Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. WP:SNOW. The nominator gets the point, no need to continue piling on. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley S. Kastor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

State legislator does not pass WP:NPOL. The guide allows for "state–wide office" which is taken to mean "Constitutional offices". State legislators do not usually meet NPOL without WP:SIGCOV. Bruxton (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wyoming. Bruxton (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NPOL also covers people who "have been members of legislative bodies" at the state level, i.e. state legislators like Kastor. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:NPOL says that individuals who ...have been members of legislative bodies at those levels meets the criteria, with state-level specifically being one of those levels. The article's subject was in the state-level legislature, so meets WP:NPOL. - Aoidh (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article satisfies WP:NPOL. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 01:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "state/province wide" is the wording in the NPOL guideline. This person represented Uinta in the Wyoming House of Representatives not in a state wide office. NPOL does not offer automatic notability to this person. Bruxton (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels is the relevant part that is met here. The Wyoming Legislature is the legislative body at the state-wide level, and he was a member of that legislative body. That is exactly what WP:NPOL is looking for. It is not a criteria that they themselves represent the entire state in the legisiature; if that were the case their national counterparts in the United States House of Representatives would also fail that criteria since they also generally only represent a part of the state, not the entire state. - Aoidh (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Extraordinary Writ. There is longstanding consensus that state legislators are notable. Mccapra (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep Verified member of the Wyoming House of Representatives. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the conversation the nominator and I had about this topic on my talk page. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close per WP:SNOW. Clearly passes WP:NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 4 October 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. I reverted an article page move because changing article titles mid-AFD complicates AFD closures and relistings. Go ahead and move the article although it might warrant a talk page discussion first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Rockerz (web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Twice disputed draftification. WP:ADMASQ, only primary sources 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article lacks a Reception section or any other coverage of the series by independent sources, and so does not pass general notability or web notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to originator - Did you really think that you would win the move war? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't delete. This web series has released already.
• Keep. So many reviews (here, here, here, here, here and here). @Robert McClenon: Did you not do a WP:BEFORE? @Pavi4321: It is important to add reviews before creating articles. DareshMohan (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to User:DareshMohan - Did you not read Before nominating: Checks and alternatives before asking me whether I read it? If you ask a question about a guideline that is not applicable, you can ask a truly useless question. Those are suggestions or instructions for the nominator. Or did you not read the AFD before deciding who to rebuke? I am not the nominator. That guideline doesn't apply to Delete !voters other than the nominator. This article was moved to draft space twice, by User:Dan arndt and by User:Eagleash, and was both times moved back to article space without adding the reviews. I was not being asked to improve the article, but to decide whether, in its current condition, which is evidently the condition that the author likes, it should be kept. If the Reception section can be added within five days, a Heymann close is in order. In the meantime, you asked a wrong question. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It has the potential to develop well. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- sources listed in the AFD by DareshMohan are sufficient for establishing notability. Sources do not necessarily need to be added to the article before closure, per NEXIST. Obviously, the article would improve if they were added, but that's not a matter for AfD. matt91486 (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And in this case, it looks like they have been added to the article already, so that distinction I drew is moot anyway. matt91486 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of the number of reviews that appear to be from fine sources. Skynxnex (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided by DareshMohan. Series has been the main subject of multiple independent critical reviews in RS. Lastly, @Robert McClenon your whole attitude and argument needs to be rethought in light of our actual written notability and editing policies. Please read our policies at WP:GNG, WP:NNC and WP:NEXIST and Wikipedia:Editing policy (particularly WP:IMPERFECT and relatedly WP:STUB). The current state of an article has zero impact on evaluating notability and whether or not an article gets deleted or kept at AFD. The lack of coverage within a given topic in a wikipedia article is never a valid reason for deletion per our policies. 4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus isn't really clear - both arguments seem to hold some wait. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Taking Out The Trash -- could you clarify what you were looking for when looking for a consensus? There's only one delete vote, which was explicitly contingent on the article not having a reception section, which was added to the article after nomination. All of the rest of the votes are keep. matt91486 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Matt91486 To be scrupulously fair, there are two delete opinions expressed. The nomination is also to delete. But I do see a consensus to keep the article. The relisting surprised me, too, @Taking Out The Trash, but it does no harm. There is no deadline, and whatever the consensus it will prevail. All that has transpired is a delay of a few days. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, you're right on both counts -- it's not a big deal, ultimately. matt91486 (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Matt91486 When looking for consensus one must look at the policy basis for the arguments. A major challenge is not to analyse the article itself and its references. If one does that then a !vote is the better option than closing (or re-listing), because a supervote is not considered an unbiased outcome. The consensus I see is narrow on a policy basis, and against the nomination. It was probably closable, but Wikipedia loses nothing by the relisting, and a fuller consensus may yet be formed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:36, 4 October 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. Legoktm (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about a short film series, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFO. The main notability claim here is that the first episode went viral, but that's not well-quantified by reliable sources -- of the seven footnotes here, one is just reduplicated repetition of one of the others, so there are really only six distinct sources, but three of those are its own self-published content about itself, one more is a Slashdot post, and the only two that actually come from real WP:GNG-worthy media are both just "local kids do stuff" in the local media of their own hometown, thus failing to establish wider significance.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this from having to have much, much stronger referencing than this is showing. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Minnesota. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I also was able to find a multi-paragraph story:

• [1], Johnson, Lisette. Jewish Exponent; Philadelphia [Philadelphia]. 22 Mar 2007: 42. That talks about about the the business viability of the online video market and the platform it's on: Ryan Wood's seven-minute short film was shown at the Toronto Film Festival. Then he posted it on a new kind of Web site that pays filmmakers - professional or amateur - each time viewers click on their work. and Nor would Wood disclose how much he earned from two films he's posted on the site, "Pitching Mother" and "Fear of Girls." Even though "Fear of Girls," his latest, is one of Revver's most-viewed films, with more than 9,500 hits.
• [2] It also seems like it got an additional one paragraph review/blurb in the Star (so same source as largely used but another writer): Arginteanu, Judy, et al. "item world; local news and views." Star Tribune [Minneapolis, MN], 3 Feb. 2006, p. 02F. Gale General OneFile. Accessed 4 Oct. 2022.: The hip, 21st-century phrase is "viral internet marketing," but it sounds suspiciously like good ol' word of mouth. Whatever, it's responsible for the runaway e-success of "Fear of Girls," an endearingly comic 11-minute ode to nerddom .... by Wednesday it hit the No. 1 spot of top blogsites on Daypop.com.
• This doesn't do much other than as a bit of extra, but it seems that the official Google Video blog did a short interview with Wood about it: [3]

So, not super strong but it seems to just meet WP:GNG. Skynxnex (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources provided by Skynxex are merely passing mentions and do not rise to the level of analysis/detail that we would need to consider it significant coverage. None of the sources listed are about the series directly, except for the video interview which can not be used to prove GNG because as an interview it lacks independence from the subject. If we had some independent reviews of this web series that would be significant RS, but as it is there just isn't enough here to demonstrate notability.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 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 Marquess Townshend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Townshend, 8th Marquess Townshend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This marquess fails WP:BASIC, having earned no multiple, secondary, reliable, in-depth coverage. He never got to sit in the House of Lords and therefore cannot qualify for WP:NPOL. While there is some passing coverage of the marquess in a handful of sources, he is never the subject of the article, and the amount of words dedicated to him in reliable sources never climb above 10% of the article's total. Arguably, an article about his mansion could be written, but at present the notability of the marquess is in my view not established. Possible redirect target: Marquess Townshend.

