Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 30	September 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ratan Thakore Grant[edit]

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

Indications of meeting WP:NACTOR, but I couldn't find the coverage or evidence of significance to be sure. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Also, the article gives no indication of what roles this person played. Did they receive national notice? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Laine[edit]

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

Notability issues. I am not sure if the person who appeared on General Hospital is the same "Serah D'Laine" who appears to be promoting themselves.

Regardless of whether this is an article hijacking or a mid-life career change, there does not appear to be a notable biography here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doing a search there are no articles that seem to match up with this biography. FiddleheadLady (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of unidentified murder victims in the United States. ✗plicit 23:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of unidentified murder victims in Pennsylvania[edit]

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

This article is a random very small sampling of unidentified murder victims in Pennsylvania that probably aren't independently notable. It's essentially listcruft. Even the namings of the cases by location are problematic because many of these counties have hundreds if not thousands of Jane and John Does in their cold case files. I'm not seeing how this indiscriminate list benefits the encyclopedia or meets the criteria at WP:NLIST. 4meter4 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of unidentified murder victims in the United States and then trim down that list to victims who have articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of unidentified murder victims in the United States and then trimming it down to the victims who have articles is indeed the best solution.TH1980 (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of unidentified murder victims in the United States and trim per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Clarityfiend. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Chávez (painter)[edit]

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

Unverified article since it's creation in 2011. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no RS of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST. 4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's astonishing that this article has survived in this state for ten years. It's a personal essay, made up of opinions and original ideas, and it is totally unsourced. I haven't found evidence of notability, and even if there is some out there sometime, the present article would not be remotely suitable. The king of the sun (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with The king of the sun. Curiocurio (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and The king of the sun.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. In searching for both Angel Chavez and Angel Chavez Trujillo, this mention was all I could find. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naledi FM[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - quick Google search did not yield any additional notability. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing that shows notability fails WP:GNG. -Xclusivzik (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BCAST per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BCAST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtnut[edit]

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

Nicely framed. Advertisement of a Non notable educational website which has no significant coverage with in-depth information and also fails WP:GNG. DJRSD (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not fail fails WP:GNG. Please consider improving the article, but do not delete it. Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nom. fails WP:GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that it fails WP:GNG. A Google News search reveals a wealth of articles that constitute significant coverage. The page needs a facelift, not deletion. Gargleafg (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:SIGCOV ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Doubtnut is a big ed-tech startup company, and similar to Vedantu, BYJU'S, Unacademy etc. It pass Wikipedia:Notability with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) points. Looking at the contribution history[1] of the person who listed it for an AfD, it much more like a joke. - Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iamrajdeepdas, What is the joke in my contributions? DJRSD (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like Iamrajdeepdas and Huzaifa abedeen are using Wikipedia for advertisement, look at the contributions of both users. DJRSD (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't use Wikipedia for advertisement, please look at my contribution. I am a high school science student and I study science and maths in Doubtnut app. Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@DJRSD: You have already been answer related to your contribution history on this page [2]. Now coming to the point, Doubnut is having significant and independent coverage and mentions in top news publications including Forbes India [3], Business Insider India [4], Business Standard [5]. Please check WP:BEFORE, before tagging an article with AfD.- Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There isn't a single thing about this article that I like. I'd bet dollars to doubtnuts (see what I did there?) that most of the content here comes from a PR campaign. But the company does seem to have attracted investment, and is active, and has received significant coverage in acceptable sources. I suspect the sources were prompted to write their articles by a PR campaign, but there is some evidence of reporting beyond pure journalistic repetition of PR releases, so I think we have just scraped into notability. RomanSpa (talk) 11:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is this advertisement? The links added by another user on the talk-page indicates notability. Also the nominator tried to vote brigade by their sock. -- Eatcha 07:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Revan[edit]

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

Contested PROD, original rationale was "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. His EFL Trophy appearances were for Aston Villa U21s and do not confer notability." In addition, his Grimsby Town appearance(s) are in non-league so again do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 21:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - best source I can find is this, which falls short on GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found other sources, at the end of the day professional player, loaned from one professional team to another, regardless of League. Much more notable than others who have articles who maybe played 1 or 2 EFL games then vanished whilst having thread bare articles. Footballgy (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a professional player who has appeared in the EFL Trophy and National League and has a lot of significant coverage following winning the FA Youth Cup this summer also, the page is very well-referenced for an article of this type with 19 sources. Let's use common sense here, I think that the combination of Grimsby being a professional club, Revan being signed to a professional club in Aston Villa and him having represented them in a competitive trophy (albeit for a 'U21 side') against other professional sides including Sunderland, as well as significant coverage in the press means that this page scrapes through notability. Mountaincirque^talk 15:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you share the sources that show significant coverage of him? Preferably WP:THREE if possible. All I can see are match reports/transfer news. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1869523			Squad list mention	✘ No
https://www.avfc.co.uk/	Aston Villa's own website		No significant coverage	✘ No
https://twitter.com/AVFCOfficial/status/1318158171320582144		A tweet		✘ No
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1869523			Same as #1	✘ No
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2020/09/08/efl-trophy-sunderland/			Squad list for U21 match from club's own site	✘ No
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2020/october/EFL-Trophy-Fleetwood-Town-3-0-Aston-Villa/			Barely mentions him	✘ No
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2020/november/EFL-Trophy-Carlisle-3-1-Aston-Villa/			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2021/march/Seb-Revan-signs-pro-deal/			Brief contract renewal announcement from his club's own site	✘ No
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12316276/aston-villa-2-1-liverpool-villa-youngsters-win-fa-youth-cup			Mentioned literally once	✘ No
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/seb-revan-aston-villa-breaking-21165140			~ Has a couple of comments about playing style, position etc.	~ Partial
https://www.grimsby-townfc.co.uk/news/2021/july/revan-joins-the-mariners-on-loan/	Grimsby's own website			✘ No
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/grimsby-town-aston-villa-revan-5710230			Routine announcement that uses the same quote as the Birmingham Mail source	✘ No
https://www.thenonleaguefootballpaper.com/latest-news/step-1/national-league/394581/grimsby-town-loan-can-rev-up-aston-villa-youngsters-career/			Another rehashing of the same content used in the three references above	✘ No
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-revan-grimsby-town-5752760			~ Brief coverage of his performance during a match in a local paper	~ Partial
https://nonleaguedaily.com/aston-villa-defender-revan-could-have-attacking-role-at-grimsby/			Barely anything	✘ No
https://www.grimsby-townfc.co.uk/news/2021/august/match-report-for-stockport-county-vs-grimsby-town-on-31-aug-21/	Club's own site			✘ No
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-loanees-make-debuts-21253683			Only briefly mentioned	✘ No
https://underagaslitlamp.com/2020/10/02/aston-villa-youngsters-called-up-to-england-youth-squads/		Villa fan site	Trivial mention	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/seb-revan/605533/			Stats page	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on assessment: I appreciate the work you've put in here but I disagree with your classifications on quite a few of these, even the couple of articles that are solely about him (as per the SIGCOV guidance they addresses the topic directly and in detail) containing facts, quotes from managers, and details on his position you have tagged as 'trivial' or dismissed as a 'rehash', such as the one in The Non-League Paper which is a real off-line publication that has published a piece on him, as well as the Non League Daily piece which is brief but again all about him, and a few where you've written 'briefly mentioned' when the source itself shows a number of sentences on the subject as well as direct quotes from his manager detailing his style of play/position - for example the Birmingham Mail article near the end of the list.

My WP:THREE would be:

I feel that there is (just about enough) significant coverage in these and as you agree, they are all independent and reliable. In terms of completeness, you missed this BBC Sport piece, [9], which while short is high profile, reliable, and independent. He's also mentioned in this piece in the Athletic, [10]. I feel that these combined with Grimsby being a professional club, who will be going into the FA Cup draw next month, that deleting this article now is unjustified. Mountaincirque^talk 11:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mountaincirque, much of the NLP piece is just quotes from an interview with his manager and so does not provide an independent analysis of him. It's basically equivalent to a press release. The Grimsby article is better, but it's also more of a recap of his performance against Alfreton -- I'm also very reluctant to consider a small-town paper truly independent from its home team, especially when it has daily updates from a dedicated Grimsby FC writer. The Birmingham Mail source is pure routine transfer coverage full of quotes from him and his manager, so definitely not independent. The BBC piece is also trivial loan content, and the Athletic barely mentions him. All in all, I'm still not seeing independent and significant coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per other comments Professional player with a pro contract at a pro team on loan to another pro team. Common sense in this case.Finch14 (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only factor that matters here is whether he meets GNG. This is explicitly required in the governing guideline (NSPORT): ...eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. CITEBOMBing with trivial mentions and routine match coverage is not a substitute for GNG sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I totally get the argument that it was raised too early, but it just seems silly to delete it now - only to have to recreate it again in a few months time, most likely. Professional player, on loan to another professional team. Will soon be playing in the FA Cup for Grimsby. Will almost certainly be playing in the EFL next season. I would ask people to just use a little common sense, and if, say the player has not made an appearance fitting the requirements in 12 months time, then we should think about deletion. Bored0stiff (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL - yes, what if he is notable in the future - but also what if he is not? You will be well aware of the number of young players who never make it in the Football League. Giant Snowman 15:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My view is it's better to have this page active now, which is in quite good health relatively, and delete it at a later date if he drops down into non-league football. The page had 1928 views last month, it's obviously of public interest. I hold that he scrapes through notability on coverage and there's a debate to be had on the EFL Trophy games for Villa U21 vs Sunderland (two pro clubs in a competitive trophy) give a claim to notability also. Though that's for another day/debate. Mountaincirque^talk 16:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We often give some leeway to young players who meets NFOOTBALL but might not yet meet GNG. The issue with Revan is that he does not meet NFOOTBALL! (or GNG) Giant Snowman 18:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the hard logic on the notability guidance, I'm just of the opinion that you should be able to take 6/7 smaller pieces of 'notability' and make a common sense judgement. I think what it boils down to for me is why delete this. What service does it do for the public? Why are we spending our time debating deleting an article that two thousand people have read this summer? Seemingly it's because he plays for a club that were just relegated from League Two into a league where a handful of clubs have semi-professional players. I realise we need to have rules but surely this is a fringe case on the boundary between pro/semi-pro. Mountaincirque^talk 09:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could extend that reasoning to any article on a non-notable topic -- why delete it if people are reading it? But the answer to that is in our core policy of what wikipedia is not (a database, fan blog, or promo site) and our principles governing BLPs (which have to be monitored especially closely to prevent vandalism since that can do real damage). Many articles kept on the premise that the subject would soon be notable have now been tagged with notability issues for 12+ years, all the while requiring volunteers assess every single edit. So the inverse question can also be asked: what harm is there in deleting or draftifying an article that would otherwise contain only database-type information but would still have to be watched extensively? JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run-of-the-mill match coverage does not amount to WP:GNG; and the rest about NFOOTBALL has already been covered so no need to repeat it. If it's a case of WP:TOOSOON, there's nothing that prevents recreation of this (via a request at DRV or with the eventually deleting admin) if (far from being a certainty) and when the situation of this football player changes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Mr Revan doesn't meet the subject-specific notability criteria, nor does he (yet) meet WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is a current player in a country with wall-to-wall online football coverage, not someone from the 1920s: if significant independent coverage existed, it shouldn't be difficult to find. But what we have here is routine news and quotes from the player and his manager. Too soon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman, RandomCanadian, JoelleJay, and the source analysis by Spiderone.4meter4 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 21:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Business School[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Would have said redirect to the college itself, but the college does not have an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Bapinghosh (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage cited. Multi7001 (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 21:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Ó Conghaile[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now get an answer. Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Scolaire (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion No sources cited. Multi7001 (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Publify[edit]

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

This was closed as no consensus due to poor participation, though both people who commented thought it should be deleted. I couldn't establish that it has the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years - I really hope we can now get the participation to get an answer on this. Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not an expert on software but is there even a claim to meeting WP:NSOFT here? Doesn't look like it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up press releases and incidental mentions but no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to lack of evidence of meeting NSOFT or GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 21:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Al-Rimawi[edit]

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

Hello all ... Regarding the article, the talent for simple drawing is not noticeable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, and also the references listed are unreliable local and news references, and the person has not achieved any achievement in the field of drawing, and he only draws people in the street, and who has this talent many From people, and the prizes he got are not great prizes, he only got an award from his school! The article does not meet the CV criteria. The article was previously deleted on the Arabic and French Wikipedia. --Osps7 (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIN NOTE: This AFD was incorrectly created and I happened to be following up on the page and spotted the malformed AFD. I've rebuilt the afd correctly so everyone can find it, but because of the malformed original post my time stamp should be used as the correct start time for the AFD in this case. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Osps7 (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was tagged as CSD A7, which I agreed with on principle. Lets use that as the basis for the AFD. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that we have a policy on the use of soft news or junk food news to establish notability, but when using news sources for encyclopedia articles, we ought to consider if the source is providing some sort of analysis, criticism or reporting or merely entertainment. In the latter case, we notability has not been established, even if the source is the BBC or Al Jazeera. Vexations (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Nitesh003 (TALK) 03:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 21:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EzineArticles[edit]

