Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 14	July 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. However, it seems that continued discussion about a merger could be helpful. If someone would like Heritage Universe restored in tandem, happy to provide without going through REFUND. Star Mississippi 01:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summertide

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, I could not turn up any coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 22:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 22:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the articles for the other books in the series are in similar shape and should probably be added to this AfD: Divergence (novel), Transcendence (Sheffield novel), Convergence (novel), Resurgence (novel). We shouldn't delete one and not the others; if there is WP:NBOOK pass for any of them they should probably all be merged into a single Heritage Universe article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages per Asilvering above:

ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 23:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the guy's books do get reviewed. [1] The first book is at https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780345360380 and https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/a/charles-sheffield-3/divergence-vol-ii-of-the-heritage-universe/ Please withdraw your nominations. Dream Focus 08:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Heritage Universe. Reviews establish that WP:NBOOK is met, however each book in the series doesn't currently warrant a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Snoozy above that a single page is the best option here. It marginally meets NBOOK but the sources I see aren't enough to develop any sort of reasonable article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose I should more formally support Merge for this. -- asilvering (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can articles be merged to a blank page? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Heritage Universe was deleted earlier this year as an expired prod. A proposal to merge stuff into it pretty much amounts to a challenge to the prod (which as you know are automatically restored on request). So imo it should be restored if merge is the decision here. In any case, it is perfectly possible to merge stuff together into an article that does not yet exist. SpinningSpark 12:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Summertide, Divergence (novel) and Transcendence (Sheffield novel), and delete Convergence (novel) and Resurgence (novel). The first three have Kirkus and Publishers Weekly reviews which, though the bare minimum, are sufficient to satisfy WP:NB. Resurgence has a PW review but nothing else; I couldn't find anything for Convergence. Unfortunately I think Asilvering's suggestion to group these has made this discussion needlessly complicated (though hopefully not pushed it into WP:TRAINWRECK territory): simply put, if there are sufficient sources for some of these books but not for others, and notability isn't inherited, why shouldn't we delete some of the articles but not others? Creating a new article on the series isn't a viable solution, as that would require significant coverage of the series as a whole, not just individual volumes, which I also haven't been able to find. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think it makes sense to delete some and not the others. Given a series of five books, why would we want to have three books covered and two missing? We're supposed to consider alternatives to deletion, and a useful alternative here would be to put all five books in the same article. The reviews we have for the first three are not the kind of in-depth analysis that would lead to much article expansion (assuming anyone even takes up that task in the first place); the articles we would otherwise retain are not meaningfully different from the ones we would delete. -- asilvering (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[W]hy would we want to have three books covered and two missing? Well, for much the same reason we'd decide to have articles on some topics and not others in any other context: because some are notable and some aren't. You're right, though, that the sourcing is weak enough that merging could still be a good approach – per WP:PAGEDECIDE, "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article". But that larger article still has to be on a notable topic, and I'm not seeing anything indicating that the series is notable – for it to be so, we'd need sources discussing the series, not just its individual volumes. If there was to be a merge, the author's article is the only sensible target. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions by Lou Harrison

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

Does not appear to warrant a split from Lou Harrison and could easily be merged into his article; the size of the list is fairly small hence not really in need of a list. – Meena • 21:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Lists. – Meena • 21:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lou Harrison as a new section in his article. (Technically, this would be a revert to the state of affairs before June 24.) Having this list at Harrison's article seems sufficient to me. I agree with the nominator that the split is not necessary, especially since there seems to be a lack of sources that assess Harrison's works in list form. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Harrison was astoundingly prolific, and the list is potentially expandable to very considerable length. There is certainly no lack of sources, Von Gunden's Music of Lou Harrison having a bulky appendix. I don't see a clear guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, but why would this case be different from featured articles like Percy_Grainger#Music?Sparafucil (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not merge. I am fairly unconvinced by the nominator's rationale, which does not cite any guidelines or policy. The rather subjective 'the size of the list is fairly small', fails to convince me when the list in question is 100+ works. Thus, I don't think a list of this many entries belongs in a general biography article for WP, so having a different article seems much more appropriate. Aza24 (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to type out a distinct policy for my vote, but there are several that are relevant here. Especially WP:NLIST saying that a list topic must be notable in its own right beyond serving as a collection of things; plus WP:NOTCATALOG saying that WP tries to avoid a bare list of items with no surrounding context on why they should be laid out in list form. The moral of this story is that the whole must be greater than the sum of the parts. In conclusion, this gentlemen created a lot of compositions. That's not particularly notable when his existing biographical article already describes his long and successful career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both articles are not very small, hence the WP:SPINOUT/WP:SPINOFF was reasonable. Maybe more than size alone, WP:UNDUE was a consideration. Also, let's not start an AfD about every decision someone makes or an argument about every dissenting opinion someone expresses. There is much more gain to be made in the article space! gidonb (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not merge per comment above. Sparafucil (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable WP:SPINOFF and WP:SIZESPLIT per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei Nova 8

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

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

There is nothing notable about these two phones. A WP:BEFORE did not give out anything. All I could find was technical specifications on websites which are like catalogues, and cover (or try to cover) literally every mobile that exists. There are some reviews/unboxing videos, but same goes for them. No review by notable reviewer/critic. Just another run-of-the-mill mobile phones that exists. None of them passes WP:GNG. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only Huawei Nova 7 There are not enough sources in Huawei Nova 7. Huawei Nova 8 has enough sources. --Hajoon0102 💬 00:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Changed opinion. --Hajoon0102 💬 11:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hajoon0102: Hi. Would you kindly provide these sources covering Nova 8 here? Or are you talking about the sources provided in the article? —usernamekiran (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hajoon0102:. Please read WP:NEXIST. It is not relevant what sources are actually in the article, only what sources that can be found. SpinningSpark 09:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Okay. You're right. --Hajoon0102 💬 11:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more comment about Huawei Nova 8.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. There are plenty of reviews for both the Nova 8 [2][3][4] and Nova 7 [5][6][7]. SpinningSpark 09:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: Hi. These are all technology related websites, and they try to review as many gadgets as possible. Being reviewed by them is not a sign of notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to hear a policy-based rationale why technology related websites do not contribute to notability. SpinningSpark 22:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Per Spinningspark's opinion. And, they're exist smartphone. --Hajoon0102 💬 11:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hajoon0102 is creator of "Huawei Nova 8". —usernamekiran (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Huawei Nova. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where in that article are the Nova 7 and Nova 8 discussed? Sending users on wild goose hunts like this is just the sort of redirect we shouldn't create per WP:R#PLA. SpinningSpark 20:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francisca Allard

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

No indication she meets N:MUSIC. If she's the same person as the professor with the name, no indication the latter has academic notability either. Star Mississippi 17:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Trinidad and Tobago. Star Mississippi 17:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

African Confederation of Co-operative Savings and Credit Associations

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

I'm mindful of systemic bias issues at play, but cannot identify any path to notability for this association. I don't think it's a language issue, they just don't seemed to have attained much attention. Passing mentions in Google scholar such as this just stem back to their own materials, so it's not independent and the site is on a blacklist so RS issues as well. Star Mississippi 17:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Africa. Star Mississippi 17:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Caradura y la millonaria

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

Article is completely unsourced. No sources found DavidEfraim (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Argentina. DavidEfraim (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Sources and some details found, but in my opinion the film's notability is still problematic.--Darius (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs provided are not counting towards GNG, one is a database entry, the other is a dictionary listing. Both are not significant coverage IMO, but will change my mind once more refs are found. VickKiang (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough film by a notable director. VickKiang, Cinenacional.com is notable. This has an entry in the dictionary of Argentine films on page 92 (which I can't access but will have several film review quotes) and is a notable director. The articles in his filmography all need improvement but it does meet GNG and I'm sure there were numerous newspaper sources in Argentina with film reviews at the time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Unfortunately, I disagree. IMO, an entry at a database like IMDB and a dictionary entry are not significant enough. Per WP:FILM guidelines, the film has to have two significant, reliable refs, won a major award, or is re released five years after, I don't see this here, but this is an interesting film. But I can change my mind if you can find Argentine refs, but right now, I am still agreeing per nom on weak delete. Many thanks, please ping me when you find more refs, and thanks for your work! VickKiang (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Did I say just a database source was enough? No. I said Cinenacional is a notable database and mentioned the entry in the definitive book on Argentine films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for your help and comments on my vote, but I still disagree. Even if it's a "definitive book" (evidence?), only a brief mention isn't enough; per WP:FILM, Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database, I think the dictionary is a "capsule review", but if it's longer than a lengthy paragraph, IMO that's one notable ref, but could you please insert more info in article if you have access. And the database? It's probably high-profile and reliable enough (this I agree), but it's not signiicant. The ad-like WP article says that (though there isn't a citation) Cinenacional.com is a web portal and web-based database about Argentine cinema. The site provides a vast array of information, including films, television programs, directors, actors, cinematographers, film editors, production designers, and other production professions in Argentina. It is the most comprehensive site for information about the film industry in the country, and has over 30.000 IMDb-type articles on films alone in its database, from the silent film era onwards; based on "most comprehensive site" and "over 30,000 IMDB-type articles", I consider it to be maybe reliable, but it's not significant enough, as it only lists basic info on release and actors for almost all films (like IMDB), so I still stand by my vote of deleting. Many thanks for your help and advice! VickKiang (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see plenty of sources on Google books in Spanish which could be used to support this film's obvious notability. As is, it is still notable, and I totally agree with Dr. Blofeld's arguments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User talk:Dr. Blofeld's and User:Shshshsh's reasoning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reconsider, the article is now sourced so deletion rationale as stated is no longer true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Sorry but the consensus is clearly keep on this. No idea why you relisted it again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, Dr. Blofeld, to cover my ass. I have found my decisions to "Keep" articles (and "No consensus", too) are more frequently challenged at Deletion Review than decisions to "Delete" articles. So, I like to see a solid consensus to Keep an article, along with good rationales, to close a discussion as Keep. And I don't think I'm alone in this among admins patrolling AFDs, if you look at a page of a day's AFDs, discussions with a clear Delete consensus are closed faster than those with a mix of viewpoints or those with a deletion nomination and Keeps. And if my honesty leads to an appearance at a noticeboard, please include other admins who join me closing AFD discussions because I don't think I'm alone here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an interesting exercise for some tech person to track admins who close deletion discussions and see which ones tend to close discussions as "Delete" while there are others who tend to take on more complicated cases and have a more balanced record (Keep/Delete/No Consensus/Redirect/Merge) for AFD closures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Shshshsh. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable book sources added to the article since nomination so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Vieira

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

A series of references to his home page and to blog entries does not a notable subject make. No corresponding article exists on the Portuguese Wikipedia, a search for sources turns up about 200 hits under Google News, none of which appears to contain in-depth discussion of the subject that I could read in English. A loose necktie (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is because Yuri is a Conservative writer. If he was a Leftist one, there would be an article about him in the Portuguese Wikipedia...

The same with Rodrigo Gurgel, a literary critic. I wrote an article about him TWO times, full with references. They deleted it.

The Portuguese Wikipedia is ideology-oriented, not reality-oriented.

Note: the three publishers (Record, Vide, José Olympio) are some of the biggest in Brazil. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "size" of the organizations that publish his works is not the issue. What matters is significant discussion of him in reliable published verifiable independent sources-- if you aren't able to provide them here, then that suggests you aren't able to provide them for the Portuguese Wikipedia; if you can't provide them here (we accept Portuguese references, though I don't speak Portuguese), then there is little wonder there is no article on him there (and not for political reasons, but for policy reasons). This then further undermines your claim that he is notable, and the politicization argument ends up holding no water. If you are claiming that he would have sources in Portuguese if the leftist Portuguese press would just cover him, that argument won't stand up real well here either. We need independent reliable published sources, in any language, that discuss the subject in depth in order to host an article on him. Nothing more, and nothing less. Nothing he wrote about himself, no blog entries, but actual coverage in other people's published works. A loose necktie (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"His main book, A Tragicomédia Acadêmica – Contos Imediatos do Terceiro Grau (en: The College Tragicomedy: direct short stories from the third degree), was praised by writers Bruno Tolentino, Millôr Fernandes, Lygia Fagundes Telles, Olavo de Carvalho and Ryoki Inoue."

Source about the authors: https://yurivieira.com/#aboutus

These are five major writers in Brazil. You can check their articles.

Also: you do not read in Portuguese, right? So please translate the source above to English so that you can confirm what I wrote.

And I have added much more links to external sources. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncontroversially fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you read in Portuguese? Gondolabúrguer (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, and if I did I'd be looking at Portuguese Wikipedia, but I'm not, I'm looking at enwiki. BTW, Google DOES read in Portuguese and the consequences are not mine to bear. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added more references, from major journals (Gazeta do Povo, Estadão), a literary periodical (Esmeril) and the Federal University of Minas Gerais.

Also linked to the Oceanos literary award's Wiki page. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete lack of sources that are reliable, independent and in-depth. The offer by Gondolabúrguer of https://yurivieira.com/#aboutus is ridculous as evidence of notability. It is Vieira himself claiming other authors have said nice things about him in quotes from unpubished private communications. Pretty much a masterclass in material we can't use. Gondolabúrguer also says they have added two new sources. The Estadão source merely replaced a Facebook cite and is a routine announcement about the Oceanos award. In any case, Vieira did not win this award, he did not even place, so I don't see how this is significant coverage. I don't see any cite added from Gazeta do Povo on or near 6 July as claimed. One Gazeta cite is a blog by Rodrigo Constantino which says nothing more than he read Vieira's books and enjoyed them. It says nothing at all about Vieira himself so even if we take Constantino's blog as reliable (dubious), it adds nothing to notability of Vieira. The other Gazeta cite is an opinion column by Flavio Gordon which likewise says little about the author himself, and incidentally, fails to verify the sentence it is attached to. If you want to convince me, link here to two (and only two) reliable independent sources that discuss the author in depth. SpinningSpark 14:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Museum of Computing

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

Page is purely promotional, does not meet WP:GNG. Written by founder so violates WP:COI. Questionable 'official website'. Hadal1337 (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Website is questionable and the most recent article there was created in March 2022. I looked around and found one article about a different Virtual Museum of Computing but couldn't find anything about this one that was of note. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – VMoC is notable as one of the first virtual museums in the 1990s and was supported by the International Council of Museums. The article has been in existence since 2005 and no {{notability}} notice has been posted. Many of the references to VMoC are from 1990s websites and are not necessarily on the web today. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_museum#Online_pioneers_(web-based_sites_established_before_2000) , the the reference to your statement ("one of the first virtual museums"), is on a website/article written by you. Also cannot find any source regarding the support by International Council of Museums.

