://www.tuskegee.edu/support-tu/tuskegee-airmen/tuskegee-airmen-pilot-listing Yes Yes No mere listing of graduating pilots ✘ No
The Tuskegee Airmen: An Illustrated History, 1939-1949 Yes Yes No brief details of his aerial victory and rescue from his plane ✘ No
https://newspaperarchive.com/other-articles-clipping-dec-25-1943-2821759/ Yes Yes No photo caption and group photo of graduating class ✘ No
https://www.blackhistory.mit.edu/sites/default/files/media/document/The%20Tuskegee%20%28Weather%29%20Airmen_2006.pdf Yes Yes No 4 sentences, the first of which reads "Little is known about William L. Hill." ✘ No
https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ213/PLAW-109publ213.pdf Yes Yes No Law relating to the award of the Congressional Gold Medal not about him ✘ 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}}.

Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 22 November 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 Speedy delete per WP:A7 and WP:G11 (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akalanka Ekanayake

Akalanka Ekanayake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG. First ref (a student profile) and third ref (crunchbase) are clearly not independent RS. The second ref (Time Business News) reads as highly promotional, likely just info provided by the subject. MB 03:25, 22 November 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) 00:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Rustad

Chelsea Rustad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Classic WP:BLP1E candidate; all sources are related to the DNA "witness" aspect of her life, and she doesn't seem to have lasting encyclopedic notability outside that event. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are plenty of Wikipedia pages about users with less notoriety and fewer web link references than this, and those pages were maintained as valid upon deletion challenges. There are multiple sources linked in the article from newspapers, magazines, documentaries, books, and other media explaining the public interest in Chelsea Rustad. Suggesting that being a genetic witness in the first case to ever go to trial or result in a conviction, and being featured in an assortment of cited media (and currently being featured in the news cycle) means the person has no notoriety, is subjective and demonstrably false. The original deletion request was submitted by the user SneaselxLv94 who elected to include a bunch of personal insults and sleights about a person he has never met, because he had a public interest in the person he claims he has no public interest about. This is a ridiculous abuse of the deletion request system for the clear purpose of vandalizing an article and trolling other users on Wikipedia. The article should be maintained and the user SneaselxLv94 should be warned and/or banned about vandalizing pages with rude, sexist, and totally unfounded personal insults. Nemesis 03:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikachelsea (talk • contribs)
Why are you refusing to sign your posts correctly? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 22 November 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. Article has already been speedily deleted by an admin due to it being created in violation of a ban. (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raavan (2022 film)

Raavan (2022 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film at the moment. A draft already exists. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:40, 22 November 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) 00:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Young

Monica Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD in 2010, 2013 and 2014. Appears to fail WP:NACTOR - only minor roles in television dramas. Little to no coverage in RS. KH-1 (talk) 01:27, 22 November 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) 00:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Step By Step School, Noida

Step By Step School, Noida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL / WP:GNG, lacks reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The article appears to be entirely based on No original research and advertisement of a non notable school. DMySon (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-11 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Noida#Education as a reasonable alternative to deletion per WP:CHEAP. Most of the sourcing here is just trivial mentions, and my searching finds only more of the same. There's quite a bit of significant coverage about the food poisoning incident, but I'd consider that to be precisely the sort of ephemeral reporting that WP:NOTNEWS counsels us to ignore. In sum, WP:N isn't met; redirecting to the municipality's article strikes me as a fair response. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As oer nom. The school fails WP:ORG. MickyShy (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since it's pretty clear from the lack of references that the school isn't notable. Maybe there's enough out there to justify someone creating an article about the food poisoning thing, but if so it should be it's own article. I'm not really seeing anything that warrants a stand alone article about the school itself though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:58, 28 November 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) 00:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gram per cubic metre

Gram per cubic metre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created via the Articles for Creation process. The reviewer rejected the request with the comment "This is a mixed unit - we have grams/cubic centimeter in the CGS system and kilograms per cubic meter in the MKS system. This mixed unit is not needed." The creator of the article, after a long delay, has moved the article from Draft space to mainspace him/herself. This article arose from an attempt to create a series of articles on "UCUM units" that paralleled the SI units articles, without any evidence that such a system of units is actually in use by anyone. Srleffler (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose the deletion. See my comment above. Neel.arunabh (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or at worse, redirect to density. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (nom): I disagree with the assertion made in several places above that the notability of this article hinges on the notability of UCUM. UCUM is a coding system that enables any unit to be encoded in a consistent way, to allow machine-to-machine transmission of data between systems that may use different units. It is not a system of measurement, and no reliable sources have been presented asserting that it is one. Internally, UCUM software uses a meter-gram-second basis for encoding units from various systems of measurement, so that it knows how to convert units from one system to another. There are no specific "UCUM derived units" (see Draft talk:UCUM derived unit). The UCUM Specification does not, as far as I can find, define a system of "UCUM derived units", and does not mention grams per cubic metre as having any special significance. All units, in any common system, can be "derived" in UCUM. This article arose as part of an attempt by Neel.arunabh to create articles and templates for UCUM that parallel the articles and templates on SI. I have not seen any evidence that any human being is using UCUM as a measurment system, or that "derived units" such as grams per cubic metre are of any special significance in UCUM.--Srleffler (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Kilogram per cubic metre as those looking for this term should get some result. Delete is a good idea as there is no need for this content. If a redirect, could also have grams per cubic metre (and the more correct meter) as redirects. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per PianoDan's suggestions, content from all the specific unit articles should be deleted and should all be redirected to Density. Neel.arunabh (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would only be necessary if we though any of these were likely search terms. I'm not really sold on the necessity. PianoDan (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. UCUM is not a system of units. It is a coding system to unambiguously identify units in electronic records and databases, since there is a lack of standardization in labeling units. UCUM has a unique symbol for each unit commonly used in science, engineering, and business. Examples are m for meter and [ft-i] for foot. See the tables here. The system gives examples of how to parse and code combined units such as the one in this article, but the combined units have no special significance. UCUM itself is a notable system and has been adopted by many organizations. See the information from the US National Library of Medicine here. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digression on UCUM derived units

If there's no such thing as derived unit in UCUM, then what are the implications for Template:UCUM_other_units? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to the pile of things to delete if this AfD passes: (If we make a complete list here, I'll file the next AfD on the whole pile.)

PianoDan (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Template:UCUM light units and Template:UCUM radiometry units next. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Metre squared per second should also be deleted. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:10, 25 November 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 11:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Paul

Colby Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor. Google search returns nothing usable (Strings: "colby paul", ["colby paul" actor]) and of the three provided awards, all of them are mere nominations and not award wins so far as I can tell from archived versions of the sources (28, 31). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Don’t delete this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekdemigod (talk • contribs) 06:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC) - Struck sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greekdemigod. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Do NOT DELETE - credible actor has worked in over 20 projects. IMDB can confirm that.This wiki page has been up for more than 10 years I find it silly to change this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywooodie (talk • contribs) 18:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC) - Struck sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greekdemigod. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:58, 23 November 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 withdrawn by nom.

Abreha we Atsbeha

Abreha we Atsbeha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about two people who allegedly became Christians in the 4th-century B.C.E., which screams that the topic is likely a hoax. The "news" report in the article doesn't really provide any evidence of this other than a passing mention. The other source is a travel guide, which doesn't really contribute notability. I can't find much more on these topics, and it appears that the article on the couple of individuals fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_22&oldid=1057962876"