My (long) source assessment follows.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Allan Freer. "Conqueror 89" from The Conqueror database.		self-published source.		✘ No
Bob Raynham, "The Raynham Family History". Chapter 15 "The Raynhams of Norfolk" Archived 2008-07-23 at the Wayback Machine	Written by a certain Bob Raynham, whose independence from the subject is unlikely given Charles Townshend used to be Viscount Rayntham.	? This chapter seems to come out of a book, but is published on the author's website in full.	Only a passing mention: "Today the heir to the Raynham Hall is the Viscount Charles George Townshend Raynham , born on the 26th October 1945 the eldest son of the 7th Marquis of Townshend".	✘ No
Kidd, Charles, Williamson, David (editors). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (1990 edition). New York: St Martin's Press, 1990,			Passing mention, essentially a who's who of lineage. Interesting for genealogy researchers, not so much to establish notability.	✘ No
"Bruntisfield, Baron (UK, 1942)". www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk. Retrieved 12 March 2018.		Deprecated self-published peerage website.		✘ No
Leigh Rayment's Peerage Pages		Deprecated self-published peerage website.		✘ No
Lundy, Darryl (2007). "FAQ". The Peerage.		Deprecated self-published peerage website.		✘ No
Revealed: The 24 aristocrats who own 10 per cent of Norfolk's land. Eastern Daily Press. 7 August 2021.		? Never been brought to WP:RSN	Passing mention, only sentence about the marquess: "The current (eighth) Marquess, Charles, runs the estate which farms cereal crops and Aberdeen Angus cattle, and has 40 properties which are leased to employees and locals."	✘ No
Owners of stately home unveil new glamping site. Eastern Daily Press. 1 January 2021.		? Never been brought to WP:RSN	Passing mention, only a namecheck.	✘ No
Laura Silverman, 'I play the lottery twice a week': inside the crumbling 7,000-acre estate that one couple expects will cost millions to restore. The Telegraph. 19 June 2018			This article is primarily about the estate, so the marquess gets six sentences (out of sixty-one): "Her husband, Charles, the 8th marquess, inherited the 7,000-acre estate in 2010."; "The 8th Marquess is a former furniture maker; [...]"; "Lord Townshend grew up at Raynham Hall, playing hide and seek in the rooms and sliding down the stone staircase on a tray. Aged 17, he went to Australia, where he worked in restaurants and sold cars, returning three years later to find an unwelcoming stepmother. He was not to spend another night at Raynham until it passed into his hands." "Lord Townshend is constantly coming up with ideas to put Raynham to work, such as offering rooms to visitors for the weekend and turning a wing into a university campus."	✘ No
Opening the doors on a beautiful Norfolk country house. Eastern Daily Press. 1 March 2018.		?	Passing mention: the only sentence that isn't a quote, or the marquess being interviewed, we learn that "Lord and Lady Townshend are carrying out a painstaking and sensitive restoration of the house, estate, and its 800-year-old archives." Insufficient to be considered WP:SIGCOV, when the article is about their estate.	✘ No
Raynham Hall to host open day to help restoration efforts, ITV, 2017.			Passing mention (namecheck).	✘ No
Emma Wells, The 72-year-olds trying to save Raynham Hall in Norfolk, The Times, 25 March 2018.			Article is primarily about the estate. Two sentences about the marquess ("Charles") out of fourty-three: "Four hundred years on, it’s still in the family, although the latest incumbent, Charles, the 8th marquess, isn’t a chancellor of the exchequer, agricultural innovator or midnight dueller, as were some of his ancestors: he’s a low-key livestock exporter turned furniture maker. And until he took over the estate on his father’s death in 2010, he hadn’t spent a night there since he was 17."	✘ No
https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2021/an-arts-and-crafts-cabinet-by-ernest-gimson-is-among-six-lots-to-watch-this-week/		?	Passing mention (namecheck)	✘ No
"Exhibition for Festival takes look at King's Lynn from all angles" Lynn News. 17 July 2018		?	Passing mention, 2 sentences: "During the service the Marquess Townshend of Raynham Hall was installed as High Steward of King’s Lynn Minster." [...] "Charles George, the 8th Marquess Townshend also has the historic title, Baron Townshend of Lynn Regis."	✘ No
As one festival ends, another begins in King’s Lynn Eastern Daily Press. 15 July 2018		?	Passing mentions, 2 sentences: "The festival service also marked a special occasion for Lord Charles Townshend of Raynham, who was made High Steward of Lynn Minster - a title revived from his ancestors."; "This honorary role means Charles George, the 8th Marquess Townshend, will serve as an ambassador for the Minster for an initial 10 year period."	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pilaz (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Marquess Townshend per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 5 October 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 is obvious meat puppetry going on here and none of the keep votes stacked up against a devastating source analysis. If this gets recreated please ping me to look into the possibility of further coi editing Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

Quoting User:Smalljim's nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Maloo (2nd nomination):

Despite appearances, there is nothing to show notability here. Although the article has been re-worked since the previous AfD, all the references are either passing mentions, or don't mention the subject, or are not independent. There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject as required by WP:BIO or WP:N.

Some of the sources are newer, but it's the same mix of obvious paid puff pieces, press releases, passing mentions, and doesn't-even-mention-hims. His company and his father might be notable, but notability is not inherited on Wikipedia. Editors searching for any significant, independent coverage I might have missed, please note that his name is commonly spelled Vaibhav Maloo, which was salted following repeated deletion and sockpuppetry. Storchy (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Storchy (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even with the alt spelling given above, it's still puff pieces. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : The article was previously deleted in 2014, which is 8 years before. Lot of events happened after that and the subject has become director and founder of many BSE listed multi billion turnover companies after that and has recieved many prestigious awards after that. Morover many new significant news references were introduced to prove the notability. There is no press release articles in the set of references. Only significant sources were added. The deleted page was create protected so it was recreated in his alternate name Jehowahyereh (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jehowahyereh (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