2) The article has been in existence since 2005, but with an daily median page view of 5 in the last 90 days. How could a notability notice have been posted if so little people view the article to begin with? Hadal1337 (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ICOM has "more than 40,000 members from 141 countries and territories" which does not confer notability in any way. It's also a professional network museums apply to, not recognition that is granted in the general sense. "ICOM is a unique professional network of institutions and museum professionals that will open new opportunities for you." This is not an indicator of notability. Star Mississippi 14:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like a well referenced article Inwind (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate on how it's well referenced? Hadal1337 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question would the appropriate notability be Web or Org as it's not a physical museum? Star Mississippi 14:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the official website? It's a Fandom hosted website, it doesn't even have its own domain. Hadal1337 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To the whole project. A physical museum would need to meet WP:ORG, a website, N:WEB. I don't particularly care who the host of the website is. Star Mississippi 15:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not too sure. I just know it does not meet WP:GNG Hadal1337 (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some further discussion may be useful here. Especially whether the article satisfies WP:WEBCRIT
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only in-depth sources available are by Bowen, the founder of the site. The fact that it has finished up on Fandom as its official site says all we need to know about why it should be deleted here. SpinningSpark 11:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a COI/promotional and lacks notability. Andrevan@ 22:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The subject of this article is of historical rather than current interest. Some sample independent references:

Lee, J.A.N. (2004). History of Computing in Education. In: Impagliazzo, J., Lee, J.A.N. (eds) History of Computing in Education. 2004. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 145. Springer, New York, NY. doi:10.1007/1-4020-8136-7_1
Leslie, Mitch (September 14, 2001). Memory lane. Science; Washington, vol 293, issue 5537.

Some sample historical references:

Reviewed by Lycos as a top 5% Web site.
Recommended by the Discovery Channel in A History of the Internet, 1995.
Planet Science Site of the Day, 21 October 1996.
Best Site Award from Bookmark Central, January 1998.
Reviewed by Science NetLinks, May 1998.
5 star site under Computing Milieux from Anbar Electronic Intelligence, January 1999.
Site of the Day in RedOrbit.

—Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) VMoC has a 3 sentence coverage in the whole book/article.

2) Cannot find this book, please provide ISBN.

3) No reference for Lycos.

4) Not able to find anything on Google, please point me in the right direction.

5) Planet Science Site of the Day brings no result on Google.

6) Cannot find a website called Bookmark Central on Google.

7) Science NetLinks is down.

8) No results on Google regarding Computing Milieux from Anbar Electronic Intelligence.

9) Not able to find anything regarding 'Site of the Day' from RedOrbit. Hadal1337 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#2 is not a book, it's a journal article [8]. It has fairly trivial coverage. SpinningSpark 17:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#6 (Bookmark Central) I think is defunct, but this would indicate that it was user generated content so useless for establishing notability. SpinningSpark 19:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 1990s references were on the web in the 1990s, not now. A web archive resource like Archive.org may find them. This resource was notable for its existence mainly in the 1990s rather than now. WP:WEB applies but in a 1990s context. The resource was announced in 1995 (see announcement on Google Groups). It was highly referenced in past books (see list of books under Google Books). See under WP:GOOGLETEST: "Multiple hits on an exact phrase in Google Book search provide convincing evidence for the real use of the phrase or concept." I believe that this applies here. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading GOOGLETEST. A large number of ghits suggests that something might be notable, but one still needs to find sources in amongst those results that support WP:GNG. Being cited by a book is not evidence of notability, it's just a passing mention. It is not the in-depth discussion required by GNG. You claim that the site was notable in the 1990s, but that claim needs to be verifiable now. All the sources that we can access now are passing or trivial mentions. 1990s sources are still good now if they were reliable, but if they were never archived anywhere or print copies exist, then it is impossible to verify even in principle. We don't necessarily need to be able to access sources online, but it needs to be possible to access them somehow so we can prove that there is indeed in-depth discussion there or to resolve any dispute over the facts the source is supposed to be a cite for. SpinningSpark 11:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#7 Science Netlinks has been heavily archived by the Wayback Machine, but finding the original article, if it is there at all, is a nightmare without the exact url. SpinningSpark 11:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine is not very comprehensive for 1990s web material, with mainly top-level pages archived. With the peer-reviewed papers and many book references, is not there a case to Merge the article under WP:AFDR at least? —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the "From" column to sort the results by date, you will see the WBM was archiving this site from 1998, the date of the review. Many review pages were archived from an early date, not just top-level pages. The page in question does not seem to have been archived in 1998, but it could have been archived in any of the subsequent years the site was up in the 2000s. I had a good try at finding it, but I'm not going to go through thousands of results only to find it is another passing mention. That's for you to do if you think this is a worthwhile source. What merge target are you suggesting? The museum is already mentioned in the Bowen article, any more would probably be WP:UNDUE. SpinningSpark 15:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts, I have looked too, but cannot find the review archived. I understand that the Wayback Machine only searches to a certain level of links, at least historically. I would suggest a section under Virtual Library museums pages. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added some further information and references to the article. Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TigerShark (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cunt (novel)

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

No indication of importance, no notable mentions (an article in the LRB reports that it's a book Home wrote and that's basically it), no citations for the last 7+ years, and the 'commentary' is more like a quasi-book report on Goodreads. Would delete per WP:NOT. Kazamzam (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inviting me to add to this discussion. All I can say is that I wouldn't have created the article if I hadn't found it worthy of inclusion. The fact that there seems to be little secondary material on the novel does not necessarily mean that this is going to stay that way. Wikipedia, as I understand it, is a forward-looking project. <K F> 14:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably fair to say we've become a lot less forward-looking, for better or worse, since this article was created in 2003. The argument that sources will exist in the future is generally thought to be unconvincing in deletion discussions (though, in the event such a prediction comes true, the article can always be restored with those new sources). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs some reviews from reliable sources to stay, or some independent discussion of its development and impact. Those are completely absent and a WP:BEFORE search failed to find anything substantial, just a few passing mentions in borderline sources. SpinningSpark 15:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Selectively) merge. The only substantial coverage in reliable sources I was able to find was this review by Chris Atton in Counterpoise. One or two more sources like that would probably be sufficient, but there doesn't seem to be anything; the Calcutt and Shepard book cited in the article seems (going off Google Books snippet view) to mention Home but not specifically Cunt. Still, the novel can certainly be covered in a sentence or two, citing Atton, at Stewart Home#Books. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect I wasn't able to find many refs that meet GNG; the article is also completely unsourced with OR. This ref is of the question; it covers the plagiarism controversies, and there's the line His latest novel, Cunt, had been turned down by numerous publishers--apparently for its title--until it found a home with the London-based radical publisher, Do-Not Press. Even then, a number of printers refused to print the book, again due to its title, but I am not sure how reliable it is or whether it's significant enough, so merging is problematic; the article's poor plot summary and OR also to me isn't the best for merging. So IMO redirecting or deleting is the best. VickKiang (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The World of Faderhead. ✗plicit 13:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The World of Faderhead

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

Non notable album, references consist of primary sources and Facebook pages.   Kadzi   (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music.   Kadzi   (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely zero results on Google Books or Google News. A simple search only brought up Amazon and streaming sites. Absolutely not notable. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faderhead#Discography as is standard procedure for non-notable albums. This one received no reliable notice as an album in its own right, nor did the associated video game. Mr. Faderhead can promote his media products elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Faderhead#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Meier (VJ)

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

Minor local media figure, neither evidence nor assertion of notability Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Radio, Fashion, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Christensen

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

Contested PROD; non-notable political candidate. While he would be notable if he wins, he currently fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and California. Curbon7 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against re-creation if the wins the election. Currently fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The only available sources appear to be either WP:PRIMARY or containing only routine campaign coverage, insufficient for establishing notability. Sal2100 (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what a lousy reason to delete a page. Keep it. Does not matter if he wins or not. 2600:1700:D640:6BB0:B9C1:6DA9:8657:1A1A (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Curbon7 and Sal2100. Based on this version of the page, references 1. 3, 5, 10, and 11 are all WP:PRIMARY, and references 2 and 7 are routine coverage. Sources 7 and 8 are from California Globe, which is considered generally unreliable, sources 4 and 6 only mention him, a source 9 is a podcast that also only motions him during a brief segment. Does not qualify for notability as it fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, though he potentially could if he wins and if there is more sources around that (and if he does things noteworthy in office). reppop^talk 19:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ironic that the deletion rationale is that the article was created by a sockpuppet when the AFD was created by a different sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery of Ukraine Conference in Lugano

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

Created by a blocked user according to @MER-C: Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perhaps the page appeared too soon. The author is indeed blocked. The neutral POV is needed here as I'm from Ukraine and the topic seems to be notable. --IgorTurzh (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STARTOVER but the writing style itself is not typical POV pushing as in other cases. A09090091 (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to withdraw the nomination. Creation by a blocked user is not a reason for deletion. I read the guidelines for AfD not carefully. My mistake. --Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic seems notable; the POV seems reasonable. Radzy0 (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Icing Works

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

Apparently-defunct cupcake business with no notable media coverage. Official web site inactive; no social media presence. Two of the References are to Icing Works' own site. The third is a promotional interview with a local interest magazine. Earlier versions of article were blatant promotion, and what's left with that removed has no apparent notability. SimLibrarian (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a company active from 2009-14 [9], sourced to its own former site and to an interview piece on a local website, which are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. No claim to notability in the article text and searches find nothing to indicate that notability was attained. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How did this survive for so long? The refs are insufficient even in the days before NORG was reworked. SpinningSpark 17:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not a proper disambiguation page. RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atrocities in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

This is a disambiguation page that isn't really a disambiguation page. "Atrocities in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" is not a very plausible search term; the only similarly-titled content page is Atrocities in the Congo Free State, an article about a case where "atrocities" is a term in widespread canonical use by academics. Here, of the 5 articles linked, 2 (Allegations of child abductions in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) do not use the words "atrocity" or "atrocities" at all, and a third (Torture in Ukraine) does not use it in the context of the 2022 invasion, meaning that all 3 fail MOS:DABMENTION and thus Wikipedia:Original research. Of the remaining two, Claims of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is a subtopic of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, so I don't think anything needs to be disambiguated here. Delete or redirect to War crimes article. If there is a higher-level article to be written on the topic than the War crimes article (at this title or, perhaps better, a title like Human rights during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine), it should be written as a proper article, not a DAB trying to do the work of an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Disambiguations, Russia, and Ukraine. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep “‘Atrocity crimes’ is the umbrella term used to describe genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggression — all of which have distinct legal definitions, thresholds and political weight.” —Marco Poggio, “Call It Genocide? The Debate Over Labeling Ukraine Atrocities,” Law 360, May 6, 2022. This disambiguation page captures a valid academic subject by its main search terms. —Michael Z. 22:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And genocide is not a subtopic of war crimes: there exist genocides without war and war crimes without genocide. —Michael Z. 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then write a higher-level article that covers both in summary style. This isn't a search term meriting a disambiguation page—which are purely navigational aids, not encyclopedic content. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. This article has no merit as a standalone list independent of War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. MarioGom (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain that all possible crimes against humanity and violations of the Genocide Convention committed by the Russian state are war crimes? —Michael Z. 23:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a valid disambiguation page. I'm opposed to a redirect as well because of the non-neutral title. SpinningSpark 18:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is this title non-neutral? The source I quoted above attests that these are all categorized as atrocities in International law. —Michael Z. 00:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An opinionated list and certainly not a dab page. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a valid disambiguation page. Perhaps the contents could be split in two: some of the contents added to the relevant warcrimes page, and any that might remain put into a new List of Non-WarCrime Atrocities ... ? Radzy0 (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Beekman

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

Have looked at the cited sources and searched online. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Autobiography of a non-notable artist. Edwardx (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Weak because it's art magazines rather than new York Times etc, but still seems notable on a small scale, as per:

https://www.southwestart.com/events/efa-aug2014 (not a fantastic source, could lack independence)
http://voyagedenver.com/interview/conversations-inspiring-kathy-beekman/ (an interview, not ideal)
https://www.southwestart.com/articles-interviews/emerging-artists/artist_to_watch-2 (from 2008, 1/1/1971 date at start seems to be a web/IT error) This is significant coverage
Mitchell, L. (2014, 08). Kathy beekman. Southwest Art, 44, 64. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/magazines/kathy-beekman/docview/1561452752/se-2 (not ideal, seems to be based on a interview with a gallery owner). I saw 3 more very similar type of articles about her work in 2012 2016 and 2017 in the same publication
2 mentions here, note author has same surname, Beekman, C. S. (2003). AGRICULTURAL POLE RITUALS AND RULERSHIP IN LATE FORMATIVE CENTRAL JALISCO. Ancient Mesoamerica, 14(2), 299-318. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/agricultural-pole-rituals-rulership-late/docview/196682410/se-2
her work is mentioned here, it is briefly mentioned: EXHIBITIONISM A PEEK AT WHAT'S SHOWING AROUND TOWN. (2010, May 28). The Santa Fe New Mexican Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/exhibitionism-peek-at-whats-showing-around-town/docview/331677549/se-2
She's one of 28 artists featured here, significant? I'm unsure. Pastels. Southwest Art, [s. l.], v. 43, n. 5, p. 132–139, 2013. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=90395200&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 16 jul. 2022.