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

Long-lasting promotional article about a site that has long been notorious to those fighting its spam, but not notable in WP:RSes on the evidence. Has been tagged for bad sourcing since 2012; looking through the history, this appears never to have been referenced to RSes well enough to support its claims of notability. Promotional editors have often stopped by to add multiple paragraphs of brochure puffery, though the current version has been cleared of these. A WP:BEFORE does not show independent third-party coverage in RSes that would meet WP:CORP, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline; indeed, there's basically negligible RS coverage to base an article on - lots of press releases, some churnalism and some passing mentions. I'd be happy to be shown wrong with multiple RS coverage, but it'd need to be shown. - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, there are no reliable sources. The history of this organisation is link farming and spinning articles for SEO. It has fallen by the wayside somewhat due Google advancing its search algorithm. Nonetheless, GNG is not presented in this article. WP:TNT, blow it up. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator and per above. Lack of sources is evident, with majority of accesible resources being either connected with the site itself either trivial--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom failsWP:NCORP ,WP:NWEB and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet the higher standard needed for a BLP. Seddon ^talk 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Winslow[edit]

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

Isn't notable besides being the first ever female UFC referee, and one of the worst MMA referees ever. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 16:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nominator. Furius (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. "Per nominator" means you agree with the nomination, but your vote is the opposite. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's his way of saying that the topic's '1st ever female' and 'worst ever' statuses, as acknowledged by the nominator, already prove the subject is notable – a lazy and derisive dismissal of the nomination, with no attempt to back his own argument with sources. Avilich (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every claimed first x to do y makes one notable. We actually need reliable secondary indepdent sources covering it to show it is something that is actually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard - this comment was made by a now-blocked editor (for sock-puppetry and disruption) just 1 minute after their comment at a different AFD. They couldn't possibly have conducted a search for sources and their track record suggests an entirely different reason for seeking this article's deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor was unblocked at the time he voted and is currently unblocked. That's not a valid reason to throw out his vote, though your point about the speed of his vote is worth considering. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being the first woman to serve as a referee of a notable sport is absolutely a solid claim to notability in and of itself. But that - and criticism of her - means there is plenty of significant coverage of her including this, this follow-up to that (and this one), things like this, and various dirt-sheets critical of her work as a referee. Significant coverage doesn't mean "significant positive coverage" and while that is unfortunate for the subject, I don't think notability is in question. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - first woman referee in a very notable sport which is very very male-dominated is notable. And infamy is notable - if we say "one of the best" is notable, then so is "one of the worst". --Xurizuri (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you would think being the first woman referee of MMA would be notable, but there are no reliable sources that cover this in any depth. The sources linked above are horrible. A sensationalised headline in the bleacher report, which is basically a published rant from a dissatisfied fighter. The rest are worse. This is a BLP and we require much better sources than have been presented here to justify holding an article on someone. Not to mention given the nomination statement above it is an article likely to attract numerous BLP violations. Aircorn (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:1E. I also endorse Aircorn's comment above. Most of the sources are fluff except for the last one, fighthype, which, as an interview, is not independent of the subject and is too personal to be considered encyclopedic. Avilich (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, although the argument for deletion looks more convincing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where is the GNG coverage? And especially if the existing coverage is negative we need to have strong sourcing for inclusion of that material in a BLP -- which this bio certainly does not have. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I thought it would be easy to show she's WP notable, but there is a lack of significant independent coverage. My search found lots of comments, overwhelmingly negative, but they're from unreliable or not independent sources. I don't agree with the "first x to do y is notable argument", unless the subject meets WP:GNG--and I don't think that's true in this case. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Costinha (footballer, born 1985)[edit]

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

His professional football career spans 4+17 minutes, i.e. two substitute appearances, at Vitória. After that he was not a regular player in any team, not even the Spanish fourth tier. He thus fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep passes NFOOTY, and has long-enough semi-pro career that I think it would be worth it to keep.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who made 2 substitute's appearances in a fully-pro league. Although this creates a presumption of notability through WP:NFOOTBALL, that presumption is invalid because it comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There are tons of sources about the Costinha who played for Porto and Monaco (and is now a manager), but virtually nothing on this one (just database entries). Jogurney (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 08:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - confusingly, there was another Costinha who ended up playing for Vitória the following decade who receives plenty of coverage and makes it difficult to find anything for this Costinha subject to AfD. It should be deleted unless clear proof of GNG comes forward. My searches came to nothing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc.. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Computer Controls, Inc.[edit]

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

Was tagged for 3 months regarding notability without improvement. Was sent to draft and immediately returned without improvement. Not enough in-depth sourcing from independent sources to meet notability, WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

without improvement? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
this is actually the difference when it was moved out of draft without improvement.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My diff was for when the article was improved after being tagged for notability, which you claimed was not done. The article was removed from draft space simply because there was no valid reason to move it there in the first place, so no improvement was needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Never claimed that. My quote was "Was sent to draft and immediately returned without improvement", it did not read Was sent to draft and immediately returned, and has not been improved. And it met the criteria for draftification, sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first sentence of your nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started this page as I felt the company was relevant given the landmark legal case Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc., I exhaustively researched their old computer systems and specs as that is primarily the information I can find on the company. They were one of the first clone computer manufacturers, if not the first, so I found them notable. I added references to some of the computer specs in the table after someone removed the table due to lack of references. I would certainly appreciate keeping this page after the amount of time I spent researching. ShadyCrack (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. since notability is not inherited and since coverage seems to otherwise be very sparse (the only thing that I can find are database entries) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage in ISBN 0877692351 which was cited in the article 27 times in the period when the nominator claims that it was not improved, is not sparse at all, and it is from a reliable publisher, an imprint of a division of Taylor & Francis. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is cited 27 times, to support a table about the company's products (which I've now removed, because WP:NOTDIRECTORY). One cite would be enough, and I'm not quite sure why a product listing is an acceptable source for showing GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the source is not just a product listing. It contains several pages of prose about this company. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why was the source only being used for a product listing? I seem to be having trouble accessing it, but if there's something here to substantiate notability, surely you should be able to add the relevant information to the article so that WP:HEY can be invoked. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't run an edit-on-demand service, and can't answer questions about the editing of someone I don't know. In what way are you having trouble accessing the source? The PDF (accessible from the article before you removed the best source from it) downloads perfectly well for me (with Firefox on Linux). Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Issue resolved. On further inspection, I'm not sure that is an acceptable source, because it appears to be an unselective listing, coming from a (now subsidiary of someone else) publisher (Auerbach Publishing) specialised in producing technical reports, and thus quite like trivial coverage. Even if it somehow isn't (the focus on sales figures, product listings, ... indicates otherwise), that makes it one acceptable source, and we need multiple. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agree, redirect to Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. as per WP:ATD HighKing⁺⁺ 20:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with redirect option. Article itself does not exhibit notability as required by criteria.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azimo[edit]

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

Fails current standard of WP:NCORP. Almost all the information is about financing and routine features. Most of what look like good refs, like BBC, are actually promotional interviews where the founder says what they please. DGG ( talk ) 13:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CORPDEPTH and the appearance of WP:FORUMSHOP. Article has just been kept after a comprehensive and very precise discussion of sources that isn't addressed in the nomination. Instead we're back at generalizations so this nomination is a setback. Specifically, it does not deal with the TWO sources that were found to be in-depth even by one of Wikipedia's most critical and consistent delete sayers from twelve possibly valid sources. The only specific example now is an obvious one and is no longer relevant once valid sources for WP:CORPDEPTH were identified. Moreover it's a returning red herring in nominations of this company. The nomination is atypical for this nominator, who I especially appreciate for his quality contributions and superb work together spanning many many years! gidonb (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, perhaps you could help by removingt he sources which you think are low quality, leaving only the ones that are.I'm always willing to reconsider DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I do not see a problem with any references. Not all count toward notability but that is the USUAL SITUATION. As long as they can support the data they reference there is NO PROBLEM. Which brings me to the conclusion: if you do not have a case to delete an article – and you clearly don't as notability by WP:CORPDEPTH has been FIRMLY ESTABLISHED – you should not keep an AfD open. If you only seek to clean up an article, as far as I can see under the wrong impression that there might be a problem, then this would be a classic case of WP:WRONGFORUM. 11:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing appears to have changed since the previous discussion was closed as keep. The sources provided by Cunard in the previous discussion, and the sources currently cited in the article, establish notability in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Clymo, Rob (2020-10-30). "Azimo money transfer review". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  This is a detailed review of Azimo.
2. Bown, Jessica; Brady, Niall (2013-02-23). "Money Made Easy: Your five-minute guide to... overseas money transfers". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  This is a detailed overview of how to use Azimo.
3. Munro, Andrew (2020-12-31). "Azimo review. Get competitive rates and fast transfers — but not if you're a US resident". Finder. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
  This is a detailed review of Azimo. The website has editorial guidelines about independence, objectivity, accuracy, and accountability.
4. Cook, James (2019-08-26). "Payments firm Azimo plans £100m float - Payments sector still ripe for disruption, says Azimo chief". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
5. Gee, Rachel (2016-05-09). "How one brand is disrupting the finance industry". Marketing Week. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
6. Arnold, Martin (2018-05-29). "Rakuten invests in UK payments group Azimo". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
7. Ahmed, Murad (2015-06-15). "Remittances group Azimo raises $20m on valuation of $100m". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
8. Robinson, Duncan (2013-09-13). "Azimo to expand with new funding". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
9. Robinson, Duncan (2013-02-11). "Money app aimed at Facebook users". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
10. Waller, David (2016-05-18). "Start-ups help those coming to Britain to start over". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
11. Oxlade, Andrew (2013-02-13). "Azimo first to transfer cash using Facebook". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
12. Lunn, Emma; Collinson, Patrick (2013-04-12). "10 of the best money-saving apps". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2021-02-07. Retrieved 2021-02-07.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Azimo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ainjel Emme[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. .116 in spotify. No fans, no social media. Not a music star. scope_creep^Talk 18:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commment This article has massively been stripped down, an old version shows that she has extensive production credits. not sure if that makes her notable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a BLP that was unreferenced, so the content was removed. Post up WP:THREE that are in-depth, independent and WP:SECONDARY that shows she is notable and the Afd can be closed as a keep. Currently there is no references on the article. scope_creep^Talk 18:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the stripping, it's entirely unsourced. It's just to provide context for other AfD participants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: I just noticed it was yourself that stripped it down. It really needed it. Some mess. Producers don't do very well on Afd unfortunately, so see how goes. scope_creep^Talk 18:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The biography has no big successes but it has a bunch of small ones,[11] and she has a solid music industry presence. She served as a vocal producer for all tracks on Aly & AJ's 2021 album A Touch of the Beat Gets You Up on Your Feet Gets You Out and Then Into the Sun—the album charted in the UK and the US, and the music video for the album's single "Pretty Places" has 800k views.[12] She serves as a judge in the Hit Like A Girl drumming contest,[13] and she is considered an expert in audio mastering by SoundGirls.[14] Tape Op magazine reprinted an article she wrote.[15] It's not a massive win like a Grammy, but this kind of yeoman work floats her high enough. Binksternet (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Deleting her article, but keeping the articles for both of her albums seems totally unsustainable - if they are notable enough to have articles, then she is. So why are they not included in the current AfD? Furius (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a procedural matter, and the nominator may have simply missed the albums. The albums are not notable just because nobody has yet nominated them for deletion. You could vote here to delete the musician AND the two albums and Admins would take it under consideration. Regardless, the two albums have no reliable reviews that I can find (the AllMusic entries are just empty placeholders) so I have redirected those two articles to the musician's page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Her own releases were largely unnoticed and don't justify their own articles (see my comment above). But for her behind-the-scenes career I agree with Binksternet above. The article needs to have some more reliable sources about her production work but those endeavors seem to have received enough coverage for a basic stub article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The urls references are a Youtube video with 222 views, so it is non-notable, an instagram profile which fails WP:SPS, a blog entry which non-RS, another Youtube video which has 825k but it is another artist. The context is Ainjel Emme did the vocal product, which is a poor references. None of that sastifies WP:SIGCOV nor WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 18:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference 5 above is a WP:SPS sources and is non-RS. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references:

Listing of her work It is a machine generated profile page.
Aly & AJ - Pretty Places (Official Video) It a video of somebody. The context is she produced it. One song??
Drumming contest A passing mention.
Ask the Experts] 225 views. Non-RS.
Women and the Grammy for “Producer of the Year, Non-Classical” A blog, is an WP:SPS source and non-RS.
Spotify 127 monthly listeners.
Youtube 2470 subscribers.
Soundcloud 139 followers.

