Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 17 December 19 >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Aziz[edit]

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

Seems to be referenced by press releases. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dream of horses, Sources are not PRs, If you mention any, I will delete that. Their are many authentic sources about subject.~-Ameen Akbar (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While there are reliable sources mentioning the subject, they are mainly passing mentions (which isn't unusual for someone working in journalism). The exception to this are the Daily Pakistan and UrduPoint articles, which focus on the subject. However, those two articles by themselves aren't enough to build the case for notability. This is a person still at the start of their career so it's possible enough reliable sources proving notability will emerge in the coming years, but for now the article is too soon.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Daily Pakistan, UrduPoint, Mashable Pakistan and Siasat.pk News Blog are some reliable sources.-Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SouthernNights. The Daily Pakistan and UrduPoint articles are actually the same article and that, given the tone (ex: telling the reader to follow the subject on Twitter), points to it being a paid PR article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I see, this is the Daily Pakistan article, and this is the UrduPoint one. They look like different articles to me. However, according to both articles Aziz is associated with UrduPoint which means it is not an WP:Independent source. But the Daily Pakistan source looks fine to me. Finally, I understand what you're saying about the tone, but I think that the journalistic culture in that part of the world is different.VR talk 02:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete One reliable source found, rest are mentions in passing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metre squared per second[edit]

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

The bundled deletion discussion got out of hand, so let's try again with the individual units which are clearly not notable. Although it is a combination of SI base units, the quantity it measures (specific relative angular momentum) is obscure enough that whatever notability that quantity has, there's not enough to trickle out to the unit that measures it. PianoDan (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this unit is pretty specific and an unnamed, derived unit. I don't think there is a particularly suitable merge topic because while the unit is more difficult to understand in its form here, in context – such as at Specific angular momentum – makes the unit more clear. As an alternative we could DABify, but I don't really love that as Viscosity seems to be listed as a suitable DAB entry in the article, but looking at the article for viscosity, I could not find a reference to this unit (or a similar unit). snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 14:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is also a unit for rate of change of area with time. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (AfD nominator) Since this deletion discussion brought it to my attention, I went through and rewrote the Specific angular momentum article. In doing the research for that, I realized that while it's a USEFUL concept, it's not terribly commonly used. It doesn't turn up in most classical mechanics textbooks, since they primarily just use the full form of the angular momentum. Given that, I'd say there's definitely not enough notability in this concept to pass on to the unit. PianoDan (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Viscosity#Kinematic_viscosity where it is mentioned as a unit. But I think deletion is fine, too. As a plausible search term, I cannot imagine there would be many searches for metre squared per second. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DICT and WP:DIRECTORY. Sure, we could find a bunch of independent sources covering this very specific SI unit, but this content is not useful for an encyclopedia. I disagree with redirecting to Viscosity#Kinematic_viscosity because that is like having President of the United States redirect to Joe Biden; there are other quantities that have these units and it is not super helpful or clear to redirect to one of them in particular. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Juma Al Majid Group[edit]

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

Holding company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP- notability is not inherited from its subsidiary companies. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 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. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Sure the company exists and appears in lists but we require references that meet certain criteria and none appear to do so. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I also struggled to find really good sourcing that didn't read like a press release or "journalism" pulled from a press release. However, the company founder, Juma Al Majid, is notable. If an article gets started for him, this company article should redirect. Missvain (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MelanieN (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bisaat (TV series)[edit]

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

Bisaat (TV series)

This article as written does not satisfy television notability or general notability. The article says nothing about Reception of the show, and appears to be left over from before it first aired, so that it cannot be verified that the series has indeed started.

The only references all predate the scheduled start date of the show and are announcements that it is planned, so that there is no significant coverage of an actual series.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Dailytimes.com.pk Announcement that actress will perform as lead No No Yes No
2 Bolnews.com Announcement that actress will perform as lead No No Yes No
3 Images.Dawn.com Announcement that actress and actor will perform as leads in series No No Yes No