So basically I've got one piece of significant coverage in Southwest Art. I'm assuming it's a reliable source. And a bunch of less significant coverage which I am arguing adds up to notability. I know this is not the strongest argument, it's one of those borderline cases. CT55555 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My guess is the article is either a promotional effort WP:PROMO by her gallery, or it is indeed an autobiography due to the excessive personal details in the article. Most of the article is sourced to her own book, "Prosper: A Success Book for Artists". Re: the refs above that CT55555 kindly researched in a BEFORE, Citation 1 is not an article, it's a press release for her show embellished with content from the artist's page at Evergreen Gallery.[10]; It does not count as a review of her work. Not independent. Citation 2 is an interview, primary source, not independent, doesn't count toward notability. Citation 3 reads like a preview profile for an upcoming show - again a modified press release or taken from her website - I'm not sure that it is a critical/analytical review of her work since it was released a month before the show took place (native advertising?) Citation 4, this too is advertorial content IMO, and the mentions or calendar items (6, 7) do not help matters. Citation 5 is a primary source, she and someone with the same last name drew the illustrations, it's not a review about her illustration work. She has had shows, but that is just what 100's of thousands of artists do WP:MILL, I can find nothing that distinguishes her as a notable artist who is widely recognized and made a contribution to a enduring historical record in her field. There is a lack of independent SIGCOV over a period of time; there is no content in art history books, critical/analytical reviews, notable museum collections. Fails to meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Netherzone (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My argument to keep very much hinges on the reliability of my source #3. How certain are you that it's promo? (I'm not doubting you, I'm unsure, which is why I said "weak"). CT55555 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555, thank you for your thoughtful question. I considered #3 quite a bit before writing my thoughts above, since it did seem like the best of the bunch. The reason why I think it is an embellished press-release or native advertising - a preview of an "emerging artist" - is that it was written for the November 2008 issue of Southwest Art, but the show did not even happen until Dec. 22, 2008 – January 1, 2009. It's advertising for a future event. The commercial art world is a industry that showcases, promotes and sells art. Previews like this can boost sales and galleries (and artist) are very much aware of this. Commercial galleries that purchase regular advertising with art magazines are often "thanked" by the publication by such native advertising whether paid for placement or not. It's actually quite a common practice, no cynicism involved, it's just a reality of the industry. One must remember that galleries are essentially stores that sell art instead of pillowcases. Whereas museums and non-profit art spaces are educational institutions. There is not a speck of art historical critical analysis in this "article" other than to state her work is "reminiscent of Edward Hopper". The "article" is primarily about her childhood and student experiences; to my mind it's not serious art criticism at all. Even if it were, one source is not enough to pass GNG or NARTIST. Hope that helps to understand where my comments are coming from! Netherzone (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. And convincing. But does include assumptions. Fair ones. And assumptions are fine, AGF is about editors, not sources. Nonetheless, I'll switch to open-minded and abstain. Will strike out my weak keep. CT55555 (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any biographical information, nor examples of important exhibitions or collections. She appears to be a successful talented working artist, but not enough notability for an article WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to good third party reliable sources, it's all self-published or advertising. Elspea756 (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON for WP:NARTIST. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't found anything that would lead me to believe she could pass any of the notability guidelines. Jacona (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Medina (Producer)

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

No assertion of WP:SIGCOV from reliable and independent sources or claim of notability in the article and most of the article is unsoursed. AmirŞah 21:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Latin America, and Venezuela. AmirŞah 21:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Medina is a well-known producer, talent manager, and entrepreneur in the Latin/Hispanic entertainment industry. Billboard magazine and other reliable sources have all published several works, articles, and interviews claiming the notability of Luis Medina as Producer, CEO of UNO Productions in Los Angeles, California, and the several events that he has directed, produced, and the talent he has managed. Hollywoodproduction (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Hollywoodproduction (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Since Luis Medina works in the Latino/Hispanic entertainment industry the sources and claim on notability are in Spanish. Please use a translator so you can read the articles. Hollywoodproduction (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Hollywoodproduction (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete, or at the very least, this article will need a complete rewrite, removing all the unnecessary fluff and non-encyclopedic wording. Phrases such as "Luis Medina has prioritized following his instincts. During the holidays of 1975, he did just that." and the headings "United States: Expanding Horizons" and "Los Angeles: Dreams become reality" are not encyclopedic, to say the least. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete, blatant self-promotion, even after I threw out all the unsourced paragraphs. ~~He does appear to be notable per WP:BIO, but this article needs to be blown up and rewritten by someone who's not on his payroll.~~ Note that the article creator claims ownership of the posed photo. Storchy (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second look at the sources and on what else I can find online in English and Spanish, Medina doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Storchy (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not self-promotion or on the payroll. I am just trying to complete my school project on Latin/Hispanic figures who lack representation in the US entertainment industry and have to create a biography. I was given rights to the photos because he was appreciative of my efforts. The claim of notability should be proven by billboard magazine articles on him and several interviews. I am open to suggestions on how to make this better. Hollywoodproduction (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that he was he was appreciative of your efforts? What's your connection with Mr. Medina please? Storchy (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At first glance, the subject fails WP:GNG and his coverage relies heavily on passing mentions with clients or his company, UNO Productions, and I say this as a Spanish speaker that looked up for references in Spanish. I will note that there might still be the chance to find independent sources that focus on him, but at the current state of the article of self-promotion, WP:TNT is probably the best alternative. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the above Kazanstyle (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vague rationale, countered by both keep voters (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toomer's Corner

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

Lack of encyclopedic notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if you expand your bare and thin reason for deletion, the corner is very notable in Auburn and SEC lore as a common campus meeting point for celebrations and everyday things. There's entire documentaries devoted to it, including one about its trees being killed and poisoned. This might be a case where an article can be oversourced for its WP:N. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are 19 references in the article. There are tens of thousands of sources available online. Meets WP:GNG, quite easily. Nomination rationale of "lack of encyclopedic notability" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, rather than a valid deletion rationale. Jacona (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa 'Botticelli'

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

No claim of notability for one of the dozens of rose varieties introduced each year. Searching is inhibited by the artist and by the innumerable places that want to sell you a bush, and by other exhaustive listings of rose varieties, but I saw nothing to indicate that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill floribunda. Mangoe (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding a non-award winning, but commercially popular rose to an existing notable rose breeder page to demonstrate a selection of rose cultivars created by the rose breeder. I do understand that by itself this is not a notable rose. If it is decided to delete the article, in the future I will plan to only create new rose articles that have won a prestigious annual rose award. MauraWen (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Redirect to rose.--Darwinek (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirecting to rose. The sourcing is inadequate to support a claim that this is a notable variety. There are literally tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of varieties/cultivars of roses. It is an unlikely search term on its own, and since it is not mentioned (and should not be mentioned) at the main "rose" article, the redirect is of no use to anyone anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Turner

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

Not seeing independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Edwardx (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, I see no claim of notability here. CT55555 (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see how meets WP:GNG. Her writing and speaking does less to show notable than other independant people writing/speaking about her would do. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Agree with the nominator Kazanstyle (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Jody Turner, one of few globally recognized female futurists, is not deemed notable enough for Wikipedia, then should her peers like Anne Lise Kjaer also be deleted? While I have updated her article for many years, I was not the original creator. If she met notability guidelines in the past, why would that be questioned today? Delcydrew (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wherether ALK should be deleted or not is off topic. I recommend we follow the advice of the essay WP:WHATABOUT and concentrate if this article should exist. The presence of reliable, independent sources with significant sources should be what informs us. WP:GNG contains guidance on that. I also don't think it has been established if she met notability guidelines in the past or not, but the key thing is if she does today. If you want this kept, you can immediately persuade me. I would be delighted to say "keep". I just need to see a few reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Share that here and I'll be the biggest fan of keeping this. CT55555 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some independent sources for your consideration:

The Kindness Think Tank podcast, 2021 - Interview with JT
JT listed among Forbes 50 Leading Female Futurists
JT Interviewed by Femme Futurists (as was ALK)
D/Construct by Doner interview
JT was the expert guest on a Dr. Phil show about trends (trailer ^[1]) and more of interview on her speaker reel ^[2]
JT receiving Global Award for Brand Excellence from the World Brand Congress in Mumbai 2009

I would also like to note that many of the original source links for the JT article disappeared over time and were cleaned up. It seems that to rely solely on what is online at the present time for a person who has been on Wiki for decades is doing a disservice to both Wikipedia and the person in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delcydrew (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not "independent" check out WP:INDEPENDENT CT55555 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add, AFD certainly doesn't only consider sources online on the article at the time of nomination, that's part of WP:BEFORE. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. Lacks in-depth secondary coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to pass any notability guideline. Jacona (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Penske Media Corporation#Other properties. RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Derby

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

Lacks notability. Article relies on primary sources and cannot see significant reliable coverage online Indagate (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Awards, and Entertainment. Indagate (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penske Media Corporation#Other properties per WP:ATD-R. Regards So Why 19:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Variety article about the Penske acquisition here: [11] that could be used to support a redirect with a better citation if that is the outcome. I didn't see much else substantive from Variety in covering Gold Derby, which leads me to think the redirect will be the best outcome -- pending if others find more sources. matt91486 (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that both Variety and Gold Derby appear to be owned by Penske, with Variety being acquired in 2012. Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 06:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't realize that! I just usually default to looking at Variety for things like this as a source. matt91486 (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also Deadline is another one owned by Penske, so from the 14 references on the page, 11 appear to be from primary sources, or perhaps 13 if you count the ones from Deadline and Variety too. Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 12:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penske Media Corporation as above, although I'd have no objection to deletion. Far too much WP:SELFPUB. I've just posted on WT:MUSIC about how so many musical artists "List of awards and nominations received by <artist>" pages list Gold Derby Music Awards alongside Grammys, BRIT awards, BET Awards, Mercury Prize and other awards from legitimate music awards organisations. Perhaps people consider them to be legitimate awards, because there is a Gold Derby wikipedia page with a Music Awards section, but it appears that all the references to the Gold Derby Music Awards and Gold Derby Film Awards on the Gold Derby page, come from the goldderby.com site itself. Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 06:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I started this because entries for Gold Derby TV awards was added to a few pages and thought shouldn't as not notable. Hopefully can remove all if this closes as redirect or delete. Indagate (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penske Media Corporation#Other properties per above comments. Chompy Ace 12:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penske Media Corporation#Other properties per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apache May Slaughter

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

Article on a child who died when she was about six years age who did nothing of note during her life. There are no sources. It is cleaimed she was mentioned in newspapers at the time, but this would have been incidental mentions because of who family was, not actual coverage of her as a person. There is no good reason to have this article at all John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brief mentions in an obituary from 1941 when the adopted mother died, otherwise nothing found. Non-notable incident. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doing some WP:BEFORE-style searches in Ebsco, newspaperarchive, and gbooks found sources, with a selection below. The good reason to have this article is there are many sources that have written about her over decades.

From Google Books: *[12] has passing mentions, including mentioning that there was a postcard of her, and has a theory that she is Apache Kid's biological daughter

a blog-y post but by a reliable person and magazine mentioning that theory/her [13])
a significant write-up of her and her story in Wild West magazine: Apache May, a warrior's young daughter, lived an all-too-short life with John Slaughter.
For older newspapers, it does seem like she was a popular subject to include see

"Arizona Album: Sheriff Slaughter's wife and Apache May" a seemly syndicated news blurb about her, this time in the Tucson Daily Citizen
"True Story of Apache Girl Captured from Indians Wins First Prize in Essay Contest"
"Patch", A True Story of a Little Wild Life Being an Aftermath of the Apache Raid of 1896.
"Tombstone the Ghost Town Comes to Life Once More" Salt Lake Tribune story from 1929, with a few paragraphs/photo of her

And another journal article with enough passing mentions to be worth looking at: CORA VIOLA HOWELL SLAUGHTER: Southern Arizona Ranchwoman from The Journal of Arizona History.

Anyone is welcome (of course) to use these to expand the article and I'll be able to when I have time to cite and parse through this more. Skynxnex (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I originated this article, and in cases like these, I always vote keep. Also, as Skynxnex says, there are sufficient sources to demonstrate her own independent notability. Some may, no pun intended, claim her only claim is being the daughter of so and so, but then, that is the case with many others like for example Chelsea Clinton and Malia Obama, and no one is deleting their articles. Antonio Keep me, keep me pleasseeee! Martin (que paso?) 23:29, 15 July, 2022 (UTC)
Keep. Her story is told in a fair amount of detail in two books Captive Arizona, 1851-1900 ISBN 0803210906 and The Apache Wars ISBN 0770435823, the former published by a university press. Marshall Trimble, the official state historian of Arizona, discusses her in True West magazine. SpinningSpark 07:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To augment the above searches, I searched on newspapers.com. There were 275 articles. The earliest I found was from 1896, the most recent was 2017. These provide significant coverage spanning more than a century! While I might consider sympathizing with an editor who perhaps may be unaware of or perhaps rejects policy WP:NEXIST (and therefore also rejects policy WP:CONSENSUS) because the article does not cite any sources, NEXIST clearly specifies that an article is considered notable based on the availability of sources, not on whether the article actually uses them. The existence of suitable sources is eminently provable here, in newspaper articles for well over 100 years, in books, and more. This subject meets GNG, hundreds of times over, but the article itself is in desperate need of improvement. Deletion is not cleanup, so my sympathy would mean nothing, and we must keep the article and ask the nominator to remember that although they might disagree with the policy, if they don't believe in the policy they should work to gain consensus to change the policy rather than attempting to subvert the policy with spurious deletion nominations. Jacona (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep appears to be the consensus. A potential re-name/scope to include the book is a matter for the Talk. Star Mississippi 18:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richardus Anglicus

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

Subject fails GNG, NAUTHOR, and ANYBIO. I don't think having his wrok in notable compendiums is enough. Clearly CarolineHealeyDall doesn't understand that de-wiki is its own aggregate with differing consensuses. I wish ~~she~~ they had translated the article about the 12th century physician Richardus Anglicus because he's notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a translation of an already extant page on German Wikipedia. Can you say more about what the issue is? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolineHealeyDall (talk • contribs) 13:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and England. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not see what is wrong with this article. It would have been better if the footnotes had been translated as well as the article text. The author presumably called himself Richard Angel. This may have been a pseudonym; if so, the question is for whom. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've changed German "band" to English "vol." and generally brought them more in line with an English footnote style. Is that what you had in mind with translating footnotes? I'm inclined to leave the titles as they are so the original source can be found.

If it was a pseudonym, it's an open question in the scholarship. Medieval and early modern alchemical texts are notoriously difficult in this way.

CarolineHealeyDall (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What? No, he would not have called himself "Richard Angel". Ricardus Anglicus means "Richard the Englishman". -- asilvering (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your translation is of course correct. Glasgow Universirty Library also needed translating. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite as disambig for the various people named Richardus Angelicus.--Jahaza (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there seems to be something to write about this character, even if it's only to discuss who might have written various influential texts on alchemy. It doesn't need to be converted to a disambig since there are currently only two Ricardus/Richardus Anglicus to differentiate (hatnotes are sufficient) and one has not yet been translated anyway. But the earlier doctor really does need translating! Elemimele (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi fellow editor, you'll recall Wiki etiquette rules around assuming good faith and maintaining civility. Constructive criticism on how to improve articles will get us further in this joint endeavour than attacking an editor's perceived understanding (or perceived lack thereof).

When the discussion concludes am happy to update article to address your/the community's concerns, bring out RA's importance, and/or make whatever changes this vote decides (for example, the disambig suggestion given below). (Or give space for someone else to make those changes.)