Not one in-depth source has been added that is in-depth, independent and secondary that can satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:MUSIC or WP:ENTERTAINER. ––FormalDude talk 01:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Dalal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only known because she is married to Notable actor. Princepratap1234 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn't seem like this is notable for fashion design, all of the articles are about the wedding. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator. The subject itself does not show notability, with most of the references being about designer's husband and Natasha Dalal only mentioned.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable fashion designer. Only coverage is about her wedding to an actordefcon5 (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG a non notable fashion designer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not independently notable. Eevee01^(talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living former members of the United States Cabinet[edit]

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

This is even more WP:INDISCRIMINATE and trivial than the other similar lists under discussion. There's no question that this fails LISTN, and, besides the tables, the rest of the article is pure and unambiguous WP:OR, with statements as fancy as "the earliest last surviving cabinet member" being clearly original deduction which might be true or even obvious but are certainly non-encyclopedic; and there's not a single source used to support anything but some details in the tables, thus also failing WP:V RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an almanac nor a collection of trivia. pburka (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:5, Wikipedia has many features of almanancs and the like. And the content in question is not trivial. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. And the content, truly, is trivial: "There are x former living cabinet members from president y" is nothing but unadorned statistics and original deduction. And there really is no coverage of "former members of the United States Cabinet" as a group. At best the news might cover the current ones as a group, or those of a specific president might be covered as a group not of "former members" but of "Cabinet of president x" (for ex. Cabinet of Donald Trump; Cabinet of Barack Obama; also evidenced by the categorisation scheme, i.e. Category:Members of the Cabinet of the United States by presidential administration). This is redundant to those articles, and provides no encyclopedic information whatsoever, being just basically a database based upon the arbitrary criterion of who's alive amongst those. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, the distinguishing feature between an almanac and an encyclopedia is permanence. If the contents of a list must be constantly changed over time (i.e. items must be removed to maintain correctness), then it becomes a directory more suitable for an almanac rather than an encyclopedic record of accumulated knowledge. This is closely related to WP:NOTTEMPORARY. pburka (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of our articles require updating as the facts change. For example, I just updated an article to reflect the fact that the subject had died. And all our articles about countries, governments and politicians require regular update to reflect changes in office-holders, elections and so forth. So the reason for deletion is not valid. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Adding someone's death to an article is part of the accumulation of knowledge, but we don't delete the person's page when they die! In 80-years' time, if Wikipedia and this list still exist, every single entry in the list will have been replaced. That's not accumulated knowledge: it's a directory or rolodex. Lists of former office holders are encyclopedic; lists of former office holders who intersect with some ephemeral secondary criteria (living, vacationing, imprisoned, etc.) are not. pburka (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - This page has existed since 2008 and still seems to get prompt and thorough updates. Wikipedia has supplanted traditional encyclopedias because it is dynamic not static. Per policy WP:NOTPAPER, this is not a bug, it's a feature. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh. WP:ITSOLD, but this time not even about the article subject (that is no defense even if the subject itself is over a millenium old), but about the Wikipedia page itself... Wikipedia is dynamic, but that doesn't mean we list every statistic or statistical grouping that could conceivably be updated about something. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fully agree with nom. Edge3 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living former United Kingdom MPs. Unwieldy list that requires constant maintenance to add and remove members. Ajf773 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intersection of "has held public office X" and "is still alive" is to my eye self-evidently a WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. Of all possible parameters to list this group of people by, being alive is certainly one of them – but so is being born on a Wednesday. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone who created the second list for the article, I recognize that the article lacks verified information and that the article is, in fact, quite disjointed because of my edits, and if it appeases people who want to remove this article, I am therefore willing to separate the two halves of the article into two separate articles. Other than that, I see the article as rather a "lack of references" problem that can be fixed by adding verified references to the existing information. As for those who still want to remove the article despite of that, I think that there is very interesting information in the article and that to remove it will prove a great disservice to those seeking that information, as that is why I created the second list in the first place, as well as the existence of other "compiling information with references" lists on Wikipedia such as "List of last survivors of historical events", as well as the numerous (Births/Deaths) "x" year articles that attest to that. It's all information that people seek but no one has written anything about that for some reason, and considering Wikipedia's wide influence over the internet, I think it should be taken advantage of. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living former United Kingdom MPs[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN; and quite likely is nothing but WP:NOTSTATS (with bland and obvious statistical platitudes of no encyclopedic interest). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an almanac nor a collection of trivia. pburka (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. These people are of public interest because they hold special security passes and tend to work as lobbyists. See Revealed, for an example of coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What you have is coverage which could just as well go into Member of Parliament (United Kingdom), and which does not justify at all any of the listcruft nor the OR statistics like the paragraph beginning "As of 18 August 2021, there are 1,065 former Members of Parliament still alive [...]" (the Guardian article only mentions 300 something, so it's clearly not even coverage of the group as a whole, only of some subset).RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:LISTN states that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability" and so we're good. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PMs and POTUSes (POTUSi?) are under siege. MPs are way too far down the political food chain for anyone to notice as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I personally find parts of this interesting, I would agree with the nominator's rationale and the arguments above. Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a useful list for readers who wish to learn about the revolving door. Reywas92^Talk 04:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unwieldy list that requires constant maintenance to add and remove members. Ajf773 (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with what others have stated above Edge3 (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The intersection of "has held public office X" and "is still alive" is to my eye self-evidently a WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. Of all possible parameters to list this group of people by, being alive is certainly one of them – but so is being born on a Wednesday. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful resource for comparing former MPs and when they served. The argument for "living" being an arbitrary criterion is reasonable, but that could be fixed by changing the scope of the article to include all MPs elected since a certain date. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists of living former holders of a political office are not the kind of content it's valuable for Wikipedia to maintain. For one thing, they're not necessarily updated promptly (or at all) when people die — when I reviewed (and AFDed) the similar list that formerly existed for Legislative Assembly of Ontario a number of years back, I found four dead people on a spotcheck of just seven entries without even going through the whole list, meaning that it simply wasn't getting updated for accuracy at all. Furthermore, this list depends very heavily on primary sources rather than reliable or notability-building ones; that is, most people's status as still-living is referenced solely to their Hansard biography instead of to any recent news story suggesting a reason why there would be anything significant to be found in the intersection of "former MP" with "not dead yet". If no other sources are discussing the significance of the grouping, such that you have to rely on primary sourcing to compile an original research list of something because other independent sources haven't already done that for you, then that's not a list Wikipedia should be maintaining or curating. And no, applying an arbitrary election date cutoff to separate living former MPs who "belong" in the list from living former MPs who "don't belong" in the list just doesn't solve the problems with it either. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Guedert[edit]

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

A blatant and shameless autobiography that does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG either. The only sources provided are this video and this passing mention. A Brazilian search came back with nothing and a Google search only really came back with Rieti Life, which confirms that he recently had a trial with FC Rieti. No sign of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite the smiling face in the photo this is not close to being notable.--Mvqr (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – definitely a real person but a lot of his career might be a hoax? He isn't listed on the all-time roster on the Boca Raton FC website and the photo seems to be the only evidence that he ever played for Miami Dade FC. He apparently played for the Charlotte Soccer Academy in 2015 and had a trial at Fidelis Andria 2018, but nothing to meet GNG or NFOOTY. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free Party Canada[edit]

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

Rejected PROD. Badly fails WP:NCORP: the only reliably sourceable information about this party is that it is registered with Elections Canada, and there are numerous such parties registered which never gain any significant attention at all. There is no other third-party coverage whatsoever to establish that they are a notable political organization beyond simply existing. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I wrote in the (contested) PROD, this subject Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Not all political parties get an article just because they have a leader or a candidate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Hi! I created this stub page only because they have been given a colour and link for wiki, and wanted to remove the red-link from election tables. They appear to have fielded enough candidates for them to get entire columns on the Candidates of the 2021 Canadian federal election page, at least in Québec. I'm neutral, if y'all decide to keep, I was gonna translate their website to add more platform info, etc. If y'all decide to delete, you'll save me the trouble. If you's delete, then the Can poli colour should also be removed. Cheers!! FUNgus guy (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No need to remove the colour if the article is deleted. Just remove the links. Anyway, I was the one who created the links. I figured if it was running candidates in most Quebec ridings, there must be some reliable news stories about them, making the party deserving of an article. I'd imagine they will get some coverage, but barring that, the article probably should be deleted. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Canadian federal election
The 2021 general election will be held on September 20.
Party	Candidate	Votes	%	±%
	Free	someone

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Didn't find anything better than a series of mentions in lists of "other" candidates. WP:TOOSOON at best. --Finngall ^talk 21:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it relies on a single primary source and fails WP:NORG. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A search should also be conducted using French terms related to this political party, as the party appears to be based in Quebec. There may be news articles in French-Canadian media. (I performed a cursory search in French and found no sources providing significant coverage.) Mind matrix 23:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, this is largely a Quebec party. One problem I'm having is that Google is confusing Parti Libre with Parti Libéral and Parti Libertarien. There are some results but they look like press releases to me, such as: [16] [17] [18] [19] - these are all a photo of the local candidate and flowery biographical info, the sort of info you see in campaign flyers, with no real coverage other than what the Party says about itself. I don't think this helps to establish GNG notability. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamzah Hawsawi[edit]

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

The subject is not meeting WP:NMUSICIAN. Bapinghosh (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bapinghosh (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. 2A01:4C8:A1:F08E:69AA:AD25:80F8:B9C5 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG.DJRSD (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeepersClub. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:NMUSICIAN neither WP:GNG.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 20:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus reached is that the article passes WP:GEOLAND via WP:NOTTEMPORARY. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thymiaterium[edit]

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

The settlement is only noteworthy through its connection to Hanno the Navigator. It is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and would be adequately described in the article for Hanno. We do not need to create an article for every place of interest described in Hanno's periplus. wikinights _talk 16:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. wikinights _talk 16:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wikinights _talk 16:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mehdya, Morocco#History where it is already briefly mentioned as an earlier name for the locale. The target would benefit from the reference to Hanno. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:GEOLAND. The suggestion to merge an article on a populated place to a biography is a terrible idea. But I could accept the IP's suggestion of a merge to Mehdya if we are sure that there is academic consensus that this is indeed the location of the site. SpinningSpark 17:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historically noted populated place.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep where it is, unless there is some compelling reason why it should only be a footnote to other articles. Is there any likelihood of an article being created for every place of interest described in Hanno's periplus? It seems to me that the article exists because it was a colony, and the categories in which it's included don't give the immediate impression of being overpopulated by unimportant details. The fact that a modern settlement might have been founded on the same site doesn't seem to justify merging it into the article about that place. P Aculeius (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:GEOLAND. Not much more to it than that. If Wikipedia were around in the time of Hanno and we applied our guidelines then as they apply now, it would be considered notable. And notability not being temporary, it stands to reason that it remains notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources I found:

Extended content

*Carpenter, Rhys (1966). Beyond the Pillars of Heracles: The Classical World Seen through the Eyes of its Discoverers. p. 98. identifies it around Mehdia's location (not explicitly). When theorizing about the exact location, he prefers Kenitra, however.

Cary, Max; Warmington, Eric Herbert (1929). The Ancient Explorers. p. 47. affirmatively identifies it as Mehdia in an unexplained annotation to the translation.
Warmington, Brian Herbert (1960). Carthage. p. 65. says Thymiaterion is near the Sebou River, which is true of Mehdia. Given that the settlement has been consistently identified as a port, we may say that Warmington supports the somewhere-around-Mehdia hypothesis.