  please provide sources for these wins, what's given in the article isn't sufficient. Oaktree b (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment : A number of featured and reliable news references are added including Zee News, NewsX, Businessworld, The Pioneer (India), CEO Magazine etc which proves notability of the subject. Jehowahyereh (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jehowahyereh: as noted in the nomination, all the references are either passing mentions, or don't mention the subject, or are not independent. A pile of passing mentions in reliable sources does not confer notability: we need to see significant coverage, from independent, reliable sources, not passing mentions in reliable ones, along with obvious paid puffery. Storchy (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As User Jehowahyereh said. Contributor008 (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see my reply above to article creator Jehowahyereh's assertions. 09:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - here's a source analysis:
  • "ENSO Group's Vaibhav Maloo opens up on growth of young businesses and startups". 9 September 2022.: press release in barely comprehensible English, dated "Oct 09, 2022, 12:37 AM IST", which was 33 min prior to its addition as a reference by a busy anonymous editor. The conflict of interest is fairly obvious here.
  • "A Long-term View: Vaibhav Maloo". The CEO Magazine.: adulatory interview by coffee table mag "The CEO Magazine", not a WP:SECONDARY source.
  • "THE NEXT GENERATION LEADER OF ENSO". Daily Guardian.: obvious paid puff piece from a blog pretending to be a newspaper. "We accept sponsored blog posts and SaaS product reviews on Thedailyguardian.com . This is a business and marketing blog for entrepreneurs, and business brands."
  • "Meet Vaibhav Maloo, A Visionary, Progressive Thinker, And Change-Maker In The World Of Business". Outlook (Indian magazine).: another obvious paid puff piece with no byline, from a paper that freely mixes real journalism with churnalism
  • "Vaibhav Vinay Maloo is the Youth Icon Of The Year 2021". news24hours.in.: obvious paid puffery from a zero-value news blog "news24hours.in", nothing to do with News 24 (Indian TV channel), WP:BLOGS are not reliable sources
  • "How Corporate giants are making healthcare better, expert Vaibhav Maloo explains". Zee News.: Zee News is reliable, but this is simply a very short interview, and therefore a WP:PRIMARY source.
  • "Straight talk with Mr. Vaibhav Maloo". NewsX. Archived from the original on 2022-02-18.: I had to rescue this using archive.org, as the reference has been dead for months, so the article creator clearly didn't bother reading it before adding. It's another short interview, and therefore a WP:PRIMARY source.
  • "Charting A Success Story That Can Inspire Future Generations, Make Way For Ace Business Personality Vaibhav Maloo". Hindustan Herald.: another obvious paid puff piece from a blog pretending to be a newspaper
  • "Vaibhav Maloo, as an influential entrepreneur and MD of Enso Group, puts light on the corporate giant's role in healthcare". The Pioneer.: The Pioneer (India)'s own reporting is reliable, but they also carry press releases like this one. It's a WP:SPS, by author "Agencies", and therefore not an independent and reliable source.
  • "UK based Enso group tries to get back cambay basin block". The Asian Age.: a reliable source, but the article is about his company, and he's only mentioned in passing.
  • ""Sustainable Resources, Sustainable Future", In Conversation With Industrialist Vaibhav Maloo". Business World.: another interview, not a WP:SECONDARY source.
  • "Vaibhav Maloo: Leading Tremendous Reforms In Supply Chain Management". CEO Insights India.: obvious paid puff piece interview from "ceoinsightsindia.com", a zero-value blog
  • https://asiaone.co.in/vaibhav-maloo-2/: another paid puff piece with adulatory interview, from "Asia One magazine", an awards mill, dated 26 September, a week after AFD nomination.
  • "John Abraham at the second edition of Godrej Eon Tour De India 2013 in Mumbai". Times of India.: he's only mentioned in passing as attending, in a promo article about a cycling event
  • https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/more-sports/cycling/tour-de-india-gets-recognised-by-uci/articleshow/26640497.cms: also doesn't mention him, but in this case doesn't even mention his company
  • "Godrej Eon Tour De India 2013 kicks off its second edition in Mumbai". APN News.: he's only mentioned in passing in a promo article about a cycling event
  • "Maharashtra Punjab Try PPP Model In Diagnostic Facilities". Businessworld., article about Enso Group, and he's only mentioned in passing
  • "GE sees big bets in government healthcare projects". DNA India.: article about GE, his company gets a brief mention, then he's mentioned in passing
  • "Maloo's back with oil, core focus". The Economic Times.: article about his father; Vaibhav Maloo is only mentioned in passing toward the end
  • "Vaibhav Maloo & Krishna Kant ceases as directors of Asian Oilfield Services". India Infoline.: single-sentence press release about him ceasing to be a director
  • "Platinum Ocean Enery Annual Report" (PDF). MoneyControl.: Annual company report, lists his position as a director, not a WP:SECONDARY source
  • "Making Slow and Steady Changes To Status Quo Accelerates Business Growth". Jouneysuccessstories.: obvious paid puffery from "journeysuccessstories.com"
  • "GE Technology powers Government of Maharashtra's PPP initiative in Healthcare". GE.: press release from partner company GE about their project, which only mentions him in passing
  • "22 district hospitals to be upgraded with advanced diagnostic imaging facilities | Mumbai News - Times of India". The Times of India.: article about his company, only mentions him in passing
  • "GE, Ensocare partner with Maharashtra Government for diagnostic facilities". 17 May 2013 – via The Economic Times.: another article about his company, appears to be a press release, mentions him only in passing
  • Wadke, P. T. Jyothi Datta & Rahul. "Maharashtra, 2 private firms to set up Rs 150-crore diagnostics project". @businessline.: article about his company, doesn't mention him
  • "Medtech Giants Philips and GE Fight Over India". Forbes India.: article about GE, mentions his company, doesn't mention him
  • "Ensocare and Wipro GE Healthcare enter into a Public Private Partnership with Government of Maharashtra to upgrade District Hospitals".: press release about his company, quotes him in passing
  • Market, Capital (March 19, 2021). "Strides' biopharma arm partners RDIF to supply COVID-19 vaccine" – via Business Standard.: article about another company, mentions his company in passing, doesn't mention him
  • Writer, Staff (March 19, 2021). "COVID-19 vaccine: Strides Pharma to produce 200 million doses of Sputnik V". mint.: article about another company, mentions his company in passing, doesn't mention him
  • "Stelis Biopharma to make 200 mn doses of Sputnik V Covid vaccine". Hindustan Times. March 19, 2021.: article about another company, mentions his company in passing, doesn't mention him
  • "RDIF, Stelis Biopharma partner to supply 200 mn doses of Sputnik V vaccine".: article about another company, mentions his company in passing, doesn't mention him
  • "'Health check-ups help in early detection of diseases'". The Hindu.: article about COVID, quotes him in passing
  • https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/companies/wockhardt-enso-health-join-hands-for-sputnik-jabs/articleshow/85312466.cms: short newsflash about his company, doesn't mention him
  • "Jet Airways buyout: Russian state-owned fund expresses interest in bankrupt airliner". Financial Express.: article about a sale involving his company, mentions him in passing
  • "10 Best Leaders In Oil & Gas - 2021". CEO Insights India.: list of leaders with no indication of inclusion criteria. He's simply an entry in the list, with a link to the ceoinsightsindia.com puff piece described above
  • "14th Edition Asia-Africa Business and Social Forum: Awards & Business E-Summit & Greatest Brands and Leaders 2020-21– Asia, Middle East & Africa". Vinodsekhar.com.: apparently affiliated with the "Asia One" awards mill above, here he's an entry in a list of hundreds of businesspeople, with no indication of inclusion criteria
  • "Evolution With Time Is Necessary". IAFIndia.: a very short "achiever's success story" from the "Indian Achievers Forum", no indication of the notability of this award, or whether one can nominate oneself
  • "Congratulations to " Mr. Vaibhav Maloo (Managing Director at ENSO Group) "". YouTube -The Global Choice Awards.: another "achiever's success story" from the "Global Choice Awards", no indication of the notability of this award, or whether one can nominate oneself

I hope this is helpful to editors wading through the references to determine whether his notability has increased since the last deletion. Storchy (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review Storchy's source analysis just added today to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The source analysis above just proves it's more of nothing. "Man says xyz" is not a good citation, 20 of them doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Enso Group per WP:ATD. The source analysis above is convincing; subject fails WP:SIGCOV. Clearly a case of WP:REFBOMBing.4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added couple of secondary news sources as suggested from Daily Guardian and Outlook India, thus passes notability Jehowahyereh (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither is a secondary source. The first is a marketing blog, and the second is an obvious paid puff piece with no byline. I've added both to the source analysis above. This must be costing someone a fortune in fees. Storchy (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you sees every references as puff pieces. The Daily Guardian is definetly a news paper. Here is the epaper link of it https://epaper.thedailyguardian.com/ and its showing as correspondant written the article and not any sponsored disclaimer is seen in the article. About Outlook India magazine, it is a reputed Indian Magazine and there is no sponsered disclaimer in that article also Jehowahyereh (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The CEO Magazine article is a mix of quoting his words and what the journalist understands. Thus definetly can be considered as a secondary source. Jehowahyereh (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That Daily Guardian website also says "We accept sponsored blog posts and SaaS product reviews on Thedailyguardian.com . This is a business and marketing blog for entrepreneurs, and business brands."

Outlook India likewise carries both real journalism and puff pieces. In this case, there is a very clear disclaimer, "OUTLOOK FOR BRANDS", at the top. If you have a browse through WP:RSP, you'll see that there are many well known papers and magazines that carry sponsored content. On Wikipedia, WP:SPONSORED content is not considered a reliable source. Storchy (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Daily Guardian article is not a sponsored one as it says written by correspondand and no tags/ disclaimer found. It is definitely a secondary source. The Outlook India article comes under the Business Spotlight section and Outlook for Brands doesn't represent any sponsored news instead its a section representing news related to Brands. It cannot be summoned as a sponsored article either Jehowahyereh (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An anonymous editor has been busy WP:CITEBOMBing this article with very recent press releases (one dated only 33 minutes before addition to the article). Source analysis updated. Storchy (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have gone through the news reference https://www.cnbctv18.com/pti/enso-groups-vaibhav-maloo-opens-up-on-growth-of-young-businesses-and-startups-14897031.htm added by someone from some IP ID. There is no such rule in wiki that any recent news article can't be added as reference. The news article seems credible to me as it says by CNBCTV18 . The news is provided by Press Trust of India, which is a nonprofit organisation Jehowahyereh (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there's no rule against adding a half-hour old press release to the bio of a businessman. It's just bloody odd. Here's a quote from that totally credible reference:

  Vaibhav sees to cherishing the high-techs and ways to improve the management techniques to win the race. Claiming a flexible mindset, he asserts, “The technique of surgical operator helps him with the ability to execute tasks with minimal recurring costs and lighter books.”