Finally, Caroline Healey Dall is an historical figure (a fantastically interesting one, see her wiki article!). "They" will serve in the absence of info about my gender. Thanks. CarolineHealeyDall (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, this appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Right now it has two sources; the second is not about him, but rather about the Correctorium alchimiae. It is possible that that is notable, but its author does not appear to pass either relevant guideline. In my own search, I am mostly turning up passing mentions, all related to the Correctorium alchimiae. I'm extremely skeptical of the claim He was considered among the leading English alchemists of the period - by whom? There are two Ricardus Anglicus in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: the physician doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/74815 and the canon lawyer doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/23518. I don't think the ODNB would have missed out on someone who is "considered among the leading alchemists of the period". Especially given the dispute over who this could possibly be, and whether the name was entirely pseudonymous, delete. The appropriate article on a relevant topic might be Correctorium alchimiae, but I haven't established notability for that yet either. -- asilvering (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very sympathetic to a redirect to Correctorium alchimiae if we had it, but unfortunately we don't. Perhaps there's a case for doing a re-write to convert the article into one about the book, using the material on Ricardus as a section on authorship? Elemimele (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would happily put together a stub on the book if someone were to find some accessible sources that demonstrate a clear WP:NBOOK pass. I would not recommend using the material on Ricardus in this article as a section on authorship because it is not as clearly verifiable as it should be (for eg, it lists authors but not the specific book, let alone page numbers - and at least one of the sources is over 100 years old, not great for manuscript studies or history of science stuff). Whatever we do, it can't be a redirect directly from "Richardus Anglicus", since by far the most common expectation of people searching this name will be to find one of the other two. Turning up a different Richardus Anglicus might be confusing, but being redirected immediately to a book on alchemy when you were expecting the physician is definitely confusing and possibly misleading (the two are close enough professions that one might assume they're the same person). We'd need to make this title a disamb page. -- asilvering (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the logical thing to do would be to translate the other Richardus page too. I'm happy to have a go, but I doubt I'll have time today, and I don't want to rush a rubbish machine translation. I'd rather do it by hand and get it right, and check the refs if I can while I'm at it. Once we've got a couple, this article could turn into a disambiguation page between a stub on the alchemy book and the earlier medic, if there's agreement. I don't personally have problems about 100-year-old paper sources; they may not be the latest scholarship, but until someone comes up with something better, they are the state of human knowledge, which it is our duty to summarise. Elemimele (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't need to choose between the author and the work. This is the article about them. Its title and its approach are questions for its talk page. I agree that it is not the primary topic for its current title. Srnec (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appear to be scholarly sources in German. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as recommended above, I've made a translation for the other Ricardus, the doctor; it's at Draft:Ricardus_Anglicus_(medical_writer). I will submit it for review, and wait the normal three months before it's inevitably rejected, and then weep silently into my pillow. If anyone feels that it's worth rescuing, please feel free to contribute; it is not helped by being written in the form that has a bibliography rather than inline citations. Elemimele (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elemimele: Done I told you the other one is notable based on all the sources I found on my BEFORE search regarding this Richard. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Chris troutman: Thanks so much! That was quick. I withdraw my pessimistic comment about the speed and outcome of AfC reviews; I am far too gloomy. Thanks, too, for doing a good BEFORE. It's interesting, and a good reflection on WP policies, that our modern standards of notability can be applied successfully to these distant historical figures; the medical Ricardus would undoubtedly have passed as an academic and author in his day (held in esteem by his peers, and widely-copied author), and notability is permanent. I hope people add to both Ricardus articles. Elemimele (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is cited and of historical significance. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Bickel

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

Subject does not appear to be the subject of in-depth discussion in multiple independent reliable published secondary sources. The awards he has won are not notable awards, and he does not appear to qualify as notable per any of our subject-specific guidelines (electors do not automatically qualify per WP:POLITICIAN, and I see no other grounds for him qualifying as notable). Sources here only show him mentioned in passing, a Google News search turns up next to nothing. A loose necktie (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article on a teacher, the awards are non-notable, perhaps recognition of a job well-done, but nothing that warrants an entry here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Oaktree. This does indeed appear to be a vanity article. No evidence of notability. Sal2100 (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Presidential electors are not notable enough for Wikipedia articles on that basis per se — a person might have been a presidential elector and oh by the way also notable for something else, but people are not notable because presidential elector — and the sourcing here is half primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and half local-interest coverage in local-interest contexts that don't clinch a person as notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Kazanstyle (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presidential electors are not notable per se, and nothing else about him at all adds up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPROF, WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. We don't need this. Jacona (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorna Salzman

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Although the subject has notable family members, notability is not inherited. WP:RS-compliant sourcing that covers the subject herself in-depth is needed to pass the notability threshold, and it is woefully lacking here. A WP:BEFORE search conducted on multiple search engines produced mostly primary sources, and only a scattering of secondary that made only trivial mentions of the subject. Sal2100 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn based on the sources presented and arguments made below. Obviously, my WP:BEFORE search wasn't thorough enough. My thanks to CT55555 and Beccaynr for locating these sources, I am now convinced that the subject passes WP:GNG and the article should be kept.Sal2100 (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for changing your opinion as more information is presented. I wish this was more common at AfD. For what it's worth, I think Google Books is often where I find the notability for activists with decades of experience. CT55555 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip about GBooks. Noted for future reference. Sal2100 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Politicians, New York, and Women. Sal2100 (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She seems notable, based on 19 mentions in this book Thomson, J. (2019). The Wild and the Toxic: American Environmentalism and the Politics of Health. United States: University of North Carolina Press. I viewed it though google books, so could only see a few sentences on each side of her name, but it's lots of information about her advocacy, environmentalism, and seems clearly significant coverage. Also lots of quotes from her in news over the years, mentions in mainstream news include Mittelstaedt, M. (1988, Jul 05). Reactor to be nuclear scrap. The Globe and Mail Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/reactor-be-nuclear-scrap/docview/385919785/se-2

Her work as a board member of friends of the earth USA is mentioned here Dorsey, M. K. (2007). Climate knowledge and power: Tales of skeptic tanks, weather gods, and sagas for climate (in)justice. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 18(2), 7-21,137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10455750701366360 CT55555 (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - I can view full pages of The Wild and the Toxic, and the available preview at pp. 27-31 includes in-depth career and biographical information. Based on the notes section at pp. 144-145, some of the content appears based on an interview with Salzman, but also other documentation, and includes further detail about her career. Part of her career is also discussed in-depth in Ecological Politics, including at pp. 103-104 (pp. 105-106 are not available in the preview), 108, 116. In The New Crusaders at pp. 104-105, one of her statements against nuclear power is critiqued, while another statement is quoted and discussed more positively in Free Enterprise Environmentalism at p. 48. More biographical and career information is available in Newcomers: Gentrification and Its Discontents at 34. She is also more than quoted in Mother Jones Magazine - Nov 1986, in a lengthy article "The Forest for the Trees" that places her quotes in the context of her work as an environmental activist. In the preview page available at p. 253 in The Invention of Brownstone Brooklyn, some of her Brooklyn-based activism is discussed. She is also quoted with context in Earth Follies: Feminism, Politics and the Environment at p. 324. In these sources, her husband is occasionally mentioned, but it seems clear she has independent notability as an activist for several causes that is supported by independent and reliable secondary sources, and the article can be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Via ProQuest, her unsucessful run for the 2004 Green Party presidential nomination is mentioned in the context of quotes from her in "Green Party's national strategy `realistic' or `laughable'? ; Election 2004: Greens say they don't expect to win the White House; their goal is ballot access", Joshua Weinstein, Portland Press Herald, 4 July 2004, and more directly in "Nader given nod by Greens" Portland Press Herald 23 Mar 2004. Her campaign website for her 2002 NY congressional run is archived by the Library of Congress; an overview of candidate profiles from Newsday includes "Salzman, 67, of Southampton, has run unsuccessfully for Southampton trustee, the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. A graduate of Cornell University, Salzman co-founded the New York Greens, which later became the New York Green Party. She has been an environmental activist and grassroots organizer of 35 years." ("U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st DISTRICT" 3 Nov 2002). She also published an essay collection "Politics as if Evolution Mattered: Darwin, Ecology, and Social Justice" (via Gale) and has had writings published in various journals, e.g. BioScience (JSTOR), (JSTOR), Science News (JSTOR), Conservation Biology (JSTOR), Business and Society Review and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (WP Library). Beccaynr (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the sources listed above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Oliver Snow

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

Fails WP:GNG: the current references are to social media accounts or websites controlled by the subject. I looked for additional sources and found only two blogposts by the same author. Cheers, gnu 57 16:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Religion, Internet, and West Virginia. gnu 57 16:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS. I searched and couldn't find anything. They're just on social media, but so what? Millions of people are. --Kbabej (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would have qualified for speedy deletion IMO. Deb (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of WP:PRIMARY sourcing, but not much of any WP:SECONDARY sourcing at this time. That could change, but for now, Delete. Jacona (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fareed Nawaz Jung Devdi

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

No clear indication of notability, and not appropriate for mainspace, but creator continues to move war so we're here. Language is undoubtedly an issue, but I imagine sources could be found if it's a historic building if this could spend some time in draft space. Star Mississippi 15:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and India. Star Mississippi 15:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I agree potentially notable but not ready in its current state. Mccapra (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Requires incubation in Draft. However, with the history of contested drafification, consider salt for mainspace until ready for acceptance 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have move protected the article since the creator has moved it yet again. They remain able to edit the article. Star Mississippi 14:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not so bad that it requires forcible draftification. Improving it is the solution, not draftification. If no one is prepared to work on it, then moving to draft is just condemning it to slow death by G13. If someone is willing to work on it, that can be done in mainspace just as well as in draft. SpinningSpark 09:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no indication of notability here or elsewhere. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is notable; it is one of the remaining heritage structures in Hyderabad constructed by architecture enthusiasts of that era Sir Viqar-ul-Umara.

copy edited, cited RS, added categories both WP and WC, added info box and WL and also moved to common name. etc :)- Omer123hussain (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already has one good source, and could easily be improved. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom I would withdraw based on the improvements that make it clear what the article is about, but they're are established editors who haven't changed their !votes so I won't close. Closer can consider this nom withdrawn should they wish, or a keep vote. Whatever is easiest. Star Mississippi 01:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Sidney

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The creator Janetteewen has attempted to start an AfD by moving the article to the Draft and Help namespaces and placing an AfD tag on the talk page, both of which are wrong. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Photography, Australia, and Canada. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No additional sources found on Google News/Books/Scholar; fails WP:NBIO. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Current page is completely unsourced; and even if the statements/claims made were sourced, they do not establish notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG Jacona (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with some salt for flavoring. Not going to block the creator as of yet. Star Mississippi 02:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of chief secretaries of Himachal Pradesh

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

Disputed draftification and created by copy and paste move. This was sent to Draft by Hey man im josh, is present at Draft:List of chief secretaries of Himachal Pradesh, and is not ready for mainspace. I am not even sure that such a list meets WP:GNG. As written it also does not meet WP:BLP, which it must since it contains information about living people. I am suggesting that the outcome of this be Merge the mainspace article's words and history with the draft, and delete the mainspace article. Since the creating editor is unwilling to engage I also suggest the outcome also be to salt mainspace article pending any future AFC acceptance 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and block the creator for being completely disruptive. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The draft has now been history merged to the mainspace article, which was the reverse of my suggestion in the deletion rationale. This leaves us discussing the deletion or draftification of the mainspace article. I now need to look at the initial deletion rationale, and revise it thus:
Delete or Draftify, and salt the mnainspace article. Likely fails WP:GNG, The article does not comply with WP:BLP, and is in any case not ready for mainspace. The creating editor exhibits WP:ICANTHEARYOU and refuses to engage, having already removed the AfD notice from the article once. Blocking them is a secondary consideration and I suggest outside the scope of AfD. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Rosen

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

Does not pass WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Appears that the only coverage is in regards to Rosen leaving the Adam Carolla Show which is a WP:BLP1E concern. The page was previously deleted three times way back in 2009 and the available sources don't appear to have improved. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Television. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, lady who was fired, doing her job otherwise. No notable sources found. One brief mention about her getting fired and mentions of guests on a podcast she hosts, nothing notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Weak consensus that we lack the sourcing necessary to verify Ziv's work Star Mississippi 02:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Ziv

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

No way to verify that prizes claimed were actually received, even assuming they are sufficient to warrant this page

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete passing mentions about his recent film on Jewish exiles, nothing substantive, but if he was the winner of these awards, could be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the thing is that it is impossible to independently verify that these awards were indeed received, assuming they are even noteworthy, as the prizes are either very old and/or the organizations dont list past winners and/or the film festivals themselves are minor Newtonewyork (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He meets WP:FILMMAKER #3 and #4. I'm less sure about the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not to sure I agree with you re. WP:FILMMAKER #3 and #4, there are no 'multiple articles' confirming the prizes claimed, and the single articles out there do not discuss the work at length. Newtonewyork (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome to disagree with me. We are often making things too complex and hold way too many discussions. We can use our time MUCH better in the article space. As I see it, without passing the WP:GNG, Ziv does not pass the bar. So this nomination happens to be justified. Don't take away from your ACHIEVEMENT by starting pointless discussions with both opinionators, who basically agree with you! I see the awards as an indication of notability. Coverage would be proof. Just had a similar case with a Dutch producer with a huge number of movies. One of these won a prestigious prize. He stayed away from publicity. That can't start at WP. gidonb (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander I. Poltorak

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

Limited references and notability. Andrevan@ 12:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Russia, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, no notability despite the page being 10 year old. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) are not met. Criterium 1 could be considered but no evidence the individual had an impact on their field. WP:Author also not met (the two books published in 2011 and 2013 are below 3 figures citations). JamesKH76 (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Published book review, but they aren't substantive, if we can find better ones, would be notable. I find none. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF ,WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casuarina Senior College

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

No references at all. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. No SIGCOV, NO WP:SEC met. Plausible UPE. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No effective references since the get-go. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I used to live near this school. I would say that if this school is not notable, then no schools are. It has a very important role in the education of Darwinians and many from else where in the Northern Territory who board. However, I agree that it needs sources. --Bduke (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. NT News, which its WP article says is a a morning tabloid newspaper based in Darwin, has some refs (1, 2, 3), but it's probably not reliable enough, there was also a passing mention on 9 News (1). There's also a book here, but there's no info on its publisher, so it might be be self-published, I don't see how this is an RS. So there's certainly coverage, but the refs are either too brief are not that reliable; still, I don't think the local tabloid is sensationalising simple info on a school, but whether it counts towards GNG is of question, so I am probably at weak delete (if more refs are found I would probably be at neutral or weak keep). Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep scrapes though WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The standard for all organizations including schools is not GNG, it is organizational notability. This institution does not meet the standards of that requirement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is false. In the notability guideline, under WP:NSCHOOL it states "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)". This is a state college, so the standard is WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Contrary to the bizarre comment above, if an article meets GNG then it meets notability standards. SNGs may reduce or clarify notability standards, but they never increase the threshold. Even WP:NSCHOOL says this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With absolutely no coverage in the article and light (incidental/passing mentions) coverage presented above, the school clearly does not pass WP:GNG: "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The bare assertion 'passes WP:GNG' is a litle odd... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The above nominator is currently targeting a number of artciles which I have created after his/her interaction with me here and here.

He even tagged paid editor here which I have denied and sent an email to ArbCom with my real world identity disclosure.

He didn’t even acknowledge the following article’s AfD on my talk page.Eesan1969 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eesan1969: I’ve previously encountered the nom in a discussion, and we disagreed, but I agree with his COI tag. The article is not as bad to warrant G11, but it’s ad like, such as this: AFIN was set up with the mission to facilitate innovation and cooperation between financial institutions and FinTechs, in an effort to digitally transform the banking and financial sectors across the ASEAN region and beyond to ultimately drive financial inclusion. Note the ad like words innovation, ultimately, and transform, if this is the company’s POV, probably rm this is needed. I think the nom probably made a mistake with notifying the AfD, but I agree with this point that you made. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Thanks for your comment. If the wordings are too promotional, some experienced editor might have corrected it after the Advert tag, no need to tag Undisclosed Paid. In fact, after I have created the page, the management of the Application Programming Interface Exchange contacted me via email, and asked me to delete the page; I have forwarded the whole email communication to ArbCom.