We only know of Thymiaterion as a city Hanno founded, as described in an intentionally vague account. It would be better to merge this article into Mehdya without a certain identification, so as to avoid the proliferation of permastubs about settlements briefly mentioned in ancient sources. wikinights _talk 09:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be contradictory—you don't want to give the location as though it were certain, yet merging it into a modern location implies that the identification of the two is certain. However, even if we suppose that the modern place is built on the same site, there appears to be no continuity between the two—so it makes sense for the original settlement to have its own article, however brief. That does not preclude mentioning it in the article about the modern location. There is nothing wrong with stub articles; a great many articles, not only in Wikipedia, but most encyclopedias, are stubs. Nor does the fact that the sources currently cited don't have a lot to say mean that there are no other sources currently available with more information, or that the article can never be expanded. And there seems to be little reason to worry about vast numbers of stubs "proliferating" from this source; the categories relating to this source do not indicate such a risk. It seems to be one of a small number of such articles, and so there seems to be no reason to worry about "an article being created for every place of interest described in Hanno's periplus". P Aculeius (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The identification with Mehdia seems to be inference, though assumed by two commentators. The article on Mehdia in fact says nothing of the subject. It ought to contain one sentence that it is thought to be identical to Thymiaterium. As with many things from the ancient world, we probably know no more than stated in the article. If so, the stub tag should be removed: it is an invitation to WP:OR. Indeed it might be best to tag such articles as having {{no scope for much expansion}}. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such template. SpinningSpark 17:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably articles about archaeological sites always have the potential for expansion—even if no digs are currently ongoing, it's entirely possible that historians and archaeologists are currently analyzing the available materials (some of which may not be readily discoverable over the internet), or that new discoveries will be made. That said, a stub tag seems unnecessary if the article contains most of what can conveniently be located at this time—if more is found, nothing prevents it from being expanded in the future. P Aculeius (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Müller who is mentioned in the article (but whose name was misspelt and his work not linked until I added it just now) mentions Thymiaterium on seven seperate pages and Thymiaterion on an eighth. The work is in Latin so I can't do anything with it, but that is at least an indication that there may be more to write than is currently in the article. SpinningSpark 20:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears no definitive source indicating that Thymiaterion is the same location as Mehdya, claims otherwise are original research. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sapan Chakraborty[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. A WP:BEFORE yielded only unreliable sources such as IMDB and blog posts or trivial passing mentions of the subject. Both references (i.e. the external links) in the article are unreliable sources. While it's clear the subject wrote music from some notable films, without any RS I don't think a viable article is possible here. 4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails NFILM, as well as WP:BEFORE. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Baid[edit]

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

Founder of a small company doesn't meet WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. Htanaungg (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – most of the sourcing here seems to stem from press releases and thus is unreliable. The rest consists mainly of trivial mentions that don't go into any detail about the subject of the article. Since I can't find any other significant coverage, he fails to meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Bates[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER, can't find any RS about her. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't able to find anything either to make it pass GNG. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't find any article about her as a film producer. Fails WP:FILMMAKER Mehmood.Husain (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Urine deflector. Seddon ^talk 21:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-urination devices in Norwich[edit]

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

(Not sure how I got stuck with this weird thing, but here goes.) This topic comes off a previous deletion discussion two months ago, where the general tenor seemed to be "weak specific material but there's a broader topic here, keep and edit". Well, editing was carried out; the broader article now exists at urine deflector. This present article was pruned of irrelevant and background material by Drmies, Levivich and Mighty Antar, leaving us with the only bit relating to Norwich: that single report about a local historian's theory. This cannot sustain an article. My redirecting to urine deflector didn't stick, and the subsequent move to "Theoretical anti-urination devices in Norwich" (undone) is clearly a non-solution that only highlights the weakness of the sourcing. Unless there are well-founded reasons to object to the removal of window-dressing carried out by the above editors (and I don't think there's anything to fault there), the remaining single-sourced stub should be either deleted or, if the history is to be preserved, turned into a redirect with history. It's untenable in its current form.

I would be obliged if we could skip the demands for procedural closure because of too-recent previous AfD etc. Editing has happened, the result needs to be dealt with. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I admire the editor responsible for the article, it was a lot of (very well written) synthesis from the get-go. When you prune that down, there just isn't much left except for that one not-peer reviewed publication, and some local news coverage of it. So yeah, I support deletion. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remind me, regarding this edit does the self-published author have any reputation for reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. How are we meant to evaluate whether this article should be kept if it's been reduced to one line?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding? We don't evaluate the notability of a topic based on the state of the article. I forget the link but that's AfD 101. Levivich 15:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's generally considered bad form to gut an article of all its content and then nominate it for deletion, that's the only point I was making. The obvious solution is to just redirect it to Urine deflector but as that's been reverted, here we are, I guess.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to quote Serial Number 54129 from the last AfD about whether the source was WP:EXPERTSPS: A retired high school teacher though does not fit the category (in fact his motivation was that he's a little bit cheeky!). Not only is he not an expert, but he also admits that the thing he might be expert on may not actually exist. At this point a number of editors have searched, and the only RS is a local news source reporting on the theory laid out by a retired teacher in a 32-page self-published pamphlet. This is not enough to establish notability under WP:N, which requires multiple sources (among other requirements).
Colleagues, please don't forget we are here to build an encyclopedia, not play some kind of procedural game. Let's all just step back and reflect on the basic truth that none of us think Wikipedia should have an article about one guy's theory that was reported by the local news one time. That is very obviously below any rational conception of notability. The only question any of us should be asking is: is there a second RS about this? If the answer is "not that we can find", then we must delete this article. Levivich 15:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I am one of at least three editors who redirected the article; in each instance, the redirect was reverted by an IP (different IP with very different geolocation each time, none in Norwich). I find this suspect because none of the IPs edited the article before and no IP editor participated in the first AFD, yet whoever is editing from these IPs apparently has a strong knowledge of the nuance of AFD procedure (based on their edit summaries). I don't believe there are three or four IP editors in the world with a strong knowledge of deletion procedure who never edited this article or participated in the AFD but are willing to revert a post-AfD redirect. IP editors don't have watchlists right? How are they even aware of the redirects? They're checking this article multiple times? I don't buy it. I suspect logged-out editing and/or trolling. Levivich 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Because we already have a redirect called "Anti-urination device" that redirects to the article "Urine deflector," I don't see the point of having the redirect "Anti-urination devices in Norwich". Anyone typing in "Anti-urination devices in Norwich" will get to "Anti-urination device" before they type in "in Norwich," and any backlinks can easily be updated (tho there don't appear to be any in mainspace). Or to put it another way, because we already have the redirect "Anti-urination device", the redirect "Anti-urination devices in Norwich" would not survive WP:RFD. Levivich 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might survive WP:RfD, seeing as there are incoming links (see below). TompaDompa (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and PROTECT the redirect Obviously! Now please stop wasting my time. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the four redirections and the corresponding IP reverts:
- Redirected at 01:32, 22 July 2021 by Levivich with edit summary (redirect to Anti-urination device - there are no sources in this article about anti-urination devices in Norwich any longer - I see no content to merge)
  - Reverted at 16:35, 25 July 2021 by 107.77.203.50 with edit summary (We just had a discussion on this and it closed as keep, not redirect or no consensus, either appeal at drv, or respect the outcome for 6 months)
- Redirected at 13:16, 28 July 2021 by Levivich with edit summary (Undid revision 1035429453 by 107.77.203.50 (talk) this article fails WP:V)
  - Reverted at 19:49, 31 July 2021 by 173.3.250.213 with edit summary (If someone thinks an article fails WP:V and should be deleted or redirected it is discussed at afd. We just had the discusion and the community strongly disagreed with you, so stop trying to supervote redirect just because the afd did not go your way, and edit-warring against consensus is poor form. You may always appeal at drv, or clean up the article so that it meets WP:V in your opinion too.)
- Redirected at 01:38, 6 August 2021 by Drmies with edit summary (this whole thing is ridiculous: it's based on a local newspaper article about a 32-page booklet self-published by some dude.)
  - Reverted at 00:35, 14 August 2021 by 146.168.203.51 with edit summary (Once again, when a redirect has been challenged you must use afd. Edit-warring in a redirect is unacceptable, since this was just at afd you have three options 1-help implement the close (clean up the article) 2-appeal the close (at drv not by edit-warring) 3-walk away)
- Redirected at 19:05, 26 August 2021 by Elmidae with edit summary (pointless to keep in its current form - we do not have articles on single individuals' private theories. The piecewise removals of unsourced text, unrtelated text, and unrelated sources in the last few days seem entirely well justified, and if this is the result, it can't stay. Redirecting to Urine deflector)
  - Reverted at 01:13, 31 August 2021 by 156.98.51.156 with edit summary (Undid revision 1040801130 by Elmidae (talk) when a redirect has been challenged you must use afd edit-warring in a redirect is unacceptable, since this was just at afd you can either, help implement the close, challenge the close (at drv) or walk away)

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Exactly. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to urine deflector, doesn't need a separate article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to urine deflector, as per above. Not enough sourcing for an independent article. While article content does not determine notability, there isn't enough content in reliable, independent sources to meet GNG for a stand alone article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to delete as 1. the article is an WP:ORPHAN so it isn't necessary for navigation 2. It isn't a reasonable search term on Wikipedia as it's too specific (the reasonable search term would be "anti-urination devices"). 3. There's no content in the article to be merged nor any reason to preserve the article's history. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really don't understand why non-notable, fictional facilities in Norwich should be redirected to something that is notable non-fiction? Mighty Antar (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and if the IP editor who's causing confusion feels cheesed-off, get them to put the EDP reference to the bloke who described the Norwich urine-deflectors in Urine deflector. Currently I'm also a bit cheesed off: I thought we'd got all this sorted after the first AfD debate, and the new urine deflector article would completely supplant the Norwich article, extending it to cities at large. But we're now in the situation of a rubbish, one-line Norwich article that mentions the existence of the deflectors but lacks all the genuine information of the original deleted article, but a new general urine-deflectors article that also lacks any mention of the Norwich idea. I can understand the latter: we focussed on the bloke's cheeky personality and self-published booklet, which aren't the stuff of WP. If we'd focussed on the fact a well-respected local newspaper with expertise on Norwich gave him page-space, we could just about justify getting a one-line mention of his work (and maybe one of the pics) into the general Urine-deflectors article, where it wouldn't look out of place. That's honestly the best outcome the IP editor can hope for (I am guessing that this is an outburst of Norwichism; I live here, we've been thumbing our nose at the rest of the universe for centuries and have no intention of stopping now; or maybe someone is trying to prove that WP-AfD can't organise a piss-up in a regional city?). Elemimele (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I'll ask a very simple question but for the benefit of those who'd rather overlook this I will elaborate. Why is there so much emphasis on creating a redirect for this crap? I have nothing against Norwich, it's many fascinating delights and I have nothing against the concept of a Urine deflector or anti-urination measures. Urine-repellent paint is a real thing. That a local newspaper has published an amusing local story about a quirky local pamphlet is about as notable as if it published a story about the towns skateboarding dog. For reasons of amusement, a fiction has been conjured up by somebody, somewhere that every sloping surface below head height of an architectural nature is obviously a secret urine deflector, the idea that somehow, someway we must defend our buildings against this unmentionable attacker, but nobody must know has taken root. That vent on the side of the Bank of England is an absolutely perfect example. Herbert Baker designed this very expensive and prestigious edifice with dozens of corners and perfect little niches, absolutely wonderful spots I should imagine for urinating if one was to be so inclined, why on earth then did he waste good money sticking a urine deflector in only one corner? Could he not conceive that having been defeated thus, a drunken man stumbling home would move a foot to the right or left or use some other location on this massive site? The whole subject would be really laughable if there didn't seem to be rather a lot of time and effort being made in defending such arrant nonsense. There is a whole wealth of reference material on Georgian and Victorian toilet habits, public sanitation, hygiene improvements, urinary practices, architecture et al. and yet for reasons I find difficult to fathom, some people have convinced themselves that such a scandal might be attached to these devices that they have had to be placed in secret around our public buildings to protect our delicate sensitivities. Now stop wasting time on debating the minutia of unrelated wikipedia protocols and delete this thing! Mighty Antar (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:MERGEDELETE. If some of the former content has been merged into the urine deflector article, then we need to preserve this article's edit history. Leaving it as a redirect is the easiest solution. Mlb96 (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I guess, since the former article is basically gone to begin with. jp×g 23:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - - The former content has not been merged with urine deflector, there was no valid content to merge.Mighty Antar (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as was done previously, and optionally protect the redirect as Johnbod suggested. In the last discussion, I proposed that the article be kept but its scope expanded beyond Norwich as urine deflector and anti-urination device were both WP:REDLINKS at the time. Instead, what happened was that the urine deflector article was created while the AfD was ongoing, which I thought was a bit disruptive to the discussion (but it did mean that the newly created article was eligible for WP:DYK). The best solution would have been to let the first AfD run its course and then move the article to a different title and broaden the scope. The closest we're going to get to that now (short of a WP:History merge, I suppose) is to redirect (since there's nothing to merge at present). TompaDompa (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I will repeat once again, that there was and is nothing whatsoever to redirect. The last AFD was based upon the false assumption that something of substance was written about these mystical devices in Norwich. It was never there. It was a page of waffle based on speculative guesswork about hidden but wholly unsubstantiated fixtures that appears to exist on several blogs around the internet, but nowhere else in the annals of architectural literature unless it's in some hidden chapter we're not allowed to see. I'd happily support a page on the history of public lavatories in Norwich, because I know it could be well sourced and based on factual information, but specious guesswork about tangible items does not belong in Wikipedia.Mighty Antar (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't redirect content, we redirect titles, for instance if they have potentially useful page history or if there are incoming links we do not wish to break (see WP:RFD#KEEP). Anti urination devices in Norwich (without the hyphen) redirects to Urine deflector, for the record. In this case, deleting either the current title or the redirect without the hyphen would break incoming links (e.g. [20][21] and [22][23], respectively). Would there be any particular harm in turning this into a redirect instead of deleting it? TompaDompa (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is that a serious question? I wasn't aware that a purpose of Wikipedia was to promote curiosity about nonsense posted on Wikipedia by maintaining pages of rubbish that had managed to remain unchallenged for a period of time before being quite correctly deleted.Mighty Antar (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - If it's turned into a redirect to another article, it hasn't been "maintained", it's been hidden in the edit history and no readers will ever see it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict) I have to say that I find it a bit difficult to parse the second sentence. At any rate: yes, that's a serious question. I can't say that I have strong opinions about whether this should be deleted or redirected, but when it was turned into a redirect back in July I thought that was a satisfactory solution. I don't see a strong reason that it should have been brought to WP:RfD then, nor that anti urination devices in Norwich should be brought there now. TompaDompa (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        How about the simple fact, that once the article was cleared of all it's unrelated embroidery, the only material thing left was spam. Anything can be promoted, including a point of view, etc.Mighty Antar (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you and I have fundamentally different views on the pros and cons of redirects. TompaDompa (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you and I have fundamentally different views on the pros and cons of this specific redirect.Mighty Antar (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonora Pacioni[edit]

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

No appearances for Roma yet and, even if she had one, it still wouldn't be enough as the Serie A (women's football) is only fully professional as of next season, as per WP:FPL.