It was already moved back to draft space once, and has then been moved back to article space, so that another draftification would be move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Robert McClenon: why do you say those sources are neither independent nor secondary? I agree they don't give significant coverage.VR talk 02:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Vice regent - They are neither independent nor secondary because they are simply announcements from the producer, just like press releases. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Robert McClenon: why do you say these are announcements from the producer? The dawn article seems to be authored by "IRFAN UL HAQ", Dawn's "celebrity correspondent". The bol news article seems to be authored by that organization's "web desk". The author of Daily Times article is not stated.VR talk 02:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Vice regent - Why? Because they are. Because that is the way celebrity journalism works. The signatures are those of the reporters who received the announcements and published them. When the producers and actors are providing information to news media, which they are, why should the journalists do any actual independent digging? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nomination, which is well considered and very detailed, as usual for Robert. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Ravichandran[edit]

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

Non notable bureaucrat. She is among the first female fire officers in the state of Tamil Nadu in India. She has since risen to the position of joint director which is equivalent to the regional head in one of the divisions of the fire services in the state. The president's annual medals for gallantry are also not a metric of notability as they are awarded to quite a few people every year. There are some references wherein she has put out statements pertaining to some fire incidents but nothing to indicate she passes WP:GNG. Also it appears to have been made and largely edited by somebody closely associated with the subject who initially created this article with a wonderfully misleading title First fire women in India without any reference to back this up while mentioning that she was only one among the first fire women within the article. To know more about how common the award is please refer Pg. 849 here - https://dgfscdhg.gov.in/sites/default/files/Notifications.pdf and take a look at the long list of awardees. Jupitus Smart 16:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A brilliant women of course. But non-notable as per Wiki guidelines. Was very much alerted by what nom said about being 'one of few'. That is a bit of game changer. Has she been only, things 'might' be different. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment May be???? she has separate RS for her injuries, and for promotions, so its not all about one event. Also, the article lists the various awards she has recived, and she is notable for being the first woman in the role. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One event is not implied by me, as I believe there is a clear case of failing WP:GNG. All the events in the article are part of her routine work. Also the awards are not notable enough to merit her an article as discussed above. And to understand, she is among (not the) first women in the state of Tamil Nadu in India. That is not very inspiring for me. Jupitus Smart 07:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Kudos to the progress being made in India, but, even with my own due diligence, the majority of coverage is routine crime-related coverage and there is only one feature about her groundbreaking role. At this time, WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Missvain. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M P T High School[edit]

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

The page's source is a Facebook page, which points back to our article as its official website. I found this which is unclear, reliability wise, and says it has zero classrooms, which is another reason for concern about source quality. Without a fuller school name, sourcing can't be found and there's literally nothing to verify its existence, let alone organizational notability. Star Mississippi 03:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete schools need to qualify either WP:NORG, or WP:GNG. Existence is not notability. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Millburne, Wyoming[edit]