When it comes to the AfD, not only informing me, but not considering BEFORE is bothering me. If it's not a Notable institution when its Executive Director passed away, Singapore Prime Minister might not have paid the tribute.Eesan1969 (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per @Jacona:'s explanation above.Eesan1969 (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an explanation nor a criteria for notability. Only sources count in this venue. Where is the WP:SECONDARY coverage that proves its notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eesan1969, as User:scope_creep states, my comment above is not an endorsement of keeping or deleting this article, just a statement that another editors comment was incorrect. I generally prefer to avoid inserting myself into discussions on the notability of subjects in Australia, since I'm not a resident and because it is an English speaking country with a large contingent of English speakers who should be able to take care of themselves. That way hopefully it will be tended to by people who have a clue as to what they are talking about and the means to find sources relevant to subjects relating to their country. Jacona (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jacona, Sorry, I made a mistake and redacted.Eesan1969 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG because of the sources [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], though some are passing mentioned.

I never have been to Darwin, but considering its population of 147,255 as per 2019, the above coverage is significant, provided a few media presence and all are directing to NT News.

As User:Bduke mentioned above, “I used to live near this school. I would say that if this school is not notable, then no schools are.....” including Nightcliff Middle School and Darwin High School in the city.Eesan1969 (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As Eesan1969 says; If the wordings are too promotional, some experienced editor might have corrected it after the Advert tag, no need to tag Undisclosed Paid. In fact, after I have created the page, the management of the Application Programming Interface Exchange contacted me via email, and asked me to delete the page; I have forwarded the whole email communication to ArbCom. - this makes clear about their UPE issue. Eesan1969 should know about COI which clearly says you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, but they kept editing. Admins should take note of this. CC: @GeneralNotability:, @Deepfriedokra:, @Star Mississippi:._{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have declared my position on fintech to ArbCom, and I have given speeches at various conferences in Asia. If any ArbCom members can search my name on Google, they could simply verify my involvement. It's not that difficult to access me for the fintech community in Asia; I am well connected. If someone ask me to stop editing fintech related articles, then everyone should stop editing their own cities, countries, colleges, known places.....then creating an encyclopedia like Wikipedia by volunteer editors will become a failure. CC: ArbCom(@Enterprisey:, @Donald Albury:, @CaptainEek:, @Cabayi:, @Barkeep49:, @BDD:).Eesan1969 (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eesan1969 I don't know about others, but I have not created/edited my own place (also my place is still not in anywhere in Google search). Wiki never says such as you said "everyone should stop editing their own cities, countries, colleges, known places". Kindly add notable resources to support the article as per WP:BURDEN and the page will surely survive. About COI, you can check my userpage, how I have declared about my COI. My 2 cents, you too should declare COI to avoid landing into troubles. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me What precisely does a fintech COI have to do with a local high school? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not about this school, but about the Application Programming Interface Exchange page as the creator himself said here "...no need to tag Undisclosed Paid. In fact, after I have created the page, the management of the Application Programming Interface Exchange contacted me via email, and asked me to delete the page; I have forwarded the whole email communication to ArbCom.". They brought the issue here, which wasn't mentioned by anyone earlier. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those references presented are very poor. Of the first four references: 1) proves it exists. 2) shows where it is located. 3) States its a large high school 4) Non-RS as it the Daily Mail 5) A model who went there, gained employed. Looking at the rest of them, not one of them constitutes a real secondary source. scope_creep^Talk 07:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: If that's the case, can you nominate Nightcliff Middle School and Darwin High School for deletion? I could see on my talk page you have nominated two more articles which I have created for deletion; I am not interested whether they are kept or not. But expecting a reason, why can't you nominate the above two schools for deletion? If you couldn't give me a valid reason, I will go for a RFC.Eesan1969 (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eesan1969: How goes it? There was an RFC in 2017 defined at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that changed the notability criteria for schools. Before that most of them were considered notable. After that, most them were considered to be under WP:GNG and had to prove in the normal way they were notable, which is the situation we are in now. Those two schools you've found are woeful, but I wouldn't nominate them. I'm not a school type. I don't know enough about them. It been a long while since i've been in school, even university. I sent your APIE article to Afd, as somebody posted an advert tag on it. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Scope creep: You say, "...Those two schools you've found are woeful, but I wouldn't nominate them. I'm not a school type. I don't know enough about them. It been a long while since i've been in school, even university." .....but still you spend some quality time on the deletion discussion of this school. Any way I am not going to RfC.Eesan1969 (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eesan1969: This is the first one I've taken part in for years, at least five years. If there was three decent sources on it, I would be fighting to keep it, you can be ensured of that. scope_creep^Talk 15:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eesan1969: You could ask User:Beccaynr nicely, to see if he could find some sources. He is particularly skilled in that domain and has an iron-grip on the polices. scope_creep^Talk 15:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks noted.Eesan1969 (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

The nominator seems helpful at times by adding sources to Casuarina Senior College, but again nominated another page for deletion. And I am accussed there accepting money for creating articles. My connection with that particular institution was, I was a speaker at an event organized by them in 2000. I have sent screenshots of a newspaper (which published my speech) and and a photo of my speech to ArbCom via email.Eesan1969 (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eesan1969 I have nominated, that doesn't mean I am dying to delete the page. If suitable for Wiki, it should be here. If the page can be moved to draft space, I can help the page. I have added resources and informed you to add resources, and I said Kindly add notable resources to support the article as per WP:BURDEN and the page will surely survive., but you are leading the AfD to a moot like condition. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 16:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really I wanted to add sources based on your above advise, but after the analysis of sources by User:scope_creep, I was wondering what to do....and when he nominates something, you will come out with source analysis....I am really confused. Anyway, I will try my best to add some sources which are best to my knowledge meet WP:RS.Eesan1969 (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Army SOS

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

Created by a blocked user according to @MER-C: Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Молдовський винний погріб any other reason to delete the page? if it's only because the author was banned because they use multiple accounts, then it's not enough. I would suggest to recall this and the other nominations and try to understand the topic better. IgorTurzh (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IgorTurzh let's see what other say Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet WP:GNG. —Michael Z. 15:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG There are a few online sources that could also be included (I would add them myself but I’m using my mobile phone). The Ukrainian language equivalent could also offer additional information. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to withdraw the nomination. creation by a blocked user is not a reason for deletion. I read the guidelines for AfD not carefully. My mistake. --Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Page can be draftified by request. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Panelbase

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

Non-notable business. Sources cited are obits of the founder, and while they might contribute towards his notability, they don't towards the company's. BEFORE search finds plenty of mentions of the Panelbase name, by virtue of what they do (ie. their survey results being reported), but nothing about the company itself. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can the company not be notable when the produce of the company is covered extensively across basically every article about a UK national or local election? Their produce is covered extensively in UK newspapers and mentioned frequently on UK broadcast news, the fact that an article didn't already exist was shocking to me. The company has significant influence on the politics of the UK but there shouldn't be an article on who owns the company or the methods the company uses to produce their surveys?

Does the article need more work? Absolutely.

Are the majority of the sources about the founder rather than the organisation he founded? Absolutely.

Do I intend to expand the article when I have the time to find more and better sources? Absolutely. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORGSIG, no organisation is inherently notable. And even if this company's services were notable (which hasn't been shown), notability is not inherited. If you're aware of a policy or guideline that trumps these points, please cite it. Thank you,-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even accept that their work is notable, even though we link to their work on pretty much every recent article about UK or Irish election polling? That's not enough to even hint they might be notable in your eyes?

* Opinion polling for the 2020 Irish general election

* Opinion polling for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum

* Opinion polling for the next Scottish Parliament election

* Opinion polling for the 2021 Scottish Parliament election

* Opinion polling for the 2016 Scottish Parliament election

* Opinion polling for the 2011 Scottish Parliament election

* Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election

* Opinion polling for the 2019 United Kingdom general election

* Opinion polling for the 2017 United Kingdom general election

* Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election

This isn't even an exhaustive list it's just the first ten I grabbed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I make no comment on the notability of the company's products/services; that isn't what is being tested here, but rather the notability of the company. Once more: notability is not inherited, and must be shown in the usual manner (GNG etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete: As per nom.~~ Alphaonekannan (talk) 04:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sock puppet should be discounted. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the !vote directly above per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to give more time to improve. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" apply here - the company's data may be widely used, but is the company itself inherently notable? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
commentThe are bags of survey companies; all their product contributes to the general news mill. If special weight was given to the results given by this company that would be an anrgument for notability, but this is not the case.TheLongTone (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability requires the company to be discussed in depth in reliable sources. A company's product being widely used does not establish notability. That might sound strange, but that's the way it works on Wikipedia. It most especially does not establish notability by being used on Wikipedia because Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source. Moving to draft is only beneficial if substantial sources exist, and at the moment there is no evidence of that. SpinningSpark 10:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW, I think the nominator has gotten the point(s). (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Osarhieme Osadolor

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:PROF missing; non-notable academia subject Morpho achilles (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was closed as KEEP on 12 July. What is the basis for a new nomination so soon afterwards? Mccapra (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The subject meets WP:NPROF per “The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.” Vice Chancellor is the highest administrative position of every university in Nigeria. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, an interim/acting VC/president/etc. has a fundamentally different process of appointment than a substantive VC; most critically it lacks the committee vetting, selectivity, interviews, and full board approval that made holding the position an inclusion criterion in the first place. See the strict process for appointment of substantive VCs outlined by the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2003, and compare that to the temporary appointment-by-fiat by the governor in the case of Osadolor (and others). Moreover, there has been a crisis identified specifically in Nigerian universities, also outlined here by former VC and distinguished professor Ayodeji Olukoju, regarding VC appointments that should give some pause when considering even permanent positions for C6. Of course those issues can and do arise in any country, but it seems this has been a significant, well-reported, and widespread problem in Nigeria recently. JoelleJay (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: No call to reopen a discussion a few days after previous discussion was closed as keep. Take it to WP:DRV if there are questions about how the prior discussion was handled. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no case is offered for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grief. I nominated him first time around and can't quite get why this was opened again so soon after that close. Did I like the result? I did not. Was it the result of consensus? It was - and should now stand. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Bagnost

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

I could find no evidence of this player meeting our notability guidelines. The sources in the article are either primary (from his club, and a page from a sports agent) or unreliable (a blog), and looking for better sources online gave no results. Perhaps there are better sources from Singapore (where he won the title), but I was unable to find these. The remainder of his clubs were all at lower levels of their countries league system. Fram (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Fram (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree Fails WP:GNG.Samanthany (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (WP:A7 by Bbb23). (non-admin closure) Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global News NP

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

Not notable; no sources; not meeting WP:GNG Morpho achilles (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and failed WP:GNG. Thingofme (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, company with no credible claim of significance. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 21:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UONI

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

Not notable; no reliable sources; not meeting WP:NCOPR Morpho achilles (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt, although notability might have been met, the creator has attempted to create the article 7 times (with 5 deletions including drafts) which probably indicates undisclosed COI editing. Personally I'll suggest delete per WP:PROMOTION. Anyone willing to copyedit it (after confirming notability)? Justi yaya 15:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habiganj Railway Station

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

Seemingly a duplicate of Habiganj Bazar Railway Station. PROD was removed, so have taken to AFD. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bangladesh. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Habiganj Bazar Railway Station. As nom pointed out, this is a word-for-word duplication of the other article. I also have concerns about the factual accuracy of both articles. They claim the line is closed but refer to the stations as active, and both articles use both names. Unclear to me which is the correct one. All of this user's article creations should be evaluated, I see concern expressed on a number of their articles on their talk page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate. The Bengali article (not sure why an interwiki wouldn't work there) suggests "Habiganj Bazar" is the correct translation. NemesisAT (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good detective work. As the name is pretty clearly erroneous, this article should be Deleted to prevent any confusion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Habiganj Bazar railway station now also exists (which is arguably better use of caps than Habiganj Bazar Railway Station), might be a copy/paste attempt at a move. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The user has this type of copy-pasting habit. This is not their first, they did this same thing numerous time on bnwiki from IP and from other accounts. I am tired of cleaning their mess on bnwiki, i even mass semi-protected 100+ articles. Anyway, my prediction is they will do the same copy-pasting for other railway stations too. E.g. see Draft:Habiganj Court Railway Station, Draft:Balla Railway Station (99.9% same text). Other than some passing mentions, most of the railway stations do not have significant coverage. So, for this or any other railway station, created by this user, i will say keep the major station (if there is SIGCOV) and redirect others to Akhaura–Kulaura–Chhatak line or Habiganj Bazar–Shaistaganj–Balla line. Thank you. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. I'm not sure if we even should have the Habiganj Bazar railway station article, if we can't even answer the question of "where on the map is this station?" I don't think an article should exist. Jumpytoo Talk 07:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hughes (producer)

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

Film/television producer doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - coverage is largely WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by sockpuppet nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Kazarin

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

Created by a blocked user according to @MER-C:. Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unless the page creator is a confirmed sockpuppet of a block-evading editor, having the page creator now being blocked is not good grounds for deleting all of the articles they started. And the way I read this SPI case, this blocked editor was never confirmed to a block-evading sockpuppeteer, just identified as an editor operating undisclosed multiple accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I agree, I was not aware and just jumped into wrong conclusion! Dear @MER-C, could you help to withdraw my nomination here? Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to withdraw the nomination. creation by a blocked user is not a reason for deletion. I read the guidelines for AfD not carefully. My mistake. --Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jasim Khelaif

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

We really need to publicise the recent outcomes relating to WP:NSPORT - Bahraini footballer fails WP:GNG, PROD removed with '7 caps for Bahrain?' which does not count towards notability for footballers/sportspeople (and isn't even noted in the main text of this stub) - Khelaif fails WP:GNG and that's the first and final bar for notability here. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bahrain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

House of Khalsa

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

Press releases and advertorials are the gruel presented here for notability, in particular the 'Birth of an Icon' piece in a paid-for placement. Quite apart from the promotional nature of the article, we're looking at a plain, simple failure of WP:NCORP let alone WP:GNG - there's simply no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A stinging submission but on analysis well justified. Page lacks reliable sources and it would seem unlikely that any exist. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the article is incredibly promotional and most of the sources are as well and it needs an entire rewrite. Having said that, the SBS source is independent and reasonable, but I'm not sure about the Times of India ones (which are more about the business's COVID efforts than what they do themselves). I'm leaning weak delete but if there are more sources I could be persuaded otherwise. Deus et lex (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I've deleted this as CSD:A7. Besides removal of a couple of dubious claims, the article is substantially the same as the previously deleted article SpinningSpark 14:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong2kin Moov