Yeah, seems legit. 😀 Storchy (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Comments are too harsh, and some comments are undermining all of Indian media, and his notability is clear. Article should be cleaned up and diverted to "Vaibhav Maloo" as there are multiple sources for the same facts. Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk)

• Reviewing admins, please note that Nuttyprofessor2016's edits to date have been almost exclusively on Draft:Vaibhav Maloo, requests for unprotection of salted Vaibhav Maloo (for which this source analysis by User:Jéské Couriano is eerily close to mine above), Vinay Maloo, Enso Group, and other directly connected articles. Not quite a single-purpose account, but damn close. Storchy (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : All of the sources seem to be puff pieces. Definitely fails WP:GNG. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 18:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I checked out the source analysis by Storchy. About [4] I am not convinced why he rejected the link and did not accept it as RS. I don not understand why the date of publishing is the matter fr him! About [5], You are right the portal accept sponsors for publish paid articles but important point is on sponsored post you will know that as it will be show up on link of article (https://thedailyguardian.com/sponsered/...) or sponsored tag will be show p at the top of article. Therefore only because of the portal accepted sponsors, we can not rejected it as unreliable source. Many of reliable and independent portals has sponsors. About [6], as you mentioned its reliable and short interview but alongside withe other sources it will be helpful to establish notability. With all due my respect I don not believe in your source analysis because your provided reason is with the purpose of rejecting! About reliable press you claimed that are short! about significant coverage you claimed they are unreliable because of date of publishing or accepting sponsors and ect. Anyway as an entrepreneur per receiving significant overages, recognition and award he passes WP:GNG. Ginbopewz (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, many reliable sources host sponsored content. But on Wikipedia, that WP:SPONSORED content is not considered a reliable source, regardless of who's hosting it. There are also many sources here where they haven't even bothered to label obvious paid puff pieces as sponsored. All we have here is a mountain of puff pieces and sponsored content for sources. Storchy (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment that low rumbling noise you hear is the sound of a herd of meatpuppets, galloping up and over the hill to pile in here. Storchy (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : You act like this site is fer-Meta CEO and just the first generation entrepreneurs but then the site is not complete. Family businesses and founders and achievers have a right to be here, why would you reject this good case for no reason? Fer real. I can say there are so many such prominent Indian cases that should be here considering its the 5th largest economy in the world through. You should allow few more who are NOTABLE. I can give you a list later. Do not try to create a paradigm shift but this argument may take one because of me so please be rational admin sirs/mams, and please consider the merit of this case in an unbiased way. Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk)

• Wikipedia has very careful definitions of what and who is notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. On Wikipedia, not all notable companies have notable heads, if all they've ever done is be the head of the company. The relevant guideline in this case is WP:BIO. You might also find WP:NOTINHERITED helpful. Storchy (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen cases go either ways on this very site about similar cases. This ain’t Bumble, of course, that anyone create a page, so notability is a criteria. He is also a columnist, FYI Nuttyprofessor2016(talk)

Here are some other AFDs on non-notable heads of notable companies, for comparison:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Aslett, president and CEO of Mercury Systems,
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Castro, founder and CEO of BHG Financial. Storchy (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• http://vaibhavmaloo.com/blogs/ . FYI Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Columns that he's written himself are primary sources. Can you find significant coverage of his work as a columnist, in reliable secondary sources? Because if he's a notable writer, then that might be worth pursuing. Storchy (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• His work has been duplicated but as himself as primary source. I know that. A combination of all this and leading the WORLD’S LARGEST CYCLOTHON (by number), I think he should be fine. Floor is open.

Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source cited he didn't lead the Tour de India, he "served in Tour de India organising body, ID Sports for a year". Storchy (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• He still shows as the MD on the official site. Please check. Served is a polite word for someone who has had an occupation.

http://www.tourdeindia.asia/aboutus.html Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that what "served" means in this context, but the reference in the article says "served for a year", not "serves". The reference you've just linked to appears to contradict the one in the article, but it does say that he's MD of ID Sports, who run the tour. I think I see why now: the Tour de India doesn't appear to have been held since 2013. You can certainly add that new reference though. Storchy (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn’t since 2013. That year was the larger of the two. ID sports still manages the franchise. Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As an executive officer, he could be notable. Being managing director, chairman or member of boarding of truss of multiple notable companies including Enso Group, Tour de India, Enso Care, Enso Healthcare and BSE, was covered by reliable sources that paasing mention of him just to specify his positions. I think [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and... would be enough to pass WP:GNG. ZanciD (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These references are very poor as either press-releases, PR or interview or passing mentions or routine annoucements. None of them consisitute WP:SECONDARY coverage that is NOT PR driven. scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I read all Keep & Delete comments. Keep voters have presented logical reasons for their claim and I do agree with them. For example, an Indian business executive has had several important positions like as chairman or director in several notable companies. Sources in article prove it. Or several in-depth & reliable sources are mentioned by voters that help us know subject meets General notability guideline. I think sources in article are sufficient to show notability of a business executive. Yüsiacı (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the reviews noted and sources provided by ZanciD. most of the time, we have to choose between company or person who is the founder or main person of that, when one of them (company and chairperson) does not qualify for notability singly. As ZanciD noted, being Key person of multiple notable companies proved by sources, could causes to meet WP:GNG. Elbatli (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively three WP:SPA sleeper accounts, likely paid editors coming in to fudge the Afd. No interest in sources. scope_creep^Talk 12:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Through my own analysis of the sources and the reference review above it is clear this person is non-notable. It is a lot of routine annoucements, PR, press-releases, scheduled events, passing mentions and indirect sources, for example the company but no significant independent secondary coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO and that is an honest assessment. scope_creep^Talk 12:12, 12 October 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. I think the consensus is to Keep this article but it definitely needs some improvement, cutting it down and providing a stronger focus on the primary subject of the development of national identify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Ukrainian nationality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Duplicate article of Ukrainians and History of Ukraine, vastly unsourced, and I am not sure what is the point of the existence of this article. Other ethnic groups do not have an "history of nationality" page. Super Ψ Dro 09:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Europe, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 09:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (if there is anything useful to merge) to History of Ukraine or just redirect. This is clearly a duplicate, probably one with a POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This page first appeared 15 years ago, as a student's term paper for a course I taught at McGill university on the history of nationality. Super's statement that other ethnic groups do not have a "history of nationality" page is incorrect on two counts. There are numerous such pages listed at Category:History_of_nationality. Also (as would be clear if one were to read these pages), nationality derives from legal membership in sovereign states. It is not a function of ethnicity, and the use of this term in the nomination for deletion shows that the nominator has not grasped the topic. Certainly the page has source and duplication deficiencies; redirect or outright deletion are not the remedy. Merge is not unreasonable, but it will require some work as the article is lengthy. Finally, if we're speaking of POV, I'd suggest that this is an interesting historical moment to nominate a 15 year old page for deletion. Will Hanley (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Certainly Ukrainian national identity, and the history of its development is a vital topic in itself. But this article needs more of a focus on the history and historiography of Ukrainian nationality (see, for example, History of Ukraine#National historiography) without duplicating the simple history material into Ukraine#History, History of Ukraine, Ukrainians#History, and Ukrainians#Ethnic/national identity. Pare down and merge material into those articles and sections. —Michael Z. 16:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As Will Hanley points out, the basis for the nomination is just wrong.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the cogent arguments made above by Will Hanley and Michael Z. Clearly passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 5 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage of the subject exists in reliable sources. W42 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. W42 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - found some Khmer Times coverage but it's all trivial Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 04:22, 10 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage of the subject exists in reliable sources. W42 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. W42 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 04:22, 10 October 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!} 22:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage of the subject exists in reliable sources. W42 21:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. W42 21:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 04:23, 10 October 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 List of Heritage Roads in Singapore. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pleasant Road, Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of notability. The heritage road designation is applied to roads with a lot of trees. Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Generic road without established notability, could be redirected to Novena, Singapore. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Heritage Roads in Singapore. --Rschen7754 01:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Heritage Roads in Singapore.4meter4 (talk) 04:24, 10 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This disambiguation page (or disambiguation-like page) does not disambiguate "analytic", i.e. it does not list articles that might otherwise be titled "Analytic". It is full of WP:Partial title matches and is, at best, an incomplete list of how the general-purpose adjective "analytic" might be used. An alternative to deletion might be a soft redirect to wikt, since it seems to meet the criteria at {{Wiktionary redirect}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:DISAMBIGUATION. While I agree with the nominator that not all of the articles currently in this navigational page belong there, it's clear that there is some need for navigational assistance. What and how that should look like should really be a matter of community discussion outside of an AFD. Might I suggest starting a discussion on the talk page and then working to modify the list appropriately. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I actually think most of the entries are fine. Useful dab page. Ovinus (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Analytic function and Analytic set certainly belong. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Science, Mathematics, and Social science. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move over the existing redirect at Analyticity (which redirects back here) per WP:TITLE#Use nouns, then create a new redirect from Analytic -> Analyticity as an {{R from adjective}} and {{R from ambiguous term}}, and finally remove all but the two or three entries that actually discuss this as a mathematical idea, probably function and set at least, as LaundryPizza mentioned. Maybe an argument could be made for another few entries here and there, but most are just PTMs. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at existing name as a valid dab. In particular the mathematical senses of saying that a function is analytic and that a set is analytic are both standard meanings of the bare word "analytic" that require disambiguation from each other and from other meanings of the word. Both of the linked articles use "analytic" as a bare word, rather than as part of an indivisible set phrase. The move proposal above does not work because "analyticity" is much more uncommon in those contexts, to the point where I would be hard pressed to guess the noun form without seeing it here (analyticness? analyticality?) and WP:COMMONNAME trumps grammar pedantry, especially for dabs. Probably this could use cleanup to trim the entries where "analytic" cannot be used by itself, and is therefore not ambiguous in its usage, but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ambiguous term with several encyclopedic meanings that have coverage on Wikipedia. Resolving such ambiguity is precisely what dab pages are for (they're not constrained to listing articles whose titles happen to include the dab term in a particular format: see the introductory part of WP:DAB as well as for example MOS:DABSYN or WP:DABMENTION). Yes, it looks like the dab page could do with some trimming, but that's a different matter. – Uanfala (talk) 07:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like it's useful as a dab. desmay (talk) 19:58, 5 October 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!} 07:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lacks notability. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and South Carolina. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I can understand the nomination, I suppose, but the person seems to have been the subject of news coverage for more than one event (pageant win, reality show experience).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. Notable as a pageant winner and reality tv contestant. Independent sources show WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a four year period. This is one of those people who instinctively we might assume isn't worthy of an encyclopedia entry, but who nevertheless meets the guidelines at WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 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 is a slight preference for deletion, but this discussion is also tainted by the fact that the nominator was a sock. Given that, no prejudice against speedy renomination. Legoktm (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sovereign nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