Outside of AS Roma's own website and its two main fansites, Voce Giallorossa and Chiesa Di Totti, there is almost zero coverage of Pacioni. The two fansites do not meet our requirements at WP:RS or WP:IS as the content is user-generated and not neutral. Aside from that, the coverage is also not significant coverage in that it does not address Pacioni directly and in depth. Content such as this user page for Pacioni is actually written by User:Dallagente, the creator of this Wikipedia article.

In terms of an actual independent source, I can find nothing better than this very short contract renewal announcement. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Disregarding the argumentless "vote" by Multi7001. Sandstein 08:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Deters[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NAUTHOR, fails WP:NARTIST, fails WP:ANYBIO. Makes the news regularly on some (same) local papers which is expected of a controversial lawyer; fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sources invariably go "there is this thing in our city/state, and this lawyer said this about it, and by the way, that lawyer was disbarred" or "there is this thing and that lawyer that was disbarred is involved in it too". Not in the article: some local coverage for racist remarks[24] and association with Trump campaign[25], but no WP:SIGCOV. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple articles about Deters in the Cincinnati enquirer, one of the main newspapers for a major city, and there is a recent bloomberg article about the Kentucky Supreme Court ruling not to reinstate him: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/no-reinstatement-for-lawyer-whose-law-practice-is-like-anarchy.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also agree that this should be kept, based on the available sources. I went ahead and added the new citation suggested by Jackattack1597 and added a new sentence. However, there is now some conflicting info. The new source states he has been suspended since 2013, but another unsourced sentence states "Kentucky Supreme Court suspended Deters for 60 days, 30 days each for ethical violations in two cases dating back years." We should probably remove that, unless a source can be found? Peter303x (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps above are talking about news about the subject getting disbarred and subsequent attempts to get reinstated which failed; no dedicated coverage of the battle or the person, just news on the updates: disbarment, appeal, rejection, appeal, rejection, ... None of the sources are SIGCOV, and we need SIGCOV as there is no WP:NLAWYER.
I would invite editors to consider the subject in the context of an encyclopedia with a selective inclusion criteria. (Even when there is SIGCOV but especially without,) a person is notable for doing something significant or being a major part of something significant, the infamous "best known for" if you will. What is the significant achievement of the subject? "A lawyer who got disbarred and then appealed and appealed all of which failed"? Following the legal recourse provided in every country with a functional justice system does not make one notable, not unless they win in the end and it leads to significant reform with regard to whatever went wrong. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources fail WP:SIGCOV and Deters doesn't pass WP:GNG to be on the List of disbarments in the United States. Per the page lede, Deters is known for his involvement in the Durrani and Jones cases, and per WP:CRIME, A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Perhaps Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC could incorporate Deters' most relevant info, since he is already quoted on the page. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multi7001 (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough general coverage, and no reason why there would be. In ome cases of lawyers disbarred for their activities, the reason for disbarrment has considerable relationship to their activies as attorney, such as dishonestly advocating for a client. In thiscase the infractions are unrelated. In ou rterms, he was vaned for harassment and then edited continued his work despite the ban. There's nothign of general interest about that. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep. JBW (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pale Moon (web browser)[edit]

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

The Article looks like ot uses only primary resources/references. It uses Pale Moon and Mozilla Pages only. The article needs more resources. Adriem914 (User talk: Adriem914) 12:04 31 August 2021 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ The Article does not show a good type of resources, only primary resources. It uses other sources, but it is not enough and good. Adriem914 (User talk: Adriem914) 12:08 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Striking duplicate vote by nominator. Jumpytoo Talk 22:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added AfD template and added to daily log. No comment on the AfD itself at this time. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a nonsense request for deletion. Most likely as a result of heated discussion about licensing of a fork that is occurring on GitHub at the moment and having some very questionable elements attacking developers and the project as a result. Please do not delete the page. The project is long-standing, actively developed and maintained; potential quality improvements to references are not of significant enough level that it warrants deletion. Wolfbeast (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fairly active project that is important enough to be the subject of numerous Internet discussions. It may be true that much of that history is connected with Mozilla and the project itself, but I do not think that fact invalidates the existence of this article. 47.184.130.136 (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagreeing with the actions of the developers of a software project is not a valid reason to delete the Wikipedia article of said project. 192.24.234.53 (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have already stated, this request appears to be in relation to disputes regarding code under the Mozilla Public License on GitHub^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and dislike - or possibly an attempt at revenge - is not a credible reason for deletion. ForceLance (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep The rationale sounds like a WP:SOFIXIT to me. I'm fine with Basilisk getting deleted or merged to this article, but to delete this one? Nope, not a chance. It's also interesting that this AfD comes right after someone posted a reddit post about Pale Moon devs "abusing" the Mozilla Public License...
SeaMonkey also has a lot of primary sources. Why don't you go AfD it? Oh, you can't, because it's a notable part of Mozilla's history. But this can't be the case for Pale Moon? Come on. --pandakekok9 (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. 2A01:4C8:A1:F08E:69AA:AD25:80F8:B9C5 (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kstern (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Boxall[edit]

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

Not a notable topic. All sources reference a single incident that is not notable in itself. Kstern (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator New content added by Cabrils makes the subject of this article appear notable. Kstern (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have significantly expanded and cleaned up the page, adding numerous IRS sources. The page now clearly passes GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - clearly notable and meets WP:GNG. Deus et lex (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Herpetology[edit]

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

It exists, and noe of its several founders is notable. Merge/redirect to him as an WP:ATD might give the impression he was the only founder though, rather than on a term. Doesn't appear to have the coverage/significance to meet WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now get the question answered. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/likely delete A little confused. Is the nom meant to read "it no longer exists"? I note the Editor in Chief's affiliation misspells "Ithaca" ;) Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's enough in the first couple references to warrant a merge/redirect, I think, though I'm not sure what the best target would be. Joseph Bruno Slowinski is one possibility; it could also form the start of a "Journals" section in Herpetology, which is a thing that article could benefit from anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's perhaps better to say "it existed". According to the journal's homepage only a handful of articles was ever published, the last one in 2009. I therefore find it difficult to believe the claim that the journal was included in The Zoological Record or Current Contents. The claim that it still is indexed in these databases is patently incorrect. The journal article that is supposed to source this claims seems to have taken its info from the journal's website and therefore is not independent. MIAR does not indicate listing in any other database. Fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable at all. --RamotHacker (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. close enough to notable,and we should be inclusive for sources likely to be cited at WP. That is no lognerexists is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Randykitty. This electronic journal was very minor. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and start a "Journals" section in Herpetology per XOR'easter. A redirect can be used to that page. I think DGG is correct that preserving content on sources likely to be cited on wikipedia to verify content is valuable to our readers. However, equally this journal sits on the borderline of notability, and the delete arguments are convincing. A merge seems like the best solution.4meter4 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per 4meter4. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any evidence of this being even borderline notable, I don't see any notability at all... Please see WP:ILIKEIT. The Category:Herpetology journals currently has 11 entries (and there's probably more journals that have no article). Should that all be listed in a "journals" section in the herpetology article? Or should that section only contain non-notable journals, with the notable one listed under "see also"? (Just to be clear, I oppose a merge, too). --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete I'm on the fence, not even sure that a mention in a Journals section in Herpetology article would be worth it. In any event, this page should go. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if we accept that journals aren't automatically notable, then surely this one falls below any notability line we would draw? If their website's index is comprehensive, then the journal published just 23 papers in its 10-year existence. It isn't mentioned anywhere else that I can find. Mentioning it at Herpetology#Journals seems seriously undue, since this must be the several hundredth most important journal in the field (though I, of course, am not a herpetologist, so what do I know). If folks want to maintain mention of it on a Wikipedia page, maybe someone should start a List of herpetology journals? Otherwise I can't think of an obvious place to host more information on the journal, even if we can find it. Ajpolino (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Randykitty. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TMRO[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The Wired article contains less than one hundred words of content dedicated to the subject. The Twin City Live source is a permanently dead video with less written prose than the Wired article. The Star Tribune article is mostly WP:INTERVIEW material and is therefore a primary source. Searching for sources that aren’t already being cited yields trivial mentions from NBC News, BusinessInsider (WP:BI), and Space.com but there are no in-depth sources that would demonstrate WP:SIGCOV or even provide useful information for writing an Encyclopedia article without WP:ORIGINAL research. The Space Frontier source says that the subject received the “2010 Best Presentation of Space Award”. The Space Frontier Foundation does have a Wikipedia page, but it only contains bare URLs to sources that, at a glance, don’t appear to demonstrate WP:N. I don’t think this article would qualify for WP:WEBCRIT despite the award, but either way WEBCRIT states that “In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria,” and I’m not seeing independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability. Jami Higginbotham, Cariann Higginbotham, Jared Head, and Ryan Caton don't have Wikipedia articles so there isn't really a place to merge the content. It's also worth noting that even if the hosts or guests were notable this show doesn't WP:INHERIT that notability. If someone is able to scrounge up some sources or if the award is notable enough to save the article it needs some cleanup considering only two out of the fifteen paragraphs in the body of the article even contain references. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gia Jichonaia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and was rejected at AFC earlier. Can't see any indepth reliable coverage about the subject. Riteboke (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search offer almost nothing besides Wikipedia, mirror sites and social media. Does not satisfy required notability criteria.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough and Per Above explanation.--—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Taggart. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Reid[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). At best we can consider redirecting this to Taggart. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Topic lacks sources to meet WP:GNG at this time. TTN (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Taggart#Main - The current article is entirely ploy synopsis, and there are no sources being used. Searching for sources brings up some mentions of the character, either in plot summaries or mentioning it as one of the prominent roles of Blythe Duff, but there isn't any coverage I am seeing that would justify this as a spinout article. Rorshacma (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shootfighter: Fight to the Death[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. That two of the actors appeared in Karate Kid does nothing to establish notability. Paradoctor (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Review at TV Guide [26]. Not enough for notability on its own, but a start if anyone can find anything else. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the relist. WP:SILENT applies here, don't it? Paradoctor (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find significant coverage to meet the GNG and I don't see that anything from WP:NFILM is met.Sandals1 (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing to show this film is WP notable. It fails both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography#1950s. The sources provided by the keep !voters have been questioned and largely rejected by the consensus of participants. Consensus is that this subject does not warrant a separate article. Hog Farm _Talk 04:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dopey Dick the Pink Whale[edit]