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

Article was speedily deleted as promotional less than a month ago, page author was asked to make a statement regarding possible conflict of interest and has so far ignored the request per Jimfbleak. Page should not have been recreated without addressing this concern, which seems well justified.A loose necktie (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I really talk with Jimfbleak and he left me remarks why the page was deleted. If you look closely in the recreation history of the page, I did mention that. Here is Jimfbleak's reply on my talk page. ℂℙ𝔾𝕃ℂ𝕆ℕ𝔾𝕆 (乚モイ州モに几ロ山什モ尺モ) 09:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to say I find the COI/UPE charge pretty much appears substantiated by the pattern of editing and response to Jimfbleak. The company in the article fails WP:NCORP in any case. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I hadn't figured out the reason yet. And even now, it's still unclear. I thought I had improved from the comments made on my talk page, but unfortunately that was not the case. It's just a page, even if I wanted it to be published. For sources, there are plenty on the internet. Thank you for your reactions. ℂℙ𝔾𝕃ℂ𝕆ℕ𝔾𝕆 (乚モイ州モに几ロ山什モ尺モ) 20:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "This is what we do" promo with no facts to suggest notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more utterly non-notable, unsupported spam by the creator. PRAXIDICAE🌈 11:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding spam, I don't know if it's wrong to contribute to multiple Wikipedia projects? I speak four languages perfectly and can contribute at a basic level in a few other languages. On Wikipedia, I only contribute in three languages mainly. I don't know if it's forbidden to make contributions in more than one language?ℂℙ𝔾𝕃ℂ𝕆ℕ𝔾𝕆 (乚モイ州モに几ロ山什モ尺モ) 20:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one said anything about use of multiple languages, it's your persistent cross-wiki promotion of non-notable subjects that's the issue here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's because a lot of my content (especially in Swahili) is deleted with the pretext that it's cross-spamming. Even content created several months ago is deleted. I had the impression that it is a bit forbidden to write in more than one language. Thanks for the precision. So, I never write content on Wikipedia without a source (because I know it's recommended and important) and never did it for a promotion. I'm just contributing. ℂℙ𝔾𝕃ℂ𝕆ℕ𝔾𝕆 (乚モイ州モに几ロ山什モ尺モ) 21:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be best if you continued to make contributions only to those wikipedias in which you are truly fluent. Clearly you are competent at English, but this is not the same thing as fluency. Your work here is likely to end up being deleted because you do not understand the details of our policies. Please consider the request. Thank you. A loose necktie (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you guys.ℂℙ𝔾𝕃ℂ𝕆ℕ𝔾𝕆 (乚モイ州モに几ロ山什モ尺モ) 14:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Killa Saifullah to preserve the attribution history of the content that has been copied there. RL0919 (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killa Saifullah bus crash

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

Nothing about this accident appears to make it anything other than a routine traffic event. We do not host articles on every bus accident that happens precisely because they are so common. What makes this accident noteworthy? Nothing about it seems at all unusual. If not unusual, then likely not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. A loose necktie (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunate, tragic but yes, an everyday occurrence. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have added the content of this page to Killa Saifullah in sub section. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect already merged (the last "delete" should be interpreted as "merge"), and the title would not be unsuitable as a redirect. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL are inapplicable here; both relate to articles about people. Peter James (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of coverage to establish notability at this time. If her career progresses to notability in the future, any admin can restore the old text as a draft, or a new article could be created from scratch. RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arabella Suttie

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

No evidence of notability, only independent source, Vavel.com, is an unreliable source where basically anyone can write articles (in this case, a student), and is not sufficient to establish notability anyway. I could find some passing mentions, but nothing substantial from an independent, reliable source. Fram (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I understand WP:SPORTCRIT, she would have to pass WP:GNG, which she does not. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, has appeared in a fully professional league game. Hjk1106 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearing in a league (full pro or not) has no bearing on notability. Such "rules" were removed a while ago. Fram (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree with Fram. WP:NFOOTY was retired which allowed footballers with at least 2 games played to have a page. But not anymore. Samanthany (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Also, the Women's Championship was never listed as an WP:FPL anyway, so this statement was never correct. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The four-minute sub appearance was in the "fully professional" WSL. So she would likely have got a free pass under the old rules. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No news coverage on here. Might have qualified under prior NFOOTY, but that was retired.Samanthany (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Possibly WP:TOOSOON for Arabella, but if she keeps playing at a high level after her knee injury then more sustained coverage like [27], [28] will inevitably follow and we can bring the article back. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks good secondary sources. The BBC piece is very minor. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Less Unless (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Land Trust Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Association doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to say, I was surprised to find absolutely nothing out there about WeConservePA, given the scope of the organisation's members' activities, but there we have it. Does indeed fail WP:NORG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When the original of this article was deleted 10 years ago as a copyright violation, I recreated it to correct that problem. I don't have any strong opinions on notability, it seemed notable enough for me to try to rescue it back then.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malingo street

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

Should have nominated with Mile 17 but didn't see this in time. A street in Buea in Cameroon - absolutely no notability whatsoever. Clearly and uncontroversially fails WP:GNG; WP:GEOLAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another street. I find no evidence of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mile 17

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

This is a roundabout. It includes, according to the article, 'the Government Teachers Training College, a rest park at the roundabout, commercial areas and other interesting sites." The mind boggles about the other interesting sites. Fails WP:GNG; WP:GEOLAND with gusto. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' There are hundreds of thousands of roads with a mile 17, and this isn't any more interesting than any other mile 17. Also; Cameroon is a metric country and eventually this junction will get a new term once the last Imperial stawarts pass on. Nate • (chatter) 19:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a run-of-the-mill roundabout with no evidence of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambiguous, and fails GNG, fails GEOLAND, nothing to show it's more worthy of a redirect than any other mile 17. Jacona (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adimai Vilangu

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

Fails WP:NFILM as it is devoid of sources (I generously added this), and I can't find it on these near-all encompassing databases: [29] and [30]. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no doubt it IS a thing, but it's a 1988 thing and the Internet thinks the world was invented in 1995. That it didn't make the transition perhaps speaks to its notability which, today, is near enough zero online. Having said that, Books etc turn up nothing, either. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero matches in the Wikipedia Library. I found nothing in the way of coverage in reliable sources to suggest that the article should be retained. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG or Wikipedia: Notability (film). Somehow, this doesn't have a IMDB or RT page, showing that it's very obscure. I also couldn't find any refs online on Books, Google, or News. VickKiang (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability. The article don`t cover WP:BASIC --Bigneeerman (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lasch-Tayaba. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lasch-Tayaba Church of Birth of the Virgin Mary

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

A Russian church, knocked down after 100 years, replaced by a new church. And that's as notable as we get. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, and Christianity. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lasch-Tayaba. Jahaza (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a NN local church or Merge as suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are two issues here. The first concerns a possible copyvio. The user in question did not initiate the article (indeed the initiator in 2006 remains a user in good standing who last edited in 2021), but there was a contribution from a user who was banned for frequent copyvios, the diffs of which are summarized here. It has not been established that those edits were copyios, but in any case the current version of the article does not incorporate that material.

The second issue is one of notability. The original nomination and "delete" comments describe Bentley as an unsuccessful candidate, but it has been pointed out that he was elected to statewide office as comptroller general and with the article reasonably sourced the argument that he passes WP:NPOL and WP:GNG has merit.

As such, I cannot read a consensus to read based on notability, nor do I find that the copyvio issue brought up by Bearcat has been sufficiently substantiated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Bentley

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

Page seems to be created by someone who is no longer active or was banned on Wikipedia. This seems to be about an individual who ran for office but did not succeed. This doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia's test for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wozal (talk • contribs) 15:37 July 12, 2022 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template. Fixed now—I have no opinion on the article at this time. @Wozal: For future AfD nominations, please more fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 06:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article tagged for notability back in 2013 and no closer to notability today, Bentley throws up very little beyond routine procedural reports. The most impressive profile of him was in a self published memoir, which doesn't really help towards WP:GNG, which he fails. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Comptroller general (i.e. state auditor) is an office that confers WP:NPOL as an elected statewide position. Newspapers.com has a lot of sources on him as well, such as [31] (referred to as both James and Jimmy). Curbon7 (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not big into US politics, but I understand that Comptroller is an elected 'state-wide' position in the minority of states and Georgia ain't one of 'em. Which would make our man a civil servant, not an elected officer and therefore would fail WP:NPOL. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb, While the Georgia comptroller is no longer an elected position, it was when Bentley held the office in the '60s (I can't find an exact year when it stopped being elected, but it seems to have been around at least the late '80s). [32][33]. Curbon7 (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Curbon7. He passes WP:NPOL by having served as an elected statewide officeholder (as pointed out above, the office was a statewide position at the time Bentley held it, even if it is no longer is). Sal2100 (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreating a new article from scratch. I can accept that the position was an elected statewide one which would thus pass WP:NPOL #1 — but a big part of the problem with Billy Hathorn was that his contributions very, very regularly violated copyright by copy-pasting large chunks of text directly from some other source without proper attribution or rephrasing. So if somebody wants to restart a new article, that's fine, but any article Billy Hathorn was involved in creating or editing needs to be blown up and started over from scratch. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a bit of an overreaction; basically not a single word of Bill Hathorn's sole major contribution still stands. The copyvio check isn't great, but isn't too terrible (and this portion of content wasn't even added by him). Curbon7 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio detector can only check against online sources. It can't check against the print-only sources that Billy Hathorn actually tended to copyvio from, which is precisely why it took so long to identify that he was actually doing it. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Montenegro, Vienna

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No significant coverage. Article merely confirms the embassy exists. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t find anything to suggest this embassy is notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Austria, and Montenegro. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability requirements Proton Dental (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Like Mccapra, I could not find anything to suggest this embassy is notable. However, I'm not an expert and those sources may exist. However, it seems like the potential of those sources existing and bringing this article up to the point where notability is established is low. If someone can find those sources, they can recreate the article. Otherwise, deletion seems appropriate here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Australian Football League. ✗plicit 04:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Lions

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. With NFOOTY no longer relevant, there's no presumption of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Australia, and Virginia. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Australian Football League. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, other teams in the league are just redirects to United States Australian Football League, so the redirect seems sensible. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No news coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Samanthany (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Article fails WP:GNG. Fats40boy11 (talk 16:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Australian Football League per Joseph2302, plausible target.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Australian Football League as a plausible search term, NFOOTY wouldn't have mattered anyway as this is not a Soccer team. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Hancock (YouTuber)

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

This Youtuber does not meet WP criteria for WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR or WP:NARTIST. The article sourcing consists of blogs, user-submitted content or non-independent content. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Visual arts, and Technology. Netherzone (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bruh GrayNG (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, which I have been unable to find. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Torrent-Freak article about the legal DMCA tussle he was involved with and the others given in the article are just enough for GNG I think. This also [34], this [ https://reclaimthenet.org/meatcanyon-bugs-bunny-wabbit-season-copyright-claim/], and another Torrent Freak about the result of the lawsuit [ https://torrentfreak.com/youtube-refuses-to-process-dmca-counternotice-for-creepy-bugs-cartoon-200328/]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't sources, they are three blogs. Netherzone (talk) 03:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree sourcing is problematic, notability is absent. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Islam Chowdhury (Bedar Miah)

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

Minor politician, doesn't pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable local mayor equivalent. Mccapra (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite apart from WP:GNG, which we fail, I thought the title Zamindar was redundant? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The stronger arguments from the delete votes edge out the numerical parity. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrDoctor

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of reliable independent media coverage needed for private companies. WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH Bash7oven (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Software, and England. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in the Health Service Journal is both independent and detailed as is that on gov.uk. This is a very substantial supplier of services to the NHS. Deletion would damage our coverage of the NHS. There is quite detailed coverage on the websites of many NHS hospitals. Rathfelder (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is quite a lot of independent coverage. Bigwig7 (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough independent and reliable coverage for WP:NCORP --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's a second nomination. the first one had no consensus per @Northamerica1000: --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Suggest review of sources, as to whether they genuinely meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the company.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep arguments above all parrot those used in the original AfD - 'There's loads of coverage' - but there's not. Let's remember the higher bar set for WP:NCORP, "a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals" and bear in mind that the very impressive Forbes article is from 'Sites', user generated with no editorial oversight, so not RS. Trade magazine/website 'Digital Health' happily runs NHS/DrDr announcements and the rest of our coverage here is stories quoting DrDr execs - or NHS announcements using DrDr as a proof point. Are we looking at "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"??? We are not, we are looking at PR pieces, company announcements, incidental commentary and routine funding rounds. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NHS announcements - and there are lots of them - are reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. They arent marketing and public relations professionals. They are NHS managers explaining to patients how they use the product. The GOV.UK Digital Marketplace gives a very long and detailed exposition of the system. That seems a pretty objective quality source. This is now a significant contributor to NHS services and that makes it notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The various references and other sources (those that are not PRIMARY and pass RS) have the same thing in common - they all rely entirely on interviews/quotations, announcements/PR and supplemented with descriptions and other information provided by the company. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising, nor a Yellow Pages. Here's a brief review of the sources as requested:
- Forbes "sites" is not deemed reliable as per WP:FORBES, fails WP:RS
- SBRI Healthcare and gov.uk are just listings and PR provided by the company, not Independent, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
- CNBC gives the company a brief mention at the end of this article, fails CORPDEPTH
- Wokingham Paper is a blog fails WP:RS and the article is based on an announcement, fails ORGIND
- These found in DigitalHealth, and another, the Nursing Times, the Express, another in Digital Health, and another, Mobile Health News, and another and finally again, Digital Health News are all based on PR and announcements.
- This from National Health Executive gets its information from the NHS who are customers - not Independent, fails ORGIND
- This on Sky is a small profile under the banner of "Technology startups are gaining traction in the NHS" but the small quote is from the company CEO and the single sentence is nothing more than a mention-in-passing. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
- Last is TrustPilot, fails WP:RS

Perhaps TOOSOON but to date, we can only see company-originated and investor/customer-originated noise, this is insufficient to meet NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - The article in the Health Service Journal ^[1] is both detailed and objective. Gov.uk has a very substantial analysis of the service. The Digital Marketplace is as objective as you get. A great deal of NHS resource has been devoted to it. I dont see where you think objective information would come from if not from customers. Rathfelder (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Recovery Watch: The great follow-ups revolution". Health Service Journal. 13 April 2022. Retrieved 26 April 2022.