original research, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-sovereign countries. Privybst (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Privybst (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a disambiguation page that disambiguates nothing. Reads like a dictionary entry. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 17:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree with GoldMiner24 in that I see "non-sovereign nation" as an ambiguous term that can mean any one of the three types listed. But I don't see this as a good disambiguation page, but rather a future set index type of page with examples and footnotes. My first notion would be to return the page to @PBS: as a draft set index page. I note the frequent occurrence of the phase "non-sovereign nation and colonies," even though type III as listed are basically colonies. The authors I looked at did not agree on what was included or excluded by the phase "non-sovereign nation" or "non-sovereign state". As I mentioned in the other Afd, see Alagappa's "Definition of Nation, State and Nation-State" in "The Future of East Asia"(2017) for the difficulties in definitions in this area. --Bejnar (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia it is not as if this article is preventing any other article from existing and it is a subject that could be expanded upon. There is no time limit on developing and article (see WP:NOTIMELIMIT) add a {{stub}} template to the bottom of the page if that is though to be necessary. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An important point is the confusion that exists over a sovereign state, state that province in English. This is because of the early historical of the Unites States (sic) of America. If the colonies had become independent colonies on seceding from the Great Britain, then there would have been 13 new [sovereign] states, but they chose to federate into one [soverign] state. Had named themselves "provinces" of the United Provinces of America (like contemporary United Provinces of the Netherlands) then much of the confusion would not exist in English, and in 1945 the United Nations could have been named the United States. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @User:GoldMiner24 do you dispute that the article can be developed further or do you think that the current bullet points can only ever remain bullet points, because I think that this is a very relevant topical issue (Ukraine and all that). For example did you know that India was a member of the League of Nations but not at the time a sovereign state? The League of Nations was set up before the dominion status was granted to India. Indeed it was only during the First World that the other British dominions became fully sovereign states. This sort of ambiguity existed for many states for example in the late 1900s and early 20th century the United Kingdom recognised Chinese "suzerainty" over Tibet, but considered it independent enough to enter into international treaties (see for example the Simla Accord (1914)) -- it was not until Until 2008, the British Government's position changed and they recognised that China had full sovereignty over Tibet. The British position over Tibet is similar to that of the Untied States and Taiwan, where the concept of "suzerainty" fits neatly with the one China Policy of the United States government, although they do not use that term. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Nation. Not sure it's a particularly useful search term, but if consensus is that it is a useful search term, then it should direct to Nation which provides at least some information on the topic. CMD (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As you say Some information but as the Nation article starts with "A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a combination of shared features such as language, history, ethnicity, culture and/or society." it is confusing to equate "Non-sovereign nation" with nation. I am interested to hear you think your proposal fits in with my comments above this one. -- PBS (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @PBS why do you think it is confusing to equate "Non-sovereign nation" with nation? They are not equal, of course, but "Non-sovereign nation" is just non-sovereign nation. Privybst (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:Privybst see the lead sentence of this article "Depending on the context, the term non-sovereign nation, non-sovereign state or non-sovereign country, could mean" are you suggesting that if we move the article to non-sovereign state that would be Ok? For example the United Kingdom is a sovereign state that controls territory that contains four indigenous nations: English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh and three or four countries England, Wales (alternatively termed a province), Scotland and the disputed territory of Northern Ireland which is a country to some, to some others part of the province of Ulster and to yet others six counties. So linking to Nation does not solve that issue. -- PBS (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Confusing how? You could add a bunch of adjectives in front of "nation", but the topic remains nations. CMD (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:Chipmunkdavis Is the United Kingdom a state or a nation or a country? Is England a country are the English a nation? -- PBS (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how these questions relate to the disambiguation page at hand, their answers aren't dependent on the sovereignty (or lack of) of the various potential nations mentioned. CMD (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:Chipmunkdavis This is not meant to be a disambiguation page it is meant to be a stubby page that can be developed into an article. You stated that "it should direct to Nation" but that assumes that there is a one to one mapping between "nation" and "non-soverign-nation" which is not so, this is why I asked the questions I have. You wrote above "You could add a bunch of adjectives in front of "nation", but the topic remains nations" So is the "United Nations" a organizations for nations or for Sovereign states? -- PBS (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect don't require one to one mapping, they require that the redirect lead someone to a helpful page for the term they searched. Your various questions about how interchangeable these terms are highlights the usefulness of such redirects, which take readers to locations where they can learn more about these various terms. CMD (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Also, I'll mention that the nominator is yet another sockpuppet of Dolyn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 3 October 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 Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics. Numerically, this is 8 for keeping versus 10 for deleting/redirecting, but of the 8 at least one makes it clear they wish to keep this as an index, rather than a content page, and a couple of other !votes are ambiguous. I read the first of these as at least partially supporting redirecting, as there isn't an obvious basis in policy for preferring multiple DAB pages over a single one. Furthermore, the concerns (directly stated or implied) about this not being a coherent topic for a standalone page haven't really been rebutted, and the two clearly notable characters here have standalone pages; I'm not seeing a clearly stated argument for why a standalone content page is necessary over and above those two. As such I find the arguments to "keep" somewhat weaker, and this tips consensus toward redirecting. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