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

Prodded with "No evidence this passes GNG/NFILM. BEFORE fails to find any coverage. The cited source is just a passing mention.". PROD removed with the request for AFD, so here we go. Please note that the cited The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons (I used the newer edition from 2009) only mentions the subject in passing, in a list of Woody Woodpecker animations, and doesn't discuss the topic at all. The other cited source is a website of dubious reliability which also does not contain any discussion of this topic other than just listing it [27]. I suggest redirecting to Woody_Woodpecker_filmography#1950s and doing the same with dozens of similar catalogue-like entries listed there that have no need for a stand-alone article (failing GNG/NFILM/etc.) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See also Woody Woodpecker filmography and Adaptations of Moby-Dick. Do we have such a modern bias that we are not going to have the Woody Woodpecker cartoons? But besides that, in the quick google search I did, it was not hard to at least find references related comparing to Moby Dick. For example - [28] [29] [30]. And this 1957 cartoon still is shown - just for fun, here's a link showing that it was on television in the UK back in 1990 [31]. .- jc37 08:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first two links have just one sentence passing mention about this cartoon (that fails WP:SIGCOV). The other is a blog so it is simply irrelevant (not reliable). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally include notable cartoon shorts, and this clearly falls into this category. RomanSpa (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE, try again. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. There is nothing in the article that indicates it meets Wikipedia:GNG from my readings. jc37 suggested few sources, but Piotrus negatively scrutinized them. So far, nobody has countered that argumentation. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in books about Woody and Walter Lantz DonaldD23 talk to me 17:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23 Which books? Please name them here, with a page range. Google Books or IA links would be a nice bonus. Thanks! PS. If by "Walter Lantz" you mean "The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia", it's not a book but a webpage of unclear reliability [32] (no 'about', no information on authors, has a disclaimer "This is an unofficial website."), and the coverage is just a catalogue entry (name, date, credits, etc.) that fails SIGCOV. As was already noted above. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. ––FormalDude talk 01:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Woody_Woodpecker_filmography#1950s per nom as WP:ATD-R. Not independently notable (fails GNG and WP:NFILM), but belongs to a notable collection covered by the filmography page. Lots of the other shorts seem to lack coverage for stand alone articles as well. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Woody_Woodpecker_filmography#1950s.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DokuWiki[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Gerardnico (see related discussion at User talk:Gerardnico). While I appreciate Gerardnico's interest, I am afraid they failed to either read or understand the cited policies (GNG, NSOFT). The article still fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject, and no evidence of such notability has been presented in the discussion (I am honestly not sure what the spreadsheet Gerardnico created is supposed to demonstrate). The best alternative to deletion I can offer is to suggest draftificaiton of this article in Gerardnico's userspace, but I have serious concern this article will be ever ready to return back to our mainspace as the odds of something happening and making this notable are, IMHO, slim but arguably not zero...). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Analytics[edit]

The spreadsheet based on a Google Search is supposed to demonstrate the Wikipedia:General notability guideline points (ie Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject, Presumed).

A Search engine is independent by nature because it ranks the page mostly by popularity. It means that a page is ranked based on the external links that it gets. That's how th Internet is voting. Nobody can influence the result and are then by nature `independent` and `reliable`.

This analytics shows/adds further the following points:

a signifiant coverage - ALL articles are talking about Dokuwiki
sources (listed in the sheet)

I don't know how to respond in a discussion in Wikipedia, I have then created this section. User:Gerardnico

The sources cited don't appear to be reliable (blogs, niche portals like https://geekflare.com/self-hosted-wiki-software/ with no evidence of editorial control), etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral:(Recusing from discussion with intent to be permanent and intend would re-enter if have added non-trial sources to article, and thinking unlikelty to re-enter even then Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)):Keep:Delete: Disagree with the passing mentions on the books front. I am mentally collapsing on stuff coming through at AfD at the moment ... but I suppose I will end up having to give a detailed defence here as the onus is on the keepers who may have to put in one hell of lot of effort compared to the nominators. There goes my RL and the summer ... this one merits a keep. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to delete per considerations of SELinux jockey experiment until I recheck due to social science guinea-pig considerations. Article CTIEBOMBed already. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The software has a sizable, continued usage in the developer and admin community, where it is well known. A book was written about it in 2018. Alien Life Form (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alien life form Thank you, the book does seem like a reliable and in-depth source. It would be good to find one more reliable source covering this, to satisfy GNG requirement of multiple (in-depth, reliable) sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fairly large userbase in SoHo and departmental systems. As Alien life form points out there is a book published about it. It is included in many Linux distros. One of the key WP policies is WP:RF, and with that base/exposure there will be regular views actually using WP as an encyclopedia. In the last 20 days there have been 1688 views, the 90 day total is 8852, so that's a sustained readership of around 80 per day. The article is therefore needed. It is capable of improvement, and needs better referencing to keep deletionists at bay. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)--Bvdbos (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can someone please clerk this discussion into order. The good faith contribution by Gerardnico is a tad messy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I extended the page with more content and references in the hopes to highlight the relevance. I hope this matches Wikipedia's requirements. Let me know if/how the page can be improved. --Andreas Gohr (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added some page content as well indicating a popular use case for this software with what I believe to be a reliable source according to the WP guidelines. --Grumbly-Payphone-Exchange (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not only is dokuwiki important for mediawiki's own history and is mentioned and linked in the article itself, it is a commonly used tool in science, humanities and by the general public, especially in the German speaking world (even for disaster relief). It has entries in Clarivate WebOfScience going back to 2009, showing how long a variety of fields from computer science, humanities, library science to Astronomy and Physics have mentioned it in their research papers. In Elsevier's ScienceDirect it is similar. In Wiley Online Library, it is mentioned in articles and books from a variety of fields. It has over 200 entries in WorldCat. It is regularly mentioned in bachelor thesis, so students need it as well and it also is the topic of dissertations. Comment: I really do not feel that this is the best use of the deletion "nuclear" option in this case - much better to expand an article people might find useful. If you need books with chapters covering DokuWiki, there are e.g. ISBN 3936546282, a variety of books by O'Reilly like Kali Linux, Wikis for Dummies and Practical Open Source Software for Libraries as sources which include recommendations after reviewing their respective topics just to mention 3 in English. And there are more, some in Hindi, Chinese, French or Spanish. English book on DokuWiki from 2018 ISBN 193091166 has been mentioned, there are also some in german e.g. ISBN 3110352532 and other languages. --Gegohouse (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)- gegohouse[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's the second largest wiki-software, after Mediawiki, it's actively maintained and it has an active userbase. The article may need to be updated/extended but it's much more relevant then other articles about abandoned wiki software-packages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvdbos (talk • contribs) 05:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I returned to the discussion because there was a possible good faith minor WP:CANVAS attempt to persuade some comments to change to keep !votes. A good closer would account for that anywaay; and it would be hard at this moment to establsih any concensus to delete. I have always not wanted to get heavily involved in this as this was pretty well certainly always going to be a stonewall keep, and I dont want to get into hunting specific sources if I have to, I'm time limited. I do note of significance gegohouse presented significant and sufficient sources for RS consideration on 9:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC). Failure to challenge those within what is now nearly is surely a minimum for a keep no-consensus, and probably sufficient for a keep result. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. No delete votes remain, a book was found, this is probably good enough to close as keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for withdrawing. To state the somewhat obvious I had been immediately per the book of Vermeulen, an SElinux jockey,(jokingly SElinux people in general are at least one of awesome, sadists or geeks, mainly on the basis enforcing early versions of SElinux could probably damage one's health and one's organisation). So from my angle it was a always going to be keep from one end of the day to the other. BHG had been recently blocked, I came late to that party, and hadn't read everything on that dispute, but likely feel her cause was just and probably right. It seemed a bit topic=tt related so I'm inclined to recuse on those. You're a socialogist, eloquent, and therefore there's a possibly realize your style will might lure people into a WP:SEALION situation. Me, I'm sort of paranoid in some senses. To cut a long story short we have history, much history, and my !vote changes above were to prevent a speedy to teach the old lesson as this seemed to me a poor BEFORE and could have been a SEALION baiter for my zone, perhaps in particular for me. I've kind of just served my time in Ravenswood for the disruption, have had the injection, and are reviewing elements of my style thereafter. Sourcing keeps taken time and energy I don't really have so I mainly leave AfD's for other and will do minimum necessary for a no-concensus keep on others. One thing is certain to me, this AfD and the blocking of BHG contributed to the outburst that got me blocked. But all said and done, thanks for withdrawing, I've only really returned when "team keep" (I actually confirm I have no collusion with then) did a minor canvas which might have been an issue. But again, thankyou for choosing to withdraw and in good faith I believe you might have done so sooner if that was not possible by my !vote change. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark This is a bit off topic, but I had no idea you got blocked, nor did I see (nor see now) any connection of this AfD to BHG incident. In either case, I indeed couldn't withdraw it with a delete vote in force, but now as I said I am fine with the community consensus, although for the record, I find the existence of highly specialized textbooks about a particular work not always sufficient for notability (some of them are very low quality and have very low impact). But taking all arguments together, ok, let this stay, it was reviewed and found not lacking (much). Thank you to all who participated, doubly to anyone who improved the article in question. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Toby Gard. WP:ATD czar 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confounding Factor[edit]

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Galleon (video game) (the only video game created by the company) and Toby Gard, the guy who formed the company, have articles. If sources can’t be found to support the company being notable either of the two other articles could be valid redirection targets.--65.93.194.2 (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Toby Gard. The current article reads like a section of the person's biography anyway. Any information that is relevant to Galleon can be cited in the game's article too. Haleth (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Government Science College, Matale[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both for the reasons given above by Dan arndt and because the article is substantially promotional. JBW (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note:The page was created by an IP editor as a talk page, to get round the requirement for autoconfirmed status to create an article, and it was then moved to mainspace by Dan arndt. It might have been speedily deleted from talk page space, but now that it's subject to this discussion it's probably better to leave it where it is and let the discussion run its course. JBW (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JBW: thanks - I'm fairly certain that this article was previously deleted via a PROD earlier in the year - which is why it was on my watchlist. As a result I thought that an AfD was more appropriate as if the article is deleted via that process and then subsequently re-created it could potentially be dealt with as speedy delete - G4. Dan arndt (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, for failure to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Ifnord (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion No sources cited. Multi7001 (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purple economy[edit]

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

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

The articles for Purple economy and Cultural footprint should be deleted as they are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. I have found no evidence that either topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Both concepts are promoted by Diversum, the French organisation which started the Prix Versailles and the articles were created and maintained by single purpose accounts also linked to the Prix Versailles. Ten of the accounts promoting the Prix Versailles and the Purple economy across sixteen different language Wikipedias have been confirmed as sockpuppets.

The purple economy article is about cultural aspects of the economy, while the phrase is also used to refer to caring aspects. See also

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 175#Prix Versailles
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prix Versailles
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Appeal of 7 June 2020 TSventon (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the motion by User:Spiderone upon reading the investigation the COI affecting the aforementioned articles as well as the articles themselves. Purple economy is a promising topic but I think it is best for it to be red-linked and recreated by an impartial author (especially seeing how the article is badly organized and hard-to-read as is). --A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 16:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is well-established and has been the subject of varied and serious references. The concept has been endorsed by Eric Maskin, Edmund Phelps, Christopher Pissarides, among others. These credentials take this to the highest level in economics. It would make no sense to delete the article. I myself do not know enough to expand on it, but I can try to re-work it. I will trial it on the article's talk page. Lagoyan (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC) This account was opened on 30 August, after the start of this AfD discussion. TSventon (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is TNT case. Looking all the socks that have been blocked, they have completed by far the majority of work, apart from that IP address editor in the last few days. On top of that I can't find any academic sources confirm it is a genuine concept. I lack confidence in saying it is notable from that aspect. Certainly there is many sites that seem to have latched onto it. But certainly, if notable, then it needs a COI free new article and it is clear case for WP:TNT. scope_creep^Talk 12:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

scope creep, the IP editor is another single purpose account so I have added them to the COI discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Prix Versailles update. TSventon (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: It is super suspect, coming in like that. It is so obvious. Well done, getting all this sorted. Remember to notify them. scope_creep^Talk 12:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its genesis is by sockpuppets as is most of the contributions. Blow it up and start over again. WP:TNT-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 16:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam, cross-wiki spam, bad faith article. We should not entertain this behavior by keeping these articles. MER-C 11:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean State Green Party[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. For an organization to be considered notable for an article on Wikipedia, it first needs to receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There are none of those in the article, and my own search didn't return enough to satisfy the notability criteria. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party of Rhode Island: No reliable sources seem to exist. I'm not even sure a merge would be acceptable in this case. A straight redirect is the best option here imo. Curbon7 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGIN. None of the sources currently on the page are reliable and unrelated to the the party. I could not find any reliable secondary sources that pass WP:SIGCOV. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a splinter group that quickly faded away without much public notice or impact. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Carlson-Wee[edit]

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

With reference to WP:NOTCV, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as per the WP:RS in the article. This nomination lacks WP:BEFORE or lacks the understanding of AfD. - The9Man ^(Talk) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ping: Sending ping for fetching unbiased assessments from the experts - @DGG, Timtrent, TheAafi, and Umakant Bhalerao:. Thanks in advance. -Hatchens (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a simple rule for financial companies. 15 years ago, i said they needed at least $1 billon assets under management for there to be any chance of decent sourcing. Times have changed. I'd now say at least $20 billion.Assets under management is an exceedingly extensive term of art. I know that's not how we are supposed to be judging, but I consider it sort of the equivalent to being in the Olympics.