I think there is a fundamental misconception here. Its not the company which is notable. Its the product - the software. That is why there are explanations of it on the website of at least 40 NHS Trusts. Rathfelder (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article literally starts with the immortal words "DrDoctor is a booking and patient interaction software company based in London." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. But that doesnt necessarily mean that is what makes the topic notable. We could recast the article. Most of the content is about the software. Rathfelder (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are there any particular sources about the software (reviews say?) that you feel meets NCORP? The fact that it appears on the website of at least 40 NHS trusts doesn't work on its own as they are customers and therefore connected to the topic company and not Independent. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Speegle

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

I don't believe this article meets the criteria for notability WP:BIO. He played only 16 games over 2 seasons, and the article has next to no citations. It also appears to be written in a manner that doesn't align with the site's standards, so if it is not deleted, it is going to need a significant overhaul to be appropriate for WP:BLP Lindsey40186 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to pass WP:SPORTBASIC here, which is basically WP:GNG and indeed we do not. Otherwise as per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really? A player with a FULL SEASON in the National Football League is now at AFD? These nominations are just getting silly. Speegle easily passes GNG, see [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] (p2) and much more. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lindsey40186 and Alexandermcnabb: Do you still believe Speegle is non-notable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very easily passes WP:GNG as a player who was selected in the NFL Draft and who played in 16 NFL games. Page needs to be improved, but a large amount of references have been provided above. Frank Anchor 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG per sources cited by BeanieFan and these from his later career: this (print version pt 1/pt 2) and this. Cbl62 (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG per sources cited by BeanieFan and Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources found and shown in discussion show a clear pass of WP:GNG and other measures. The sources need to be added to the article, but that's an editing issue--this article should no longer be considered a candidate for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman Cruisers

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:ORG guidelines. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed it does not - and the invitation "for a full list of models available, including their variations, visit the official Freeman Cruiser website" does not belong on Wikipedia!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The 2014 AfD involved little more than an inconclusive discussion about whether to draftify, and didn't establish notability. The article hasn't improved since. I am hesitant about discarding an article on a marque, but that is just an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument. There is no article on Sheridan Marine, who have provided servicing for almost 40 years, so no WP:ATD target, which leaves us with the question of whether Freemans is notable, and searches are not finding the coverage needed to demonstrate that notability was attained. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sourcing suggested to exist has never been sufficient to keep, but there's not a particularly strong delete consensus here either, but I find one exists. Star Mississippi 02:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prospect Tower (Milwaukee)

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

I see nothing notable about this building, a WP:MILL apartment building. Even the article characterizes it as "one of several large apartment buildings on Prospect Avenue". MB 02:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Wisconsin. MB 02:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:MILL is just an essay. I've added a reference, which refers to a newspaper article from construction. While I haven't been able to find any newspaper coverage with newspapers.com, the source I added suggests that it does exist. Thus, I think there is enough coverage out there to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a building entirely undistinguished on its own, entirely lacking in independent notability. WP:MILL expands fairly well on what is trivially non-notable but we do not need it to see what is not going on. We find no sources; we only find "there-must-be-sources" type of arguments. And claims that "it exists". -The Gnome (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Celebrated architecture? No. Outstanding of its kind? As pointed out above, 'one of a number' so, No. Fails WP:GNG? Yes. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those things has anything to do with GNG... NemesisAT (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they did. It's not architecturally significant, it's not outstanding AND it fails WP:GNG. Trust that's clearer. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Less Unless (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Duffy

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

Craig Duffy

Autobiography of non-notable businessman and snooker and poker player who does not satisfy general notability. Nothing in the article refers to significant coverage by independent sources. An article on this person has already been discussed and deleted once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Duffy (entrepreneur), and nothing has changed except that the subject/author continues to be persistent.

A review of the references shows that they are all database entries of the sort that have been deprecated even for major sports such as association football and baseball. Cue sports have never had a special notability guideline, although they have a lengthy notability essay which does not provide any specific basis for individual notability other than general notability. So neither the article nor the references provide significant coverage.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	absc.com.au	A list of snooker champions	Yes	No - Database entries	Yes	No
2	cuesportsaustralia.com.au	Another list of snooker champions	Yes	No - Database entries	Yes	No
3	qldbilliardsandsnooker.asn.au	A long history of a state cue sports association, states that he was a champion	No	No - Essentially a database entry in prose	Yes	No
4	www.csns.ca	Did not find his name in this historical archive, but it is probably a database entry somewhere	Yes	No	Yes	No
5	pokerdb.thehendonmob.com	A page in a list of poker players in which each player has one page	No	No	Yes	No

Moved from draft space to article space at least twice and moved from article space to draft space at least once. Now that it is in article space again, AFD is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Australia. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI this is not the first AFD. I'm not sure about how snooker plays into notability so I'm not casting a vote yet but I would still lean heavily toward delete. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The thorough reference analysis shows that this is not a notable person. Per nom's Analysis and failure of WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked in the Wikipedia library, and it seems like Duffy gets non-trivial coverage in several items in the Gold Coast Bulletin, e.g. "Snooker king Duffy calls shots and snaps up venue's home for $7.2m" (30 October 2015), "Where are they now?" (19 September 2015), "Inside the Gold Coast's Memphis Mafia" (3 December 2016), "The Cast of the Strip Club Fight" (12 May 2018) and "Snooker star puts centre on market" (22 March 2013). Not sure whether this would meet the GNG requirements, but perhaps another editor with Wikipedia Library access would like to have a look. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nommed. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been the subject of significant coverage in relaible sources. Doesn't seem to be a notable sportsperson but his post-sporting careers have garnered significant coverage over several decades. He has had significant write-ups in national publications like The Australian Financial Review, Business Review Weekly and The Australian. He has received significant regional coverage in The Gold Coast Bulletin for his contribution to the nightlife of the Gold Coast. Hack (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I worry about all these there is coverage comments that present, wait, no coverage. It's nice that he owns the Tipsy Pig, but Mr Duffy is not notable as a WP:SPORTBASIC or as a WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTBASIC and the sourcing analysis proves that WP:GNG is not met. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Burns III

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

Cited sources and those that came up in before are non-independent, mostly press releases. The independent sources I found are passing mentions, mostly brief business news announcements or court cases he was involved in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the indepth, reliable secondary sources that are indepedent of the subject that we need to build a quality article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Ngwu Eze

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

BLP of uncertain notability. His day job as press secretary is not notable, but it gives him press access so there is quite a bit of low-grade (not in-depth) coverage of him, including some new projects he seems keen to publicise. His notability as a poet rests on whether the award he won is sufficiently notable, which looks doubtful to me. Overall this article looks to me like part of a pr drive for his new career in music. Mccapra (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The award is not bluelinked, so unlikely to be notable (and reviews for poetry are hard to get, but in this case there's only one and it seems very, well, 'laudatory'). As nomination states, other than as a putative poet there's nothing to see here. As a poet, his command of metaphor is interesting, apparently being 'the ripe boil on society’s nose'. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 04:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moses (Coldplay song)

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion because is not a very notable release: Its details can be boiled down to a text on their discography page, it has not been certified gold or higher in at least one country, it has not won or been nominated for a major music award and only made into minor charts in the US. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 02:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It charted on 3 separate Billboard charts, including the top 10 of one of them. I'm guessing with that sort of chart performance that sourcing is probably out there, even if it's locked away in paper sources because it's a 2003 song... Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Content-wise the article could use some expansion, but the song being officially pushed as a single to radio and (as noted above) subsequently ranking on three Billboard charts (and I'd dispute these being strictly minor or insignificant – Alternative Airplay, for one, is a fairly notable chart in its own right with a well-documented history covered in both primary and third-party [e.g.] sources, and at the time of this song's release was one of Billboard's primary single charts for the rock genre), including becoming a top ten hit on one of them, strikes me as grounds for notability here. Holiday56 (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject lacking independent notability. This seems as good a time as any to revisit WP:NSONG. Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. For this song, we strive to find sources testifying to the above but we come up empty. -The Gnome (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 02:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good grief, I can't believe I'm setting out to help save a Coldplay song, but here we are. The guidelines on this one are achingly clear, folks WP:NALBUM tells us "The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart" and three Billboard chart placements later, they're over the bar and whingeing their way to notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is debuting in a chart enough though? Everything about this song can be merged with Coldplay Live 2003. Aside from Coldplay I'm a Taylor Swift fan and I don't think all of her Hot 100 entries warrant a page of their own. "Moses" case is even "worse", it entered three side-charts, not Billboard's flagship one. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 13:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is about a song and not an album, Alexandermcnabb. -The Gnome (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every album has a Singles section, I don't see how "Moses" can't be summarized to a paragraph to the point of warranting its own article. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 15:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does the fact that an album has a section with the songs it contains have anything to do with the level of notability any of the songs in an album has? Also, about "summarizing": We can create a paragraph about every song in existence! But,again, this does not mean the song is notable enough to have its own, separate article. -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hola The Gnome - I view that guideline - lacking any specific guideline to 'singles' as such - as pertaining to any music recording rather than as specifically an 'album' an 'EP' or a 'song'... There are many holes in the sock that is WP guidelines... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guideline about songs. The category of songs includes songs that have been released as singles and songs that have not. So, it's an all-inclusive category. (Your point about a "sock" is unclear. If what you mean is that there is an issue with the relevant guideline, what we should do is bring it up for discussion; not ignore it.) -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any proof that supports your argument, please? "There are sources" is not an argument. -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commonsense goes a long ways too though. Songs don't hit the top 10 of a noteworthy chart and not get a handful of articles written about them. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense can also be used to argue how this page received less than 250 edits since its creation 17 years ago. Coldplay didn't even released a studio version for this song. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That has no bearing on anything relevant to deletion discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. and I don't see one on the horizon given language issues and time frame. Suggest if editors are interested, a conversation could continue editorially as to whether a merger would be appropriate and where to given multiple targets identified in this discussion. Star Mississippi 13:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xiangkhouang rebellion (1834)

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

Not sure if this event satisfies WP:GNG. The book source provided only dedicates one paragraph (beginning of p. 147) to the rebellion and its immediate context. I can't find any other sources that cover this rebellion or even mention it in passing. Indeed, most of the article as-is covers a broader scope of history—information which may reside better elsewhere—and does not provide additional details on the rebellion. Happy to reconsider if additional (e.g., foreign-language) sources with significant coverage turn up. ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Laos, and Vietnam. ComplexRational (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one sentence of that article actually deals with the subject. Which is pretty much a copy/paste from the source https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Kingdoms_of_Laos/hSxTAQAAQBAJ (Search inside for "1834"). That sentence if anything could be included in the 'aftermath' section of Lao rebellion (1826–1828) JeffUK (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as more sources are likely to exist. The content in The Kingdoms of Laos, though brief, suggests the event was significant. It reads in full:

"In 1834, the people of Xieng Khouang were driven to revolt, but the rebellion was put down with such brutality that whole areas of the kingdom were depopulated. The Siamese promised asylum on the Right Bank of the Mekong, but when some 6,000 people crossed the river they learnt that they were to be deported to areas around Bangkok. 3,000 tried to return, but when they did so, they found in their old homelands only a desert patrolled by Vietnamese soldiers. Most of those who tried to return perished."

Failing that, Merge the "Rebellion" and "Later events" sections into Lao rebellion (1826–1828) and Redirect to the same. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This mentions the deportation of 6000 Phuan in 1834, based on another source (presumably Thai) from 1959. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably https://library.soas.ac.uk/Record/569922 this. But it seems to be the only source that mentions the event. So I'm not sure it's significant coverage. It's literally a footnote. JeffUK (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-comment As the above passage indicates, the correct name appears to be "Xieng Khouang" (note spaces and spelling). I do get hits but not necessarily enough to justify a separate article as opposed to a passage in some broader topic. Mangoe (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in absence of identified significant coverage. Arguments along the lines of there must be sources are not persuasive (see WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST). The single-paragraph length discussions do not, in my view, reach significant coverage. All that said, I'll happily change my !vote if someone actually identifies the missing WP:SIGCOV. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the above passage from the article as it was very clearly 'close paraphrasing' of the 'Simms' source. Same sentence structure, just swapping out words in a few places. There's now very little left about the actual event except background and aftermath! JeffUK (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe Snit Smuckarn and Kennon Breazeale, A Culture in Search of Survival: The Phuan of Thailand and Laos (Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1988), cover this, but have no access at the moment. The page could be expanded to cover the whole Thai–Phuan conflict and renamed accordingly. Srnec (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully, a consensus will arise after a week's relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You get more value for searching Xiang Khouang as two words, but even these results mostly refer to the 1827 event, although it appears to have been one of a number of revolts involving the Siamese. It's all pretty involved and way outside my comfort zone, TBH, but sense would seem to be to port the pared back and salient content (ie: the one sentence) from this article to Xiangkhouang#History and delete this. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thai sources describe the event not as a local rebellion but as part of the war between Siam and Vietnam. The event is currently covered in Wikipedia at Muang Phuan#History and Siamese–Vietnamese War (1831–1834)#Northern Fronts, and either would be a better redirect target than the 1826 rebellion, if redirecting is to be the outcome. There are extensive sources discussing the forced resettlement of the Phuan population (and the wider depopulation of the Lao hinterland) by Siam, but it's quite a different topic. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A rebellion, even a failed rebellion, that resulted in 6,000 refugees is obviously notable. This wouldn't even be a question in any Western country. SpinningSpark 16:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muang Phuan#History, per my above comment. Sources are scarce that explicitly describe event as a rebellion, and basically everything in the current article is already there. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping An Good Doctor

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

The availabe sources are not meeting the criteria of Reliable Independent sources, thus the page does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Bash7oven (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

Analyst reports

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/OTCMKTS/PANHF/price-target/^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Upside/Downside on Report Date	Details
11/24/2021	JPMorgan Chase & Co.	Downgrade	Overweight ➝ Underweight			View Rating Details
9/16/2021	The Goldman Sachs Group	Downgrade	Buy ➝ Neutral			View Rating Details