One of those weirdly overgrown disambis/lists ("The Scorpion is the name of multiple characters in Marvel Comics"). The problem, as usual, is that none of those multiple characters appear notable. References are short mentions or plot summaries or straight-up links to comic books. Perhaps redirect to Mac Gargan (article claims he is the best known of those characters)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Let this page stay. This was established as a set index article to list other characters who are named Scorpion....especially the version seen in the Ultimate Spider-Man TV series that had no mentioning of him being Mac Gargan and the one of Spider-Man's clones from the Ultimate Marvel version of the "Clone Saga". Otherwise, merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE while transferring Scorpia's information to her section there since a previous AFD about Scorpia had her redirected to this page in the first place. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is supposed to be a disambiguation, it needs to be pruned to a few bullet points lists. It has mutated way beyond what a disambig should ever be. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think this could be salvaged, with severe pruning. Listing these characters on the Scorpion (disambiguation) page doesn't make sense, and neither does tossing them all into a List of Marvel characters where a reader would have a harder time locating the one they want to learn about. The fictional content should all be reduced, the "other versions" should just be mixed in with the 616 versions, since these are all "other" versions of the Scorpion, and the "in other media" should be almost entirely scrapped as a fork from Mac Gargan, with the exception of the non-Mac Gargan Scorpion from the Spider-Verse film. I'd be happy to make these edits, but I don't want to waste the effort if others feel it would still merit deletion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While some of the Spider-Man clones from the Ultimate Marvel version of the "Clone Saga" have their own pages, how would you recommend handling the clone that became Scorpion since that version predated Maximus Gargan? Kron Stone already redirects to the List of Marvel Comics characters: S page as a version of him was also 2099's version of Venom. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would list them all alphabetically and include their creators and first appearance under their section. The clone would be listed under "Peter Parker (clone)." Argento Surfer (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above.★Trekker (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the disambiguation page Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics, as non-notable on its own but a valid disambiguation for multiple Marvel characters. We just don't need an entire article summarizing them, that fails GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that only 2 of the characters are currently mentioned at your proposed target. Are you suggesting the others aren't worth including anywhere? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They could be added there if they'd be mentione somewhere else where we could pipe a redirect, like the usual lists of Mervel Comic characters, so no loss for the search engine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to disambiguation per Zxcvbnm. Agree that this is WP:OR about many different characters who happen to share the same name. There is already a disambiguation page for this where people can read much better articles about the individual characters. Would also support redirecting to the most notable of those characters. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Argento Surfer. BOZ (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics, it's not as if that particular page is overflowing with so many names it needs to be split, if there is stuff in this mess that merits a mention there it can be merged from the article history. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between those advocating Keep and those who want a Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect per nom. The disambiguation page allows people to navigate to better constructed articles. Cobbling together several different topics is WP:OR and incompatible with a reliable Wikipedia article. Jontesta (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notability exists. Though the option to redirect can be still entertained on talk page. CharlesWain (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mac Gargan for consensus. Any expansion can continue there as these are really the same character, but that article needs some clean-up too. Archrogue (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Nothing shows that the grouping or minor members of the grouping establish notability. This provides no particular utility over a more succinct, normal disambig. TTN (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics - As there are two distinct versions that currently have their own articles, this would be the proper target for the Redirect. If any of the other characters mentioned here are deemed notable enough for a mention, they can be added as a note to that disambiguation, but I honestly don't believe any of them to be. Rorshacma (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you prefer that the version of Scorpion that is a clone of Peter Parker from Ultimate Marvel have it's information be transferred to List of Marvel Comics characters: S as @Argento Surfer: has proposed. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, still divided among editors whether to Keep or Redirect this article (and two different redirect targets have support).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with redirecting to Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Argento Surfer TITANOSAURUS 05:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Argento Surfer. Darkknight2149 14:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics. Per Rorshacma. Elbatli (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Scorpion (disambiguation)#Comics. The content and topic fail WP:NOTPLOT, and the "keep" opinions fail to establish the topic's notability throuch substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 09:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect, merge) Just media appearances and plot information, no WP:GNG source in sight, no indication of real-world significance. Avilich (talk) 22:40, 12 October 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. Legoktm (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A longstanding unreferenced article summarising the features of a software package. This particular IntelliTalk product (there are others in other fields) appears to have been merged into Synapse Adaptive's wider classroom tool package. Searches find a couple of brief product summaries (in a product range summary by IntelliTools Inc.; and in a chapter in an "Engaging the Resistant Child" book) These are enough to make a PROD inappropriate, but I don't think they are sufficient to demonstrate that the software package attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Software. AllyD (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- Appears to be a fair amount of academic coverage, at least some of which seems substantial enough (case studies, etc.) and at least one of which is cited by others (the Symington and Stanger). The breadth of the dates are also promising as it suggests longevity/use beyond the initial release. Obviously the actual article needs a rewrite per MOS:DATED. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Synapse Adaptive would make sense, but it's red-linked. Delete if no redirect target. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete right now it looks not notable, however the academia coverage could help. Assirian cat (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for want significant coverage. Mentions of use of the software aren't substantive. Were "Synapse Adaptive" to have an article, it could be mentioned there. --Bejnar (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article lacks any third-party sources that have significant coverage of the subject. The sources mentioned above are trivial and routine product listings at best, and the way the book entry is worded it reads like a product description provided by the company itself. There's a good reason why the article is as small as it is, and that's because there's no reliable sources to make an article of any substance with. - Aoidh (talk) 23:26, 10 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini Edibles & Fats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Apparenet WP:MILL. Delete according to WP:N, WP:NCORP. Driodr (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the sources appear to meet the standards laid out at WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have improved the page by adding more information and reliable sources. Earlier, a large amount of the information was undone for no rational reason, which I restored with some required alteration. The subject is a known edible oil brand in India and it meets Wikipedia's WP:NCORP. I'll vote for keep.--Vikrampasari (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources found. significant coverage needed. Ginbopewz (talk) 11:41, 10 October 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 Independence We Veneto. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Tiny party that doesn't meet WP:Notability. The page only states that this party was born of a split from Venetian Independence and that it joined Independence We Veneto, it can be merged with to the latter without any problems. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Independence We Veneto per nom.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Proposing the deletion of such an article is sign of Wikipedia:Recentism and, more broadly, lack of historical perspective. The article is well written and the subject is backed by several sources. I hope this article can be kept as it is and in that case I would expand it, but, if that is not possible, please merge it with Independence We Veneto at least. --Checco (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Independence We Veneto. The article is properly sourced, but as the nominator states, it is basically just about an intermediate step before the formation of another, slightly more relevant, party. Yakme (talk) 09:45, 6 October 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 Marquess of Headfort. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Taylour, 7th Marquess of Headfort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Irish peer, fails WP:BASIC due to a lack of secondary, independent, reliable sources covering the subject in depth. Earned the title of marquess in 2005 and therefore cannot qualify for WP:NPOL due to the House of Lords Act 1999, which deprived them of a seat in the House of Lords.