Looking at our formal rules for sourcing: 40 under 40 etc. is a pure promotional gimmick, in all of its many permutations. An alumni magazine is not usually a RS. Ref 7 he seems to have dictated himself. 4 & 2 have suspicious similar titles--that usually means they were written from the same press release. No article referring to someone's "native brilliance" should be even considered as a RS. -- But this does leave open at least the possibility that 1 is a real source--has anyone read it? DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG For the first paragraph: This is your personal opinion and assumptions. Let's stick with the formal rules and policies.
* I agree that 40 under 40 and 30 under 30, etc, are probably promotional. But still, we do have articles on them, that make them notable. In fact, I added that after realizing the list has an article here. I see some irony there. No objection, just saying.
* Alumni magazine link is used to support the content and not to prove the notability.
* Ref 7 is an interview and is used to support the information and not to be considered as RS. Used to support the content and not to prove the notability.
* I have some concerns rejecting the 4 & 2. Isn't how the news industry works? Somebody breaks a news and everybody else follows when they find it newsworthy? There are at least 20+ articles on news websites about this with almost the same title with a simple search. Or maybe you are right, I don't know and I don't make assumptions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

of course everything I say is my personal opinion. That's the purpose of makign comments at AfD. I'm making comments, not decisions. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dug deeper and here are some of the WP:RS that I believe to be good enough to be pass WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. There is a good number of results on Google Scholar as well. I agree that the majority of these are not yet present in the article and need to add them. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not seeing the issue with the WSJ and CNBC articles (which focus entirely on him, i.e. they are WP:SIGCOV, and they are from well-known WP:RS of good repute). Was there an issue with them, or what? @DGG: 22:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Edited the article with newfound WP:RSs and removed the concerned refs by DGG. - The9Man ^(Talk) 05:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstone OnDemand[edit]

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

Insufficient substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices sources that meet WP:NCORP. See the more promotional earlier version in the page history. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not pass the criteria outlined at WP:NCORP. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated article and added many new sources. Please check again and also do a search in Google news for more citations. Webmaster862 (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. I'm changing my vote because the article has had significant changes since being nominated. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company is publicly traded on NASDAQ and has 32 pages of results in Google news. I have added a few new citations and expanded the history section.Webmaster862 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Seems the page was vandalized in October 2020 by an IP editor and major portions removed. He cited marketing language. I am bringing back some portions that don't sound promotional and re-adding some old citations.Webmaster862 (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have sufficient sources that meet the criteria for notability. For example, Gartner have provided independent analysis based on vetted customer reviews. Forrester have also provided analysis. I've removed the section on the "fund" as it was unnecessary and promotional, especially to list the companies which were funded. Otherwise, Topic meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gartner provides directory information and aggregated customer reviews, not analysis. They have exactly he same reliability as Yelp. The Forrester review was commissioned by the company. We shouldn't just glance at the sources--but read them, looking for the tell-tale indicators that they are not independent. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well yes, the link I provided is to the analysis based on aggregated reviews which I accept not everyone will see that it meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH but Gartner have also included the company in research reports on "Talent Management Suites" for years and included in their 2020 research report on Content Service Platforms. And while the Forrester report was commissioned by the topic company, page 4 of the report makes it clear that Forrester maintained editorial control over the study and its findings. There are many other research firms that have included this topic company in their research and analysis and the topic company includes this list on their website. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Sweden Twenty20 International cricketers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Kabir (cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC point 2. StickyWicket (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sweden Twenty20 International cricketers Subject fails WP:NCRIC as T20I appearances aren't considered notable by the guidelines. I can't find anything but a couple of passing mentions, so nothing to suggest a GNG pass either. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sweden Twenty20 International cricketers per nom and above. Human (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sweden Twenty20 International cricketers Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seddon ^talk 23:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shohei Iwamoto[edit]

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

A thorough fail of WP:GNG means that a technical pass of the relevant SNG (subordinate to GNG, as it only offers a rebuttable presumption) is entirely irrelevant; since you can't presume something which does not exist. The sum of all coverage on the subject that I can find in reliable, independent sources is essentially result listings and database entries. Suggest merging/redirecting (as a plausible search term) to List of Japanese sportspeople. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider.)} 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: I also didn't find anything in English language sources but any relevant coverage would likely be in Japanese sources. Were you able to (i) search Japanese sources or (ii) at least do a google search using Kanji characters? Cbl62 (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I couldn't find anything. That appears to hold true in all languages. If Google Translate is accurate, then the only things I'm finding are namechecks ([33]); database entries ([34]); what looks like an interview or failing that is actually written by the article subject ([35]), hence not an independent source; ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - What coverage do you expect of an athlete other than their athletic performances? And even if such coverage could be found, wouldn't focusing on that rather than what they are known for violate WP:UNDUE? Smartyllama (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're well aware that interviews, results listings and database entries are not sufficient sources, so there's no point answering your pointy questions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Editors, myself included, have pointed to multiple sources that are not "interviews, results listings, and database entries." The fact that an article includes a quote from a subject does not make it an interview. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If it only included one quote or two in passing, you might have a point; but when quotes from the subject are woven through it, then the independence of the source relative to the subject is much more questionable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If articles about his results are "routine" and feature articles about him are "not independent" because they include quotes from him (as would be expected of a feature article about anyone), what would count? And don't just quote GNG back at me verbatim, I know what it says. Smartyllama (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the state of the article and the sources present in it, an overqualified meet of SNG coupled with other coverage. Geschichte (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The added sources are all results tables, databases and routine coverage of an athlete performing in a sporting competition. Meeting the SNG is still as irrelevant as ever. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has won an individual medal and a team medal at the Asian Games, has represented Japan twice at the Olympics and has won several national championships. I see that the nomination is focused on the sources but, by itself, I think this qualifies as more than a database entry athlete (and thus a biography that we should aim to have)? - Simeon (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As nominated, the article was a sub-stub. It has since been improved with sourcing demonstrating that Iwamoto is a two-time medalist at the Asian games and has been competing at an international level for 13 years. I also suspect that Google searches are not sufficiently comprehensive to find newspaper and other sources from Japan. Cbl62 (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a search of his name in Japanese (岩元勝平) turns up a fair amount of news coverage but I am not able to read to verify how deep the coverage is. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Obvious POINTy nomination that just serves to defeat nominator's point based on subsequent developments. Stop wasting everyone's time with this discussion when we could be improving the article further and speedy/snow/whatever you want to call it close this thing. I'm somewhat curious what nom expects coverage of an athlete to be other than of their athletic performances. In fact, if such coverage of unrelated matters could be found, primarily focusing on it would violate WP:UNDUE. Smartyllama (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In about five minutes, I was able to find multiple sources including [36] (an English translation can apparently be found here though I don't know how reliable it is), [37] (possibly unreliable translation here), [38], [39], and more. All are coverage of the athlete's performance, results, selection to the team, etc. but of course they are because he's an athlete and that's what athletes are going to get coverage for. That's absolutely not routine. Smartyllama (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And that was without looking up his Japanese name. Looking up that, I got [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], and a whole lot more that I'm not going to go into because this is more than enough already. But if nom thinks it isn't, they're welcome to do more thorough WP:BEFORE and look at the numerous other news stories I could find with a two second Google search for his Kanji name. Smartyllama (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- [45] is clearly, very clearly, a transcript from a press conference (with the athlete quoted at length); [46] only trivially names ("Shohei Iwamoto finished 12th with 1361 points.") and an unremarkable quote from the subject (no biographic information whatsoever which could be used to write an article about the subject); and the final links only has The Rio de Janeiro Olympics held a bonus round of fencing at the Deodoro Swimming Center on the 20th of the 16th day of the Games at the Deodoro Swimming Center, and Tomoya Miguchi (Self-Defense Forces) finished 8th with a total of 553 points, Shohei Iwamoto ( The same) was ranked 35th with 469 points. Trivial coverage. So the previous looks like a poor NOTABILITY-CITEBOMB which actually shows that, unlike what it's poster claims, there is no significant coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Care to comment on the other seven sources I cited or are you just going to cherry-pick? Smartyllama (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also found [47] which appears to cover him in-depth as well. And I'll ask again - if coverage of his athletic performances is "routine", and feature articles about him don't count because they have too many quotes from him (as would be expected in a feature article about anyone), what would count towards GNG? Be specific, don't just count the policy verbatim, I can look it up myself. Smartyllama (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Articles which only mention him and his results in an event without giving any further details (such as the above) are not enough for us to write an encyclopedia article; unless you want it to just be stringed-together "Participated in X, achieved Y". The first of the sources in your latest post (no. 8) I've already given my two cents about. There's one article which you've linked three times, the criticism for the once of it applies to all three instances. As for the others, again [48] contains no useful encyclopedic information about the subject - the first part only trivially mentions him in the course of giving results; the rest is clearly bits from an interview (and not even the interview provides actual bibliographic information on which to write an encyclopedia article). I've looked through the rest and they're very similar. An example of what significant, independent coverage looks like is this or this, which both give plenty of details about the specific athlete's career in broader lines and more stuff to write an encyclopedia article on that just "X participated in Y". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems like a WP:POINTY nomination when done in the middle of the general discussion about notability of Olympians. It has been expanded, and the nominator looks only to have used Google search, which is generally useless for foreign language sources. The fact that someone else has found a Japanese language source makes me believe that more exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked for the foreign language sources, and they don't provide significant coverage either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After reviewing the refs linked above, I am in agreement with RC that the subject lacks in-depth coverage sufficient for GNG. Routine results reports, "features" derived largely from interviews, and database listings are not adequate for establishing notability regardless of the language; plenty of athletes are profiled by independent reporters with a level of detail and breadth well beyond merely recounting match/season performance and without relying on block quotes from the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the discussions above I have expanded the article a bit further, providing a few more sources. These include a detailed report from the 2017 Japan championship focusing on the winner, which was Iwamoto ([49]), media coverage/presentations before the Tokyo Olympics (a courtesy visit to a governor, [50]), and an extensive interview ([51]). Oceanh (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand the stressing from the nominator that interviews do not count at all (or as put in this edit summary: [52]). Maybe they could clarify whether their opinion is based in policy or whether it is just an opinion. I could find nothing in the WP:GNG to explicitly support this view. On the contrary, according to WP:Interviews (which is not a policy or guideline, but a related essay), "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." The essay concludes, "Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary. But the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline." Oceanh (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oceanh, per GNG primary material cannot contribute to notability. Editors have long held that content from an interview is primary -- it has not undergone the independent analysis that would demonstrate unaffiliated third parties consider the info important. That's what the end of the essay is referring to -- if coverage is significant only because the subject is quoted extensively, the coverage doesn't count towards notability. But if the interviewer provides background material or analysis not derived from the interview that has sufficient depth to meet SIGCOV, then that source can be considered for notability.
  The problem with most of the sources in our article is that they are either primary (interviews where the interviewer only provides basic info or recaps some event results -- such as your third new source) or not independent (your first new source is from 自衛隊体育学校, which is a program he works for). Your second source might have been good enough, but I can't find a byline for it and that's explicitly required for newsblogs. JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Nasr[edit]

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

No sources given in the article. I did not find anything after searching on google also. Non-notable person. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources, no content. No interest in over 6 years in adding any content to the article. In its current state, nothing is lost if the article is deleted. Pretty clear delete. --hroest 15:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be George J. Nasr, of this LinkedIn profile and this Google Scholar profile; neither provides material for a pass of WP:PROF. The only claim in the article, that he founded engineering, as a whole, at UL in 1981 is demonstrably false; the engineering school there was founded in 1974 [53]. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:David Eppstein, I don't think this is George J. Nasr, as GJN is too young to have founded anything in 1981 (which fails verification, I agree). I think this is probably Jack Nasser (signing as a thesis advisor in Beirut 1964 here), but I can't find sources establishing notability. There is a Jacques Nasser from Ford with the right age, but not the same individual (left Lebanon long ago).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion No sources cited. Multi7001 (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Provably fair algorithm[edit]