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

No evidence of a notable community here; article is sourced only to maps. BEFORE search returned passing mentions regarding road construction, a cemetery and other miscellany but nothing that would establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The State of Wyoming finds the community sufficiently notable to maintain a nearly 4-mile (6.4 km) state highway with the primary purpose of serving the community. (Also, sources other than maps have been added.) An Errant Knight (talk)
  • GNIS - unreliable feature descriptions, doesn't show notability.
  • findagrave.com - unreliable, user-generated content, anyway doesn't give any significant coverage.
  • blacksforkriverlodge.com - a hotel website and not a reliable, independent source. Notably it does not appear to mention Millburne at all.
Fails WP:GEOLAND#1 and WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 09:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eddy - Every one of those is a pure bare mention, not significant coverage that could be used to show a GNG pass. Simply being an "actual town" (i.e., a location on the map) is not a keep argument, because Wikipedia is not a gazetteer and does not host bare gazetteer listings. In more detail:
  • One of the several purposes of Wikipedia is as a gazetteer, it simply is not MERELY a gazetteer. So we have a low bar for notability for towns/settlements, because they generally are presumed to have some coverage, even if before the internet era. This bar does not include rail sidings and GNIS-defined "locales" however. As you can see here, Millburn had a population of 149 in 1930 and 161 in 1940, so a small town but reporting census figures. Seems to be some coverage here but I cannot access. Same here. So nit seems there is enough to work with for an article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where was it ever decided that Wikipedia suddenly becomes something other than an encyclopaedia when we are writing about geographical locations? There is a very strong consensus that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. There is no consensus on Wikipedia at present that it is something else. As you say, the reason for GEOLAND#1 is that we presume that, for populated places with legal recognition (e.g., incorporated towns/cities, not for a place like Milburne) the sources will exist to write an encyclopaedic article, not that we are just OK with Wikipedia being a database of bare gazetteer listings - because Wikipedia is not a database.
The census source above is for the census-tract of which Milburne was part (Uinta county's "district 8" on p. 1187) . Census-tracts are excluded from proving notability under WP:GEOLAND, the wisdom of which is shown in the description of p.1187 in its description of how the districts of Uinta were simply chopped and changed all the time. The book is another bare mention ("Mr. and Mrs. Henry both homesteaded in the Robertson and Milburne, Wyoming areas") - we cannot write an encyclopaedia article that basically states the names of completely non-notable people who were born/lived/died in a place and nothing else. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Gazetteer notes WP:NGEO guidelines before 2012 were less strict. – The Grid (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep absolutely a community, with some newspaper coverage as far away as Casper, a cemetery, clear census records showing it passes GEOLAND, multiple streets at its location on the map, and a state highway that leads directly there. SportingFlyer T·C 00:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not seeing any coverage that would indicate notability. Yilloslime (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the expansion work done after the nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep established community per refs. Djflem (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A lot of "but of course there's sources" without any actual sources giving significant coverage or showing legal recognition having been added to the article. Simply being a "community" or an "established community" does not make it notable. A man named Fisher lived there - not significant coverage of Milburne. A mormon station was at the same site - not significant coverage of Milburne. There was a census-tract that covered the same area - not significant coverage of Milburne or proof of legal recognition. Some sources about the water-quality of Blackfork river - not significant coverage of Milburne. Some maps - not significant coverage of Milburne. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in sources is not detailed, however it is sufficient to establish that a community existed. Therefore I believe the location just scrapes by to meet WP:GEOLAND. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uassist.ME[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. Forbes is a contributor version so not helpful, rest are announcements. Editor's article was rejected but moved themselves. Sheddy007 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 18. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The sources covering the company are legitimate news articles, and these prove its notability. It got achievements and ranked in the Inc. 5000. Article was rejected because I was new and didn't know how to cover everything and then I updated it to meet Wikipedia criteria. But now I wonder how this user:Sheddy007 come to Wikipedia and first thing he did made his first edit on this article, nominating it for deletion. I am new on Wikipedia and I didn't know about deletion process until now. --Ammie Sharon (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article was rejected at Articles for Creation due to lack of sourcing showing WP:NCORP. It was then moved to the main space by the creator. I checked the sources used and all are either press releases, passing mentions, a piece by a Forbes contributor (which does not count towards notability on Wikipedia) or a primary source. None of the awards help with notability. I also did some searching online and I found no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It is WP:TOOSOON for this company to have an article. Missvain (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the author for this. MER-C 14:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Normal[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears limited to softball interviews, PR pieces and trivial mentions. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. As he has played with two bands that have articles, The Zeros (American glam punk band) and Cold Blue Rebels, but neither contains much information about him and thus deletion seems preferable to redirection. signed, Rosguill talk 23:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leven Kali[edit]

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

Non-notable singer. Most of the sources I can find via Google are either interviews or brief notes about him touring alongside Drake, and what few aren't are the usual "here's his new stuff" vehicle articles. Article at present is very poorly sourced to the point of being a BLP vio, and none of the sources cited in the article are acceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maktoob Media[edit]

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

Maktoob Media

News service that does not satisfy corporate notability or general notability as written, and has conflict of interest reporting. This page was created in article space, then moved to draft space by User:Celestina007, then moved back into article space without discussion by the sleeper account Aslah K, who is probably Aslah Kayyalakkath, a founder of Maktoob. The use of draft space is optional, but compliance with conflict of interest policy is not optional.