Source assessment follows:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"- Person Page 8114". www.thepeerage.com. Retrieved 9 February 2016.		Deprecated self-published peerage website.		✘ No
"Headfort, Marquess of (I, 1800)". www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk. Heraldic Media Limited. Retrieved 1 May 2020.		Deprecated self-published peerage website.		✘ No
"The Marquis of Headfort". The Telegraph. 8 December 2005. Retrieved 1 May 2020.			Passing mention (one sentence, the article is an obituary of the subject's deceased father)	✘ No
"Sir Thomas Michael Ronald Christopher Taylour, 7th Marquess of Headfort", * 1959		WP:SPS		✘ No
Michael Parsons, "The Irish couple who scandalised London society", the Irish Times, 14 January 2012. Accessed 3 October 2022.			Passing mention ("Peerage records show that the incumbent is Thomas Michael Ronald Christopher Taylour, 7th Marquess of Headfort (born 1959) and the heir apparent is his son, Thomas Rupert Charles Christopher Taylour, Earl of Bective (born 1989).")	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pilaz (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marquess of Headfort per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Or, failing that, redirect to Marquess of Headfort. Title holders are not automatically notable and so the subject needs to meet WP:NBIO/WP:ANYBIO. Looking at the refs in the article, and following my own WP:BEFORE search for references outside the article, I'm not seeing how the criteria are met. Certainly there is no coverage of the subject in The Times (UK), and only a single passing mention in The Irish Times (IE). Other searches (in book and academic/journal sources) are equally sparse or non-existent. The subject's only claim to notability seems to be being the holder of a title. And, if that's the case, that can be covered in the article on the title... Guliolopez (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marquess of Headfort, per nom and Guliolopez. Clearly not enough for an article to date. SeoR (talk) 23:55, 6 October 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. Legoktm (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Google search doesn't reveal any good information in English. The subject doesn't appear to meet GNG or WP:NDIRECTOR. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Iran. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes critieria 3 of WP:DIRECTOR. Her 2022 documentary film 1001 Nights Apart won the VFF Documentary Film Produktion Award at the Internationales Dokumentarfilmfestival München (see this primary source: [14]). For her area of film making that is a significant achievement.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The subject definately passes the clause 3 of WP:DIRECTOR because her upcoming documentory film Broken Flower has won Saxon Award for the Best Documentary Project by a Female Director at DOK Leipzig[[15]].GhazaleAryan (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not entirely sold on those two awards - they seem fairly minor. Leaning delete for now.-KH-1 (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: International recognition in decades-long film festivals in Germany is amply notable, not least for a director based in Iran where the creative industry is more than a little stifled. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found only [16] in Farsi language which is a significant coverage and only is passing a mention. As a painter could not find her multiple solo exhibitions and her sources are about her film. In my opinion her film may be passes WP:NFILM but she fails notability. ZanciD (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the reviews noted and sources provided by 4meter4, Passes criteria 3 of WP:DIRECTOR. Elbatli (talk) 20:55, 11 October 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!} 19:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No significant coverage located on a search. Both sources linked are stats only, and look amateur on top of that. With the deprecation of WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG must be met, and this subject fails. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Not only does the article not cite any references, it is written as though it is making a claim of non-notability ("only featured twice more" and "dropped into playing non-league football"), and the external links are to stats pages which confirm that he didn't play very much (five appearances over his entire career), as the text suggests. Waste of everyone's time to review. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  it does have references (just not in-line) and is certainly not eligible for speedy deletion. GiantSnowman 16:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, have fixed my !vote. Which is still "delete". Cielquiparle (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:40, 4 October 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!} 19:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I cannot find even a single secondary source covering this train. Clear GNG fail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A search yielded several primary sources such as train schedules verifying it exists, but I could not find any secondary independent references. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 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!} 19:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of notability; neither of the cited sources directly relate to or mention the subject and WP:BEFORE didn't turn up sufficient sourcing either. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Germany. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The university research project linked in the source does mention the theatre and its involvement in the research project in passing, but it provides very little actual content on Theater Ida to consider it "significant coverage". I could find no reviews of any performances at the theatre, although they may exist in German language publications that did not come up in an English langugage search engine. I did find some advertisements for performances, but that doesn't count towards RS for notability purposes. I found nothing on the theatre itself.4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:MILL and WP:PROMO. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Searches on a variety of terms including Theater Ida/IDA and the names of the founders, Julia Weber and Daniela Landert, found very little outside brief biographies of Prof. Landert on connected sites and occasional uploaded pieces from performances there. A Basislager Zürich site includes a report on a Round Table meeting which used the Theater IDA premises, but that does not demonstrate notability. Fails WP:NORG; nor do I think there is the coverage needed to merit an ATD involving merging material to Zürich#Opera,_ballet,_and_theaters and redirecting. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 5 October 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!} 19:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced article for 12 years. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE searches show nothing of note. Skipple ☎ 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and Australia. Skipple ☎ 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:GNG. He's written a lot of articles, but I was unable to find any coverage of Helmes. W42 17:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Plenty of "about the author" hits for the various publications he uses, social media links, nothing about him. Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO, lacking indepth coverage of him as the subject. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 4 October 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!} 19:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No claim to notability, and it does not look as if it has ever been sourced. For a while, there was a source in the form of a book published by "Books, LLC"; that's a company that prints Wikipedia articles. The title of the book is Chief Ministers of Sindh; Muhammad Ayub Khuhro, Allah Bux Soomro, Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, Pir Ilahi Bux, Haji Idress Palh, Mumtaz Bhutto but the article has never claimed that Palh was Chief Minister of Sindh – and he wasn't. Being a union council member is not a claim to notability.

The article was first created as a copy of Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, and then it was redirected to that title; after a year, the redirect was replaced with the current text. bonadea contributions talk 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. bonadea contributions talk 17:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non notable local figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 18:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Not notable and can't find any sources. Contributor008 (talk) 17:28, 5 October 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!} 19:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Wheel (radio show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, radio show does not appear notable from article and WP:BEFORE search didn't return anything of note. Skipple ☎ 17:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia. Skipple ☎ 17:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 10 October 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 List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

While the subject has played at the international level, and thus would meet WP:CRIN, the subject does not pass WP:GNG as no significant coverage of her exists. Per WP:NSPORTS2022 "sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject". This may also be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the first international game was played less than 2 weeks ago. W42 16:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Cricket. W42 16:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of United Arab Emirates women Twenty20 International cricketers List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers. Fails WP:NSPORT both WP:NCRIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. With no significant coverage, and all the sources being statistics or passing mentions in routine sports reports/announcements, inclusion here is best done in an appropriate list. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Presumably Wjemather means redirect to List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers? I'd go along with that redirect certainly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Yes, of course. Copy-paste error while redirecting a batch of other similar stubs to avoid more AFDs! _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers (as appears to have been done with others). I keep asking people not to create these anymore despite in this case having played in a major qualifier event unless they can find additional coverage. Thanks also for adding the nolink parameters on the list page. Bs1jac (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree with the comment that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. There are still a couple of users at least who create players (either as stubs or redirects) as soon as an individual features in certain tournaments, when really playing in said tournament should only be the first step towards a page being potentially viable. Bs1jac (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page should stay as the player has played in 2022 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Qualifier tournament. As per Wiki Project Cricket Notability, the player's page can be created. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to WP:NCRIC, WP:CRIC notability point 2 and WP:OFFCRIC (international cricket point 3), a person from an associate nation playing in the women's T20 WC Qualifier passes minimum cricketing criteria, but they must also meet WP:GNG. Bs1jac (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers Fails WP:NCRIC as T20I matches weren't in notable competitions for notability, but more importantly fails WP:GNG. Redirect here is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the T20I matches in question are notable enough according to WP:CRIN which expands on WP:NCRIC, and WP:OFFCRIC; but that changes nothing as the player must still meet WP:GNG. Bs1jac (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that since the changes to NSPORT following the WP:NSPORT2022 RFC (particularly the removal of participation based criteria), it's clear that (as it stands) CRIN does not have community support, so cannot be used to determine notability in any way. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I thought that the big update to NCRIC had sorted all of that. Regardless, Associate nation players need to pass GNG going forward anyway. Bs1jac (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea women Twenty20 International cricketers in line with WP:ATD. BoJó | talk UTC 13:51, 5 October 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) Enos733 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject of this article does not seem to meet either the GNG or WP:NPROF criteria.

Since "Tim Patterson" is a fairly common name, I did a WP:BEFORE search in the Canadian Newsstream database using his name plus the word "Carleton", which is the name of his university. I could find significant coverage of Patterson in only one independent, secondary, reliable source (see Talk page).

I also have WP:COI concerns about this article. The three top editors of the article have almost never edited any article except this one and Harvey, New Brunswick (population: 358) which according to a declared COI editor is where Patterson grew up.[17]

Procedural/transparency note: This article has recently been briefly discussed at WP:WikiProject Climate change. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Environment. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His Google Scholar profile shows heavy-enough citations for an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. Founding editor of Palaeontologia Electronica also looks like a pass of #C8. Nomination does not appear to have considered the correct notability criterion, WP:PROF, which is not about publicity (or as you may prefer to euphemize it, "significant coverage"), but rather about scholarly accomplishments, and is independent of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, maybe the fact that I linked to WP:PROF in my nomination statement is a sign that I actually had considered WP:PROF? Maybe "significant coverage" is a term from a Wikipedia guideline and not my euphemism? Can you talk about the article and the subject without attacking the nominator, please?