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

Fails notability test -- insufficient independent reliable sources that are about this topic itself. Seems largely to be a promotion for Dragonchain; note that the Bloomberg "article" cited is actually a Dragonchain press release. Another cited source, "provably.com" seems to be a website devoted to promoting the idea of provably fair gambling. And so on. -- The Anome (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this originated as a neologism in cryptocurrency gambling; no usage I could find outside crypto gambling - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the author, I didn't think much about the notability, as I had encountered its concepts a few years before its use in cryptocurrency. I would remind people that "crypto" has its roots in ... "crypto," as in this link to a 2005 crypto book that covers "provably fair" in connection to the "zero-knowledge proof" that forms a foundation for certain cryptocurrency blockchains, and has some relevancy for nearly all of them. In my ignorance 6 years ago, some of this wasn't known. The article's poor state now is due to a lack of competent editors, not due to any notoriety of the topic. Look at the ZKP article, read the History section, which starts out as, "Zero-knowledge proofs were first conceived in 1985 (...)" Provably fair is just a subset of the ZKP. See This citation. It appears the article needs to get an infusion of that sort of fundamental and less of the hodl community. And finally, scholarly research such as this seems to be interested in virtually the same provably fair algorithms in the oversight of governments and their programming, like running a "provably accountable" visa lottery. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment it's a WP:TNT. I note also that as started by you, it was cited to a single bitcoin site - rather than being a high-quality article wrecked by bad editors as you posit, there's no evidence that this article was ever of acceptable quality in the past six years. This strongly suggests there is no reasonable prospect of organic improvement. If you could rebuild the hypothetical good article you posit using the claimed good and non-crypto-blog/non-press-release sources, that would be a start - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After looking at the history I can only agree with what David Gerard said in his reply to I like to saw logs!. Athel cb (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply put, looking at sources in the article and elsewhere, this does not meet the WP:GNG or any other notability guideline I can think of - coverage is either non-independent, insignificant, or unreliable. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nella De Luca[edit]

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

NN journalist, no claim of notability. I couldn't find in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG; the single link in the article talks about how the subject saw the Argentinian President on a vacation in a hotel, and wrote on twitter about it. RetiredDuke (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, fails WP:GNG. I have found more articles that mention her: ABC, ElTrece, iProfesional, but are all regarding the Seychelles stay of Kirchner. At best the name can be redirected to Cristina's article, but even then I have my doubts. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and WP:ONEEVENT - no significant coverage despite mentions in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. That could change in the future, of course. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 20:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Wood (Christian apologist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not establish the notability of the subject. It fails WP:ANYBIO. Some of the references mentioned here are from blogs and YouTube, those are not allowed. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, BLP lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable at all. --RamotHacker (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Jurado[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage of Jurado that isn't completely routine. Article was mass produced in 2012 along with hundreds and hundreds of others. Jurado played entirely during the semi-pro era and there is no assertion of notability. I have attempted numerous searches including ones in conjunction with the clubs that she played for such as this. The best three sources that I found were Magazine Oviedista, Huelva Ya and Ahora Alcalá. The first was a match report squad list, the second was a very brief contract renewal announcement and the last was a routine transfer announcement about her signing for a very low-level amateur side. None of these show the significant coverage required for WP:GNG.

While borderline cases like Raquel Pinel and Alba Pomares should be given the benefit of the doubt, I'm not seeing enough here to actually build a biography. If GNG coverage is found, please let me know. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - any player in Spain's highest male league would be included without a second thought, therefore the same should apply to the country's highest female league. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:FPL, the Primera División is now professional but it wasn't when Jurado was around. This discrepancy exists in numerous countries, for example, the Kategoria Superiore is fully professional but the female equivalent, the Albanian Women's National Championship, is not. It would be inappropriate to create any articles for players in the latter unless they have caps or pass GNG. Even players that pass NFOOTBALL are still required to pass GNG. Also worth noting that lots of Primera División players do pass GNG (e.g. Sara Mérida and María López Hidalgo) but Jurado doesn't seem to be even a borderline case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very strange !vote from @MrsSnoozyTurtle: particularly given their 'delete' !vote at this AFD of a female footballer. Giant Snowman 11:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine match/transfer reports do not establish notability for any athlete, male or female. Recent AfDs have clearly demonstrated this. JoelleJay (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

María José Casamayor[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP on a footballer that played prior to Primera División being professional. Best source currently used is a contract renewal announcement from her club's own website, which does not confer notability. Best sources I can find are AS, Plaza Deportiva and Marca, all of which mention her only once and in passing. These verify that she exists but don't establish a passing of WP:GNG.

If anyone finds any substantial coverage of her, then please ping me and I will expand the article accordingly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NFOOTBALL is a very low bar, and this subject doesn't pass it. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well there's this - ProQuest 2406849908. Nfitz (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that is substantial coverage of her? It is not. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically just a squad listing so no better than the sources mentioned in my nomination statement. I think it's clear that she had a few passing mentions in the big Spanish newspapers but there's no evidence that any of it was ever in depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kavalsky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept by no consensus at AfD in 2012 (2 arguments for redirect, 2 for delete, none for a straight keep). I've not found any sources which indicate that Kavalsky is actually a variation of "Kowalski", so redirecting in my opinion is not suitable. Not suitable for use as a disambig either as there are no article titles containing "Kavalsky". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though Wikipedia has an extraordinarily low bar for articles about surnames (or lists of people with particular surnames), this one has no sources, seems to be based on guesswork/speculation, neither are there any notable Kavalskys with articles on any Wikipedia that I can see. Sionk (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks sources to establish WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. Searching Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News, Google News Archive, Newspapers.com, and the Internet Archive basically only confirms that WP:ITEXISTS. The only name that came up multiple times was a Basil G. Kavalsky. I agree there is no reason for a redirect or disambig. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Panties[edit]

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

It exists, but the coverage and significance are not enough to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable webcomic, it exists, has a few fans, presumably, but no WP:SIGCOV sufficient to pass GNG. At best, this can be mentioned on some list of webcomics. The author does not appear to be notable, so no valid redirect target other than such list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a pretty old article, and the webcomic's been running since 2001 -- which means it means my personal standard of whether I think something is notable. Whether Wikipedia thinks it's notable is a different question. I'm going to look for some sources -- so far, I've found some from Buzzymag, Comic Strip Fan, and SPBURKE. I haven't heard of these websites before, so I don't know about their reliability. jp×g 08:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also got Bleedingcool. There is a Kotaku article, which I know is well-regarded, but I'm not sure if it has SIGCOV (not the primary subject of the article). jp×g 08:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzymag and SPBURKE are interviews and not independent. ComicStripFan is a fan site, not reliable. Bleeding Cool and Kotaku are not substantial.

Delete, cannot locate significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources that show notability. --Darth Mike^(talk) 16:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I don't think this passes notability. The most sources I found that could be considered independent and substantial are this book review, this interview for Dragon Con, and maybe some other interviews like this, this, and this. That might be enough, but probably not. I'd also say that if it is kept it drastically needs rewriting. HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep that's actually a fair number of sources. A lot of them are interviews or based on interviews, but that's not exactly a shocking way for an author to be covered. I don't poo-poo interviews as sources as much as others when considering WP:N, so that's probably part of it. But even if you don't like interviews for WP:N, the publishers weekly review is above the bar for sure and ComicStripFan is certainly reliable in its area. I wouldn't use it for things outside of comic strips, or even for BLPs related to comic strips, but for this? Sure. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article's quality should be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion per our policies. Based on the sources discussed by HenryCrun15 and Hobit, I think this passes the WP:GNG. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one's borderline, but ultimately for me I agree with HenryCrun that the sources aren't significant enough to meet our inclusion threshold. It's a notability case made of a house of very flimsy sourcing trying to buttress the shaky claim to fame. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, for reasons outlined by others above. ––FormalDude talk 01:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeni Ponasenkov[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Article that continued to be puffed/npov. Refs are a mess and the first three are interviews. scope_creep^Talk 08:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Russian wiki has enough articles. He is quite famous and very controversial figure. He is more showman than historian. Now his wiki-article is misleading and present him as an autority. -GorgonaJS (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not pass NPROF, however searching for sources in Russian (Евгений Понасенков) yields significant coverage in Russian media (and some occasional quotes in English media), such as (unsure of reliability of each one, but there are many diverse sources in the Google News results): [54][55][56][57] and a whole lot more. Appears to be notable as video blogger and commentator.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorgonaJS: @Eostrix: Combined with the interviews references and a couple of others in the ref list that I discovered and look reasonably decent, is more than enough for a keep. The question remains how to describe him. In the article is describes him as a historian, journalist, theater director, television host, actor and singer, at one time before it was copyedited quite drastically. Hows would you describe him? Definently not a theater director, television host, actor and singer. I don't see any evidence for being a journalist? I don't see any evidence describing him as a historian. Publicist and commentator? scope_creep^Talk 10:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russian wiki describes him as "publicist specializing in historical revisionism, video blogger, TV presenter and director of a number of performances. He played episodic roles in films and TV series, was an organizer of cultural events; author of publications on the history of the Napoleonic wars, which caused a negative reaction from the scientific and historical community" -GorgonaJS (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, British media did describe him as a "scholar" in 2019 ([58][59] in coverage on Oleg Sokolov), so I'm not sure that's entirely inaccurate though it certainly isn't his claim to notability.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eostrix: What is his claim to notability? Would it be accurate to see he is a publicist and author specializing in historical revisionism. Are any books written, do they have any reviews? scope_creep^Talk 22:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding he's notable for being a publicist / media personality. His book on 1812 has a ruwiki entry - Первая научная история войны 1812 года which is not favorable (many negative reviews). The book probably passes NBOOK on enwiki should anyone want to work through the Russian. I would be careful with using the revisionist label myself, as I don't know enough here and this requires going through the Russian sources carefully.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. I don't have much experience with NBOOK but plan to put up a bunch of books at some point, so I guess it is a good time to start. I think publicist and media personality is better. It seems to chime with what is there. scope_creep^Talk 14:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Seems to be notable and sorted out what he is notable for. scope_creep^Talk 22:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 06:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Perspectives on Political Economy[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economy-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent reliable sources. Misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seddon ^talk 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IFIT Health & Fitness[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, with pseudo-references that are PR pieces and/or passing mentions. ~~I note the declaration by a paid editor in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and they have contributed via edit requests.~~ . (I seem to have made a mistake; it was not edited by the same editor a the other article. ). But still it's fundamentally an advertisement. Please see also. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFit (brand) DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and is WP:ADMASQ. I concur with the nominator in their analysis of the alleged references Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further at this and relate articles, what we really need is a selective merge, but Im not sure even under what name it should be, Maybe some volunteer editor without coi but interested in the subject area might want to do this. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that prior to a month or so ago, the company's name was ICON Health & Fitness; therefore Google searches for significant coverage should include that and also "ICON Health and Fitness" since some media renders it that way. I am in favor of keeping the article, especially considering the company's ownership of NordicTrack and other brands, and its manufacture of Gold's Gym–branded products. I see significant independent reliable coverage online (especially the ICON name) once one scrolls past the ubiquitous shopping sites that end up at the top of Google. (Note that although Icon Health & Fitness has been listed as a COI on my userpage since December, I never ended up editing this article or making any edit requests. In February I made an edit request on the talkpage of the subsidiary iFit (brand) for the founding date in its infobox to be corrected; an editor implemented that in March [60], but that was my only involvement with that article.) TerryBG (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage about the merger, financial restructuring, and brand name change to demonstrate notability. Multi7001 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportsTiger[edit]

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

The page is based on paid PR articles [[61]] [[62]] [[63]] and other sources are not having significant coverage about the subject. So, a clear promotion/advertising article. - Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, fails GNG. --John B123 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG founded in Feb 2020 not notable as this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. Canley (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral Atlas of New South Wales[edit]

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

The wording of the article is written like a foreword and initial chapters for the publication The Electoral Atlas of New South Wales, which is the subject of the article, so it seems likely it could be a WP:COPYVIO from the publication itself (according to Antony Green—one of the editors—only 800 copies were printed so it seems unlikely to meet any notability requirements for third-party coverage). The article creator's account name is the same name as one of the cartographers listed in the credits section, so possible WP:COI issues as well, and article creator has not been active since 2007. As has been mentioned in the edit comments, the content could be useful as an electoral history of the New South Wales colony/state with the book itself as one of the references, but I think due to the COPYVIO and COI concerns it should be deleted. Unfortunately due to the small print run the book is difficult to find for verifying either the copyvio question or for use as a reference. Canley (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GODI[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 03:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steingrimur Rohloff[edit]

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

Unref blp advert. Created in 2005 by an IP, first major contributor has a username indicating it's an autobiography. Claims to notability are unverified; I couldn't establish that he meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He does have some coverage in the Morgunblaðið which is a major Icelandic newspaper, for instance [64][65][66], but he would also need significant coverage from other publications to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has plenty of references now. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://github.com/Feodor2/Mypal/issues/237

[2] ttps://github.com/Feodor2/Centaury/issues/39

[3] ttps://github.com/Feodor2/Centaury/issues/41

[4] ttps://github.com/Feodor2/Centaury/issues/40

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]