The article has been reference-bombed, but an analysis of the sources shows that many of them are passing mentions, or are references to the re-reporting of their reporting (which means that they are a news service, but isn't independent secondary coverage), or otherwise not evidence of notability.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Economic Times of India Not a valid link No No No No
2 Maktoob Media Web page of one of founders of company No No
3 Caravanmagazine.in Blog by one of founders of company No No
4 Maktoob Media Corporate web page No No
5 Thewire.in Re-reporting of news originally reported by Maktoob No Yes Yes No
6 Firstpost.com Re-reporting of news originally reported by Maktoob, but does not mention Maktoob No No Yes No
7 Firstpost.com Another re-report of news originally reported by Maktoob, but does not mention Maktoob No No Yes No
8 CNN.COM A re-report of news originally reported by Maktoob that does not mention Maktoob No No Yes No
9 CPJ.ORG Committee to Protect Journalists - Reports of attacks by Indian police on reporters including one from Maktoob Media Yes No No
10 The Hindu Report of attack by Indian police on a Maktoob Media reporter Yes No Yes No
11 TheQuint.com Report of arrest by Indian police on a Maktoob Media reporter Yes No Maybe No
12 TheQuint.com Report of another arrest of a Maktoob Media reporter Yes No Maybe No
13 Vice.com More discussion of abuse by Indian police - Did not find mention of Maktoob Yes No No
14 CPJ.ORG Reports of judicial harassment of journalists including for Maktoob Yes No No
15 suprabhaatham.com Report of an award to Maktoob for reporting Yes Yes Probably Yes
16 https://azhimukham.com/ An editorial about Maktoob reporting on caste issues Yes No No
17 Twitter Report of coverage of Christchurch (NJ) terrorist attack Yes No No Yes
18 Dailysabah.com Re-reporting of Maktoob coverage of Christchurch (NJ) terrorist attack Yes No No
19 Twocircles.net Report of an award to a Maktoob journalist for reporting Yes No No

Reference 15, reporting an award to a Maktoob journalist for an article on caste issues in Kerala, is the only reference that may be evidence of notability. The subject, Maktoob Media, probably is a notable news service. The article was improperly moved into article space by a connected contributor, and should be moved back to draft space for review by neutral editors. Moving the article back to draft space a second time unilaterally would be move-warring, so requesting AFD either to delete, or to draftify and to protect with extended-confirmed protection so that a neutral editor can work on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. Geschichte (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lathan[edit]

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

Only two legitimate entries in the whole disambiguation page: Lathan (name) (the primary topic) and Eas Lathan, so WP:TWODABS applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Standard disambiguation page. The standard automated note at the bottom reads "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Lathan." Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Valid dab page. "Eas" is Gaelic for "waterfall" (according to Eas Fors), so Eas Lathan is a valid entry for this dab page; some other entries may be a bit iffy but do no harm. PamD 10:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already pointed out that the waterfall is the second legit entry. Hatte Lathan, Channay-sur-Lathan and Savigné-sur-Lathan are not, and Lathan is not mentioned in Loire. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there at least 3 eligible entries (I've just added a link for the river), and I don't think I see a primary topic. The name list can be merged into the dab, as it's not big enough to warrant a separate page. – Uanfala (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Three is enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandipan Mondal[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Hasn't had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. References do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ledford, Kentucky[edit]

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

Not in Rennick's directory of Fulton County place names, searching is just bringing up surnames, and topos suggest a small rail feature. No indication that this meets WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. HF (public) talk (Hog Farm's alternate account) 19:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Grid: - Wouldn't WP:SOFTDELETE be applicable here? I'm not sure that the relist is necessary. Hog Farm Talk 02:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would be - sorry about that. I figured getting a consensus would be better than a soft deletion. – The Grid (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The locale has zero notability, being on a mark on the map, if anything.TH1980 (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNIS spam. FOARP (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quarantine (2000 film)[edit]

Quarantine (2000 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable television film; Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV. Found no reliable sources/reviews in a WP:BEFORE. The Film Creator (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The film was notable back then but over time the popularity died out. No reliable sources and failes WP:NFO. HelpingWorld (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Roman Catholic Church in Europe[edit]