  W.r.t. WP:PROF#C1, the guideline doesn't give a bar for what constitutes heavy-enough citations, so I'm curious how we decide what is heavy enough. W.r.t. #C8, the journal needs to be well-established, which was not the case when Patterson served as executive editor. Perhaps my interpretation of #C8 is different from yours. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Significant coverage" is a term from GNG. Your usage of it, in your nomination statement, suggests that you have not understood or not taken seriously the statement in PROF that it "is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline" and that articles meeting PROF are not required to pass GNG. Your nomination makes a WP:VAGUEWAVE to PROF but does not actually address itself to any criterion of PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Climate science is one of the more highly-cited disciplines, and I consider 5745 to be in the grey area of meeting C1. As most of the articles were published before the big boom in climate science, I'd lean to thinking they do meet C1. However, I checked 8 professors at my old university and my current one in this field, and none of them have under 10,000 cites. I'm always a bit uncertain where the C1 threshold is, so curious to hear your thoughts @David Eppstein. Femke (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you have to look at paleoclimatology or paleolimnology rather than climate science as a whole; citation patterns in specialties like that that are more of scholarly interest are likely to vary significantly from citation patterns in the study of present-day climate change, which is for obvious reasons drawing a much larger amount of attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with David, and Tim Patterson's metrics seem to be very high for paleontology-adjacent fields. They're above the indices of paleontologists I know the names of (but consider that the people I'm thinking of are closer to systematics than earth science).

  There's also some evidence of what appears to be promotional editing of the article which needs clearing up. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. passes WP:PROF#C1 per David Eppstein, some evidence of #C8 and prior discussions here based on number of citations, number of papers (9) with >100 citations and an h-index of 43. The article needs some work to remove the publications list (looks like a CV and not an article). --hroest 13:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nine articles with >100 citations (one with >350) meets my understanding of WP:PROF. The founding editor of Palaeontologia Electronica also goes towards meeting that guideline. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:53, 6 October 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 14:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No notability of the topic. Only has one reference that happens to be a dead link. Failed to find enough information on the internet to possibly make this article notable enough. WR 15:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 3 October 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 14:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Colombia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another very badly written and completely inaccurate article created by an editor who keeps pumping out a series of terrible articles, with little or no regard for providing attribution for their copy-and-paste or translation work, and honestly, WP:CIR should be considered here, considering the numerous warnings they have received on their talk page about their poor editing. There is no such thing as "the Leader of the Opposition" in Colombia. María Fernanda Cabal is not the Leader of the Opposition, either officially or unofficially – the first reference simply states that she is opposed to the policies of the current government. She is not even the leader of the largest political party in opposition, so I don't know how she can be the leader of the opposition without being the leader of the party. As noted at the top of the article, the editor has simply copied and pasted text from the similar article for Israel, and hasn't even bothered to change the names of the Israeli political parties, so little do they care about proofreading their work. The other two references simply discuss opposition to the government in general, nothing to do with any official position. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Even if there's a potential for an article (and that's in doubt), this started out so bad that it's a case of WP:TNT. Pichpich (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the editor creates false or inaccurate statements. -Chien (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 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. WP:TNT applies. ✗plicit 14:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails GNG and NPOL. Ministerial position is an appointment and no election was involved. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• TNT: A cabinet minister is an WP:NPOL-conferring position, so he is notable. However, the article is better off being WP:TNTed and started again, as it is of practically irreparably poor quality. Curbon7 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can handle writing up the new version, as I have experience writing about South Sudanese government ministers. Curbon7 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be wonderful. I created a barebones stub at Talk:Martin Abucha/Temp which is meant to be used in place of the copyvio. It could stand a good dose of expansion and improvement. Whpq (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the subject is notable and the statements in the article are clearly verifiable. Deletion is not cleanup. I will tidy it up now but there’s no need at all for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Mining minister is a position in the national government's cabinet. WP:NPOL is clearly met. There is no requirement for the position to be elected, and I would be surprised if any cabinet level position in any government in the world was an elected one. I disagree with the sentiment expressed above that TNT applies. It is not a well-written article but it is not in such an irredeemable shape that requires deletion to resolve. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After further investigation, there is significant copyright violations from the initial version. A fresh article from scratch without foundational copyright issues would be better. -- Whpq (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    sounds better Okello Justine (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT. There isn't really anything worth salvaging here since it's all copyvios. Subject might be notable though. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I’ve struck my !vote in the light of potential copyright issues. A clean start may be best after all. Mccapra (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  isn't there a way i can rework on that martin abacha article again? i wanted to correct the mistakes but i cant even tap on the article Okello Justine (talk) 07:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Answered on editor's talk page. Whpq (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for Now: She is notable as she is a minister in Cabinet of South Sudan but there are copyright violations in the article so it have to be deleted. Contributor008 (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TNT, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and source a new version properly. Even politicians who pass WP:NPOL aren't exempt from still having to follow all of Wikipedia's other content policies, such as our copyright rules. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 6 October 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 per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Ovinus (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J&K Weather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Significant coverage in reliable sources not found (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Pakistan, and India. (t · c) buidhe 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:G11. 0xDeadbeef ${\displaystyle \to \infty }$ 14:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G11 and possibly A7. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Congratulations! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete not relevent per WP:WEBSITE Derion167 (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Advertisement for themselves, I've just CSD tagged another of their articles, an autobiography at Danish Hussain Shah Josey Wales ^Parley 17:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Forecast: WP:SNOW. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 3 October 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 trainwreck. Procedural keep per here; nominated title was already a redirect due to draftification. (non-admin closure) ~Styyx^Talk? 14:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Already featured in the Borscht article with as much detail as this Lithuanian version of the widely-made dish deserves in its own right, this unsourced content fork packed with OR has been the subject of some edit-warring, with an editor consistently removing the redirect to Borscht and insisting on a standalone article for this non-notable variation. Inasmuch as a soup would ever pass WP:GNG, this soup simply doesn't make the grade. If there were a WP:SOUP guideline, it wouldn't meet that either. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lithuania. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the section in the Borscht article, not enough uniqueness to warrant a separate article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:43, 3 October 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 14:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Payyur Subramanya Swami Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of notability. Sources are just list-entries. Moved back to mainspace by author without improvement. MB 14:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. MB 14:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify for improvements. The article as it is now doesn't pass GNG. Haueirlan (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As written, does not pass general notability. Reads like a travel guidebook page, but Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Moved to draft space twice, by User:Mccapra and User:MB, but immediately moved back to article space by originator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; moved out of process without improvement; does not pass GNG and fails 'what Wikipedia is not', also.Eagleash (talk) 17:46, 3 October 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 14:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BLP, WP:GNG and reliable sources Dark Juliorik (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the sources are just packaged promotional material which originate from the subject. A Google search fails to find any better sources, so it fails GNG.--Gronk Oz (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for promotion. Haueirlan (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: He is CEO of a non notable company so we can't say him notable. Contributor008 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 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!} 09:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Soft-deleted, but later restored. Renominating to get a proper consensus - my view is that the company still fails WP:NCORP.

Note: the page was deleted under a different title but not sure if G4 still applies. KH-1 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't see the former "Justmop" article which was deleted in 2020, but the comments which led to the delete decision on that instance seem equally applicable to the present article on the renamed company, as does the rationale on the July 2022 AfD of this restored article which was created under the present name on a new editing account's 12th edit. (It may be worth noting that "Draft:Justmop (Company) and Justmop.com were also deleted in the past.) The present article describes the funding and location announcements of a company going about its business, but nothing here or found in searches, including their appearance in a Fast 50 sectoral list, indicates attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this WP:ADMASQ. FalconK (talk) 23:21, 9 October 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.