Additional sources

Dhargalkar, Kaustubh (2020). It's Logical: Innovating Profitable Business Models. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publishing. pp. 28–29. ISBN 978-93-5388-401-7. Retrieved 2022-07-01 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "Ping An created an online platform called Good Doctor in August 2014. ... It began as an online service where anyone would get doctor consultations for free. The point to be noted here was that the users of the Good Doctor platform were not Ping An's customers. In April 2015, the company launched the Ping An Good Doctor app. By providing the healthcare services, the platform generated tremendous traction. By December 2018, the app had 265 million registered users with 54.7 million monthly active users (MAU). All these services are offered free to the registered users. ... Ping An has used (is using and will use) the Good Doctor platform to expand its footprint in multiple domains, thus creating revenue streams which they would not have imagined back in 2013. In fact, if you examine the platform closely, you will notice that, on the platform, there are multiple competitors of Ping An's core business. So in effect, every time a competitor makes a sale on the Good Doctor platform, Ping An too makes money in the form of a small commission."
Fleisch, Eligar; Franz, Christoph; Herrmann, Andreas (2021). The Digital Pill: What Everyone Should Know about the Future of Our Healthcare System. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 78–79. ISBN 978-1-78756-676-7. Retrieved 2022-07-01 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "The "One-minute Clinic" referred to by Ms Liu [a resident of the Chinese city of Wuzhen near Shanghai] is the most recent and radical innovation from Chinese health insurance provider Ping An Insurance and its subsidiary Ping An Good Doctor, which was founded in 2015. In essence, the company consists of an app that lets users make an appointment with a doctor. In the case of minor illnesses, a video or phone consultation is also offered. Ping An Good Doctor not only covers the doctor's fee, but also the costs of prescription drugs and treatments. Subscribers also have the option of sharing information with other patients in forums. One particularly lucrative market for Ping An Good Doctor is Chinese citizens who are looking for medical treatment abroad. The company establishes contacts with physicians outside of China and organizes the necessary travel."
Kim, W. Chan; Mauborgne, Renee; Ji, Mi (2021-02-24). "Ping An Good Doctor: Creating a Nondisruptive Solution for China's Healthcare System". Harvard Business Publishing. Archived from the original on 2022-07-01. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
The case study overview notes: "This case describes how the Chinese internet healthcare company Ping An Good Doctor created a nondisruptive solution for addressing a key challenge in China's healthcare industry ..."
Yeung, Karen (2018-01-31). "Ping An's 'Good Doctor' wins Hong Kong IPO approval despite losses". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-07-01. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
The article notes: "Ping An Healthcare and Technology, China’s largest health care and online medical platform, has been accepted by the Hong Kong stock exchange for an initial public offering (IPO), despite making hefty losses for the past two years. ... Launched in April 2015, Ping An Healthcare offers online medical services and has 192.8 million registered users, with network coverage including 3,100 hospitals and 7,500 pharmacy outlets. It was China’s largest internet health care platform in terms of average monthly active users and daily average online consultations in 2016. ... "
Dunkley, Emma (2022-03-26). "Ping An healthcare unit closes HK's biggest IPO this year". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2022-03-26. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
The article notes: "Ping An Good Doctor, a Chinese healthcare and technology company, has raised HK$8.77bn (US$1.1bn) in the largest Hong Kong initial public offering this year, the first in a string of large tech listings set to come to the market this year. ... Leon Qi, an analyst at Daiwa, said he was “unsurprised” by the group’s losses given its rapid expansion in recent years in terms of customers acquired and distribution of products."
Staeritz, Felix; Torrence, Simon (2020). Fightback: How to win in the digital economy with platforms, ventures and entrepreneurs. London: LID Publishing. ISBN 978-1-911671-81-7. Retrieved 2022-07-01 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "It has used all this tech prowess to create a range of groundbreaking start-ups, including the world's largest online healthcare platform, Ping An Healthcare and Technology (generally known as Ping An Good Doctor), which provides more than 650,000 consultations a day and is currently valued at $5 billion in its own right. This was a shrewd move, combining technology wit hsocial trends ... which will ensure a constantly increasing demand for medical services. The company's Ping An Good Doctor app handles hospital appointments for 290 million registered users, more than one fifth of the country's population ..."
Schulte, David; Sun, Dean; Shemakov, Roman (2021). The Digital Transformation of Property in Greater China. Singapore: World Scientific. pp. 122, 132. ISBN 978-981-123-379-1. Retrieved 2022-07-01 – via Google Books.
The book notes on page 122: "Ping An Good, a healthcare portal with 30 million-plus monthly active users whose recent IPO raised US$1.1 billion in Hong Kong; and Ping An Healthcare And Technology, a mobile app for booking hospital visits used by 800 million customers across 70% of cities in China."
The book notes on page 132: "Currently Ping An Healthcare and Technology has a 70% share of China's telehealth market. Over the past decade, it has spent more than 20 billion yuan on healthcare technology, and it has pledged to spend another 30 billion yuan in the next five years in light of the ..."
Ng, Eric (2020-02-12). "Ping An Good Doctor, China's largest health care platform, reports jump in users amid coronavirus, smaller than expected annual loss". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-12-20. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
The article notes: "The company, a five-year-old unit of Chinese giant Ping An Insurance, posted a net loss of 733.86 million yuan (US$105 million) for 2019, down from a loss of 913 million yuan the previous year. It was also lower than the 872 million yuan average loss estimated by nine analysts Bloomberg polled. The analysts expected its pre-tax net loss to narrow to 620 million yuan this year, before it turns a profit of 40.8 million yuan in 2021."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ping An Good Doctor, formerly known as Ping An Healthcare and Technology (Chinese: 平安健康保险股份有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

great analysis @Cunard Morpho achilles (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of new sources found, but not added to the article yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's notable in medicine sphere. If no one wants to dig deeper, just read the above arguments. It has minimal but at the same time significant coverage in ft, wsj, etc. It was among the largest unicorn startup companies in China, with a valuation of approximately US 7.5 $billion. Further analysis would be helpful here. --2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Cunard's sources. And those are just English-language sources – searching in Chinese finds others[40][41]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There seems to be a general agreement that this topic does not have enough coverage to be a stand-alone article. By the numbers, merge has it, but no merge target has been identified. In that case, I see deletion as the only outcome of this discussion. If someone identifies a merge target, the text can be provided so the merge can happen. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flinch (card game)

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

Non-notable and doesn't meet GNG. Two refs provided only passingly mention the subject or provide rules (but the second isn't reliable), searching on Google Book shows a 1903 old book published by a gaming company with a WP article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winning_Move), but the creator has a COI, so I am not sure whether the book is an RS. VickKiang (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improved version

A key citation was incorrect. I fixed it and added some new ones. Flinch is a legitimate piece of history that deserves to be preserved. Children love to play it with their grandparents.

And I had to search for this link: GNG, provided here for the convenience of others. --Bob K (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies, I think that if you could provide me possible lines from the newspaper that would be great (transclude in talk page perhaps, are they more about the card game or the designer)? I think that most editors know GNG as the General Notability Guideline, but thanks for your link and apologies for any inconvenience. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seems to be very adequate sourcing citations. Guinness323 (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or redirect. Borderline, the current refs make it difficult to quickly verify whether SIGCOV is met. The coverage also seems limited to a small town in US (Kalamazoo, pop. ~75k). In My BEFORE I noticed few passing mentions in various works, including academic. [42], which might be reliable (Board Game Studies is a niche journal published by International Board Game Studies Association and despite over 20 years of history it still didn't get itself indexed anywhere, as far as I can tell) calls it "now-classic". I can't find anything better. Given the sparse and nicheness of sources (SIGCOV is not met as I no source I can access has an in-depth discussion of the game's significance), I am leaning delete. Would prefer a redirect target; maybe to current publisher which has a (poor, ad-like...) article? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I don't have ref 3, but it's a Who's Who? Another one (probably unrelated) is generally unreliable. I am not sure about whether ref 1 and 4 are significant (the latter is probably more about designer), since I don't have access, but we could assume it as so. Nor can I access ref 6, but it seems to be a rules overview- not significant enough probably, but not definitely. Of these I have access when I nom for the AfD, ref 2 is a rules mention and isn't significant, nor is ref 5 (rules overview). Your ref provided is interesting, the sources section list it as reliable, though there isn’t a discussion, but I assume, as it's peer-reviewed, it's definitely an RS. But the coverage is too short to ocunt as SIGCOV. So I agree that it’s probably borderline; I think deleting or merging/redirecting would be both fine. VickKiang (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to have this redirect somewhere where it could be merged, but can't think of a good target (the modern publisher is likely not notable and needs to be deleted). History of board games in the United States, per the source cited, could be a valid topic, but nobody stubbed it yet... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: @Guinness323: @Bob K: After more review, I do find this deletion to be borderline. On one hand, it has one ref that's probably an RS but isn't significant, and two that I can't access, they are maybe significant but the local newspaper might not be the most reliable; so it has good content, but I don't think there's anywhere to merge it to. So I'm still thinking either weak delete or merge, but there has to be a suitable article. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For help with newspaper sources, I always go to User:Timur9008. BOZ (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't able to access the these particular newspapers since they are not on Newspapers.com Timur9008 (talk) 11:45 ,15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Timur9008: No worries. From what I can see, this article is still a bit borderline, IMO weak delete or neutral would be probably the best. Many thanks for your time and help! VickKiang (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon still sells the game (https://www.amazon.com/Flinch-Card-Game/s?k=Flinch+Card+Game), in case that matters.
--Bob K (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 more citations
--Bob K (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Amazon is generally unreliable on RSP and sells millions of products, so doesn’t help with notability. The three refs added have two self published sources and the user generated BGG, which aren’t reliable. Still, many thanks for your work! VickKiang (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reading the article, this sounds like a turn-based variant of Nerts with a custom deck. Perhaps that or something like it would make a decent merge target? Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I felt that, considering that there are loads of refs that are presumably RS, and ref 1 and 4 might be significant enough, it might be suitable to close the AfD as no consensus or weak keep, and decide on whether there's a good redirect/merge target. I thought that the nom could potentially be withdrawn (and did it), but given that another editor supported deletion, Early closure is inappropriate where it appears that the withdrawal is simply an attempt to short-circuit an ongoing discussion. Right now I am probably neutral and support merge if there's a fine target, instead of the original deletion rationale. As I don't have the refs, so I can't comment on their significance (but I'd assume so). As such, I have rv my edit, but would agree this closed either weak keep or no consensus. Apologies for this, haven't closed using XfD before and wasn't aware of the non-admin caveats. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Healthcare

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

not yet notable-- does not meet NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep leaning towards keep, as it seems to have enough independent and reliable coverage --Morpho achilles (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Wikibusines spam. MER-C 17:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like spam, however among other medical companies here at AfD deeply focused on software medical services, I found it's the one that produces physical devices that are already in use. Further analysis would be helpful here. And yes, there are issues with the amount of availabe sources. For example this link: https://drlogy.com/hospitals/robin-healthcare-solutions-23392 fails to verify the fact of establishing the entity in 2015 in Berkeley, CA, the USA --2600:2B00:7E53:4300:70DC:432D:1078:93AC (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NYT Article from nearly three years ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/technology/automatic-speech-transcription-ai.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.162.28.60 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, fails WP:NCORP - coverage is routine announcements, the bar for NCORP is higher, "These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals" best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP, most references do not contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamkanu Mahanta

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. References are just passing mentions only. Page created by confirmed sock. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 02:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, not notable Assamese. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good sources found, not notable and fails WP:GNG Hughesdarren (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC) (oops forgot to sign)[reply]
Comment: @Hughesdarren: how did you faile to put your signature while you are in !vote? _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and fails WP:GNG Bishnu Saikia⇒✉ 12:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Heroes (Cryptocurrency)

AfDs for this article:

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

Galaxy Heroes (cryptocurrency)

Non-notable cryptocurrency and a series of non-fungible tokens. There is nothing either in the text of this article or in the references to establish general notability. Cryptocurrencies and NFTs are common areas for efforts to use Wikipedia for promotion, which is why community general sanctions have been authorized, and this is no exception. The references are all press releases and announcements, except possibly for one of the web sites that is flagged as containing a trojan, and so was not reviewed.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	citinewsroom.com	Announcement of line of NFTs	No	Yes	No	No
2	www.newtelegraphng.com	Identified as dangerous web site due to trojan		No	No
3	www.ippmedia.com	A press release of line of NFTs	No	Yes	No	No
4	venturesafrica.com	A press release about the sale of NFTs	No	Yes	No	No
5	nigerianinfo.fm	Another press release	No	Yes	No	No
6	citizen.digital	Another press release about reaching a sales target	No	Yes	No	No
7	nigerianinfo.fm	Another press release about reaching a sales target	No	Yes	No	No

The originator has made no other edits than creating this advertisement and becoming auto-confirmed and moving it to article space. It doesn’t belong in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my Delete !vote from the first nomination, there was an edit conflict and I think this nom is more complete. If anybody wants to delete the first AfD and move this, or just redirect it feel free, I don't want to meddle so I'm not doing anything.: ASUKITE 01:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not finding sufficient evidence of notability. Included sources seem don't appear to meet the definition of "mainstream" as described in WP:NCRYPTO. This has been created before and deleted by user request, but I haven't seen the original. Hoping that this AfD can help decide if this is notable or not, I am leaning towards not. ASUKITE 01:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This meets notability. Sources are mainstream in atleast four different countries and also clearly independent of the subject. Those are not press releases.

Azovo (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Guidance tells us to ignore specialist Crypto media when evaluating coins but they're not even presented here - we have a range of Ghanaian/African media of dubious provenance instead - and the coverage is routine announcement stuff. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis above, more crypto fluff here on Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed. Duplicate listing. ✗plicit 03:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Heroes (Cryptocurrency)

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

Not finding sufficient evidence of notability. Included sources seem don't appear to meet the definition of "mainstream" as described in WP:NCRYPTO. This has been created before and deleted by user request, but I haven't seen the original. Hoping that this AfD can help decide if this is notable or not, I am leaning towards not. ASUKITE 01:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Products, and Computing. ASUKITE 01:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please see this nomination instead, there was an edit conflict. ASUKITE 01:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Africa (micronation)

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

The article was placed up for PROD but article creator deleted that. Previous PROD nominators cited that there is no source for this purported micronation other than that of a primary source website. This is my concern also, and my fear is that this "micronation" could be nothing more than a scam to sell passports, something Wikipedia should not be involved in. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While several people have tried to create micronations in Bir Tawil (an area on the Egypt-Sudan border not claimed by either country), this particular micronation has no independent sources cited; the only cited independent sources discuss Bir Tawil but not this so-called Kingdom of Africa. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a self-professed "unrecognized micronation", I see no reason why we should buck the trend and recognise it. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. I've given up on micronations, when the website owners put Wirtland up for sale, without consulting the "residents"; it's only workable as long as we play the game apparently. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If any content is savable, it could be included in Bir Tawil. Jacona (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've clicked every find-sources link, but can't find a single independent, reliable source that discusses this made-up "nation". Glades12 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note from OP: I put the word "micronation" in quotation marks, and re-reading it now it looks like I'm questioning the idea of micronations themselves, which I'm not as such. The Principality of Sealand is a legitimate micronation. I'm just doubtful about this specific micronation. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; redirected to Maddam Sir per WP:ATD. BD2412 T 01:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haseena Malik

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

It's just a fanmade article of fictional character Haseena Malik played by actress Gulki Joshi in Maddam SirPri2000 (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator didn't made articles or list article for any other important characters like Karishma Singh, Santosh Sharma, Pushpa Singh, Amar Vidrohi and Cheteshwar Chaturvedi played by Yukti Kapoor, Bhavika Sharma, Sonali Naik, Savi Thakur and Priyanshu Singh respectively. The creator made article only for protagonist character.Pri2000 (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles for fictional characters are allowed. See Gil Grissom or Byomkesh Bakshi, for example. In this case the article doesn't meet WP:GNG though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Topic fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources. Retention of content does not appear it would improve the main article. TTN (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though a fictional character's article is accepted but there's no significant coverage in this case. ManaliJain (talk) 07:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not have significant coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sourcing, fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.drphil.com/shows/1391/

[2] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BG4BYYFZTo

[3] "Recovery Watch: The great follow-ups revolution". Health Service Journal. 13 April 2022. Retrieved 26 April 2022.

[1]

[2]

[1]