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

This denomination does not meet the WP:NCHURCH notability criteria, so I believe the article should be deleted.
The only secondary reliable source which describes this church is one from almost a century ago and which I have not been able to check. The other sources seem to be primary source. All I could find on this denomination is that it seems to have existed between 2011 and 2015 according to official UK data.
As a sidenote, one of the sources is a website titled Old Roman Catholic Church Latin Rite. Is this another denomination? Is it another name for the supposed "Old Roman Catholic Church in Europe" denomination? Veverve (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Peterkingiron. If this really is a larger denomination rather than an individual local church, some sources would need to be provided to establish that, and if so I could reconsider this recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Iowa per the typical practice for candidates who are not otherwise notable. RL0919 (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Hurst[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate running for U.S. Senate. He's currently on the city council for town with 600 people and operates a medical clinic. Meatsgains(talk) 20:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy redirect: As an article that would otherwise be CSD'd. Curbon7 (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:The article creator, LouisNMcDonald, and another new editor Aaafram have been adding placing opinions on the article Talk page rather than this discussion page. AllyD (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hope this is the right place. Apologies if it’s not. In Iowa, Glenn Hurst is notable for his role in the Iowa Democratic Party, pushing to re-elect Iowa's only Democratic congressperson Rep. Cindy Axne. The other two candidates in this race are Mike Franken's and Abby Finkenauer. Franken's page is predominantly about his two Senate races and Finkenauer is no longer an elected official, only having served one term before losing her reelection.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Franken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Finkenauer LouisNMcDonald (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnominated candidates are virtually never notable for such. Even if he wins the Democratic nomination he will probably not be notable unless he wins the general election. He has no other workable claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • beyond this, I just removed a lot of uses of Dr. The article reads a lot like a campaign brochure posted to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be a free platform for non-notable people to advance their political campaigns.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Dr. Hurst is a notable candidate in this race because he is an institutional member of the Iowa Democratic Party. Dr. Hurst was elected and has served as the chair of the Rural Caucus for many years now. https://iowademocrats.org/scc-3/ He has been a staunch advocate for rural communities in Iowa and progressive values. He also serves as a City Council member in Minden, Iowa. Comparatively to the most densely populated states in America, being a city-county council member to a city of 600 may not seem notable, but according to the Iowa Department for Public Health, approximately 43% of Iowa's population lives in rural communities like these. https://idph.iowa.gov/Portals/1/Files/IowaHealthWorkforce/Safety%20Resource%20Plan%201.pdf As an elected official of the Iowa Democratic Party as the Rural Caucus chair and an elected official in a rural community in a state that is 43% rural, I would argue that Dr. Glenn Hurst is a notable political figure in Iowa. Deleting his Wikipedia page would be silencing the existence of prominent figures in rural Iowa. Sanity0050 (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Iowa. Hyper-local political figure fails WP:NPOL at this time. KidAd • SPEAK 00:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: According to Wikipedia:Notability (people), Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage have a place here. In Iowa, Glenn Hurst is a major figure:
Sources

NBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCf_xN1bjJA&t=54s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGQZ-NT5sw0

Des Moines Register: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2021/08/07/delta-variant-iowa-coronavirus-covid-take-care-children-pandemic-rages/5505325001/

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2021/09/04/running-office-iowa-2022-kim-reynolds-chuck-grassley-ashley-hinson-cindy-axne-democrats-republicans/5573733001/

MSNBC: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/friday-s-campaign-round-12-3-21-n1285313

US News: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/iowa/articles/2021-11-24/iowa-farmer-muhlbauer-ends-us-senate-campaign

ABC: https://www.kcrg.com/2021/09/22/grassley-has-big-lead-over-challenger-finkenauer-des-moines-registermediacom-poll-says/

https://www.weareiowa.com/article/news/local/local-politics/bob-krause-running-for-senate-against-chuck-grassley-democratic-primary-2022-iowa-congress/524-fea641a2-6344-462e-b9c8-4c181901840a

Quad-City Times: https://qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/campaign-almanac-for-wednesday-december-15-2021/article_4e181f5d-e753-565c-a79e-dd902d20ed46.html

https://qctimes.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/u-s-senate-hopeful-hurst-aims-to-break-cycle-of-loss/article_c5d225ca-e91c-587e-b7f3-80c1ffcd6420.html

CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwEIRQ-PmOg

Siouxland News https://siouxlandnews.com/news/local/dr-glenn-hurst-announces-candidacy-for-us-senate

WIZM: https://www.wizmnews.com/2021/11/25/muhlbauer-ends-us-senate-campaign-for-iowa-seat-held-by-88-year-old-chuck-grassley-cites-death-of-nephew-for-dropout/

Carroll Times Herald: https://www.carrollspaper.com/glenn-hurst-for-iowa/video_1082c16e-f36b-11eb-9eec-d383e41c1345.html

https://www.carrollspaper.com/news/defund-the-police-we-have-no-job-for-them-to-do-says-rural-u-s/article_07462af8-f52f-11eb-b67b-7351a13d3d88.html

https://www.carrollspaper.com/news/senate-candidate-supports-medicare-for-all-with-dental-vision/article_da686fc8-f52e-11eb-8fa1-6bbab1f1d122.html

https://www.carrollspaper.com/news/minden-doctor-running-as-democrat-for-u-s-senate/article_e6b57e30-f36a-11eb-82d2-4f7b8f7b6e51.html

Iowa Capital Dispatch: https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2021/08/11/hundreds-attend-event-calling-for-reynolds-to-reverse-ban-on-mask-mandates/

https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2021/09/18/democrats-set-sights-on-tough-2022-election-at-annual-steak-fry/

https://www.kcrg.com/2021/09/22/grassley-has-big-lead-over-challenger-finkenauer-des-moines-registermediacom-poll-says/

CBS: https://www.kimt.com/news/iowa/iowa-politicians-react-to-president-bidens-afghanistan-speech/article_db03a230-a657-512d-984c-8dc80d691603.html

https://www.kcci.com/article/democrat-retired-admiral-michael-franken-launches-us-senate-campaign-in-iowa/37962061

Bleeding Heartland: https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2021/12/14/abortion-justice-is-health-care-justice/

https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2021/09/15/its-time-to-codify-roe/

https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2021/10/23/john-deere-strike-highlights-many-u-s-policy-deficiencies/

https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2020/12/10/the-long-game-where-does-winning-in-rural-iowa-begin/

https://www.bleedingheartland.com/2020/12/06/iowa-democratic-party-vs-democratic-voters-can-the-shepherd-find-the-sheep/

Iowa Starting Line:

https://iowastartingline.com/2021/08/11/iowans-rally-against-gov-reynolds-ban-on-school-mask-requirements/

https://iowastartingline.com/2021/07/26/union-members-supporters-call-on-senators-to-pass-pro-act/

https://iowastartingline.com/2020/09/04/iowa-doctors-insulted-by-ernsts-accusations-of-covid-fraud/

https://iowastartingline.com/2020/09/01/bike-nights-large-gatherings-continue-in-council-bluffs-despite-pushback/

https://iowastartingline.com/2020/07/14/pott-county-defends-armed-militia-embedded-with-police-at-rumored-blm-event/

https://iowastartingline.com/2020/06/23/as-anti-aca-lawsuit-moves-forward-dems-hit-ernst-on-health-care/

https://iowastartingline.com/2019/06/20/joni-ernst-target-of-new-group-highlighting-iowans-struggles/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisNMcDonald (talk • contribs) 02:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:Last cycle, Theresa Greenfield's Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_Greenfield was approved even though she was at the time an unnominated candidate running as a democrat. It is essential to make sure all pages are considered with the same precedence level while they reside in related space. Theresa Greenfield was not notable in Democratic politics and was approved while unnominated. Dr. Glenn Hurst is an elected official in a city in Iowa and an elected official in the Iowa Democratic party as the rural caucus chair. https://iowademocrats.org/scc-3/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanity0050 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Iowa as a usual and proper outcome. Any biographical details can be added to the page about the election. And as an aside, the Greenfield article was closed as a redirect at AFD prior winning the primary. It was subject to three deletion reviews and then the moved from draft to the mainspace after a discussion at ANI. --Enos733 (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:GNGand WP:NORG.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Synod of Saint Timothy[edit]

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

I found nothing on this group. The 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions has nothing on this group. Both websites given in the article are dead. The other website given in the last working archive of the website of this group (2009) has one archive from 2013. None of the two website give us any clue to try to find any shred of notability for this group. The article has been created in 2006, and since then no one has added any single source which could be used to argue the notability of this group.
All I have been able to find on this group is this page of a non-notable denomination, which states: "Father Robert Lyons [...] has also served as the Chair of the Worship Commission for the Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy (and it's predecessor, the Society of Saint Timothy)."
Therefore, as per WP:NCHURCH, I think this article should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: this article seems to have alreay been deleted by an AfD once in 2005, was privately kept here, and was recreated in 2006. Veverve (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korelovo[edit]

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

Also nominating:

Voskresenovka, Kursky District, Kursk Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nikolayevka, Kursk Oblast, OKTMO 38620412161 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toporok, Kursk Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Melnikov, Kursk Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mass-created cookie-cutter articles on Russian villages with population <10. These fail WP:GEOLAND due to A) lack of legal recognition and B) no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The sources provided appear to be either government documents (census tables etc) or autogenerated sites that scrape databases to calculate weather, post office locations, railroad stations, etc with no fact checking. Melnikov in particular has a population of 3 and satellite views show a single farm, which makes me suspect that these are census units that have been mistranslated in a similar way to the Iranian ābādī stubs. –dlthewave ☎ 20:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mislead the community. All my articles concern legally recognized localities, which is confirmed by the sources I cite. The only argument against the existence of some of them is the low population, which varies over time. ThWiki1910 00:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 19:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 19:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable location, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As with previous discussions about Russian selos, these locations completely lack any sources on which an actual article can be written and instead rely on a bare listing in a census table (that seem to indicates these are basically census tracts, and so a WP:GEOLAND#1 fail) with no other sourcing to show notability and nothing that can be found anywhere because essentially we're talking about an area of farmland. The creator has padded this out with stuff about weather and transport links that is not actually about the locality per se. FOARP (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Oko-Flex Inya[edit]

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

I don't believe anything cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG; article possibly created by the person themselves. Searching for them online brings up nothing except one or two minor articles authored by them and a few corporate sites that mention them in passing, but nothing newsworthy. Non-notable businessperson. Lewcario (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Not seeing anything here that shows WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN outside of run of the mill hyperlocal coverage.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Nehring[edit]

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

Apparently, a previous version of this article was deleted by PROD so the new version is ineligible to be deleted by proposed deletion. I don't believe Nehring meets WP:NPOL for notability which primary rests on the fact that he was very young when he was elected to a country council seat in Washington state. Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled El-Ahmad[edit]

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

I PROD'd this article because I don't believe this "digital marketer, social media influencer and reputation management expert" has SIGCOV but the tag was removed so I'm initiating this deletion discussion. Usually folks in this field have published a few books that might have some coverage but that is not true in this case. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "collaborated with a global team to launch an impactful cross-platform social media and web campaigns to align with online and print advertising/added-value programmes". It's a CV. Vexations (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable promotional article, fails WP:NOTCV. Jumpytoo Talk 21:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Puff piece. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Barnsley F.C. CEO with the same name might be notable, but this guy is not.--Mvqr (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional content, No evidence of notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The language used is promotiona, looks like a blog article rather than an encyclopedia one. Juggyevil (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see that the character achieves notability or sufficient fame, especially since I am from the Middle East and am very familiar with events and personalities. This article is an apparent attempt to promote, and contains a conflict of interest. Osps7 (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Porthos Range. ✗plicit 00:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Kerr (Antarctica)[edit]

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

Mass-produced import from GNIS; if only the name is known it doesn't pass WP:GEOLAND4, and I cannot find further details. Search results are mirrors or WP and GNIS. Mere existence is not notability. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • GEOLAND #4 states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." How it was spotted and who it's named after are not statistics or coordinates, so you can't use that to justify deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is laughable. "Was named" is by no means notable information beyond existence, nor is "was seen from an airplane"; these are rote identification data, even if not numbers. Height would be more useful but we don't even have that! Your bar is on the ground, and a single simple database entry is utterly inadequate. Reywas92Talk 04:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or alternatively redirect/merge to Porthos Range - This article was literally COPIED directly from GNIS. Not a COPYVIO per se as GNIS is public domain but honestly we need to do better than a single-source article that consists only of data copied directly from a database, with NO indication of notability, and that's it. This is a classic example of why Wikipedia is not a gazetteer because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we have encyclopaedic articles with actual content in them, and not simply entries from a database of every named feature in an unpopulated continent. FOARP (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Porthos Range. For these Antarctic locations where very little can be said, I suspect a table listing the various peaks/etc. at the range article would be the most useful way to present this information. Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Hog Farm. There is always somewhere to merge to for geostubs - WP:ATD.Ingratis (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. Fails GNG and NOTDATABASE. Avilich (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Porthos Range. Here and there I see work has started in folding some of these Antarctica stubs into more substantial articles. Allowing that work to continue is preferable to zapping out individual stubs. Mccapra (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Minimal participation and no agreement after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Henrich[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Set designers don't get much press, and a shared Oscar nomination isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In my experience, shared Oscar nominations, particularly single ones and in obscure fields, do not stave off deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Animorphs books. This result is for the specifically nominated article only. It could be cited for WP:BOLD redirects of similar articles, but separate discussions may be needed if other editors disagree. RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Absolute (novel)[edit]

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

not notable by itself, only as part of a series. no significant coverage for this one, and for all other books in Category:Animorphs books. So I propose to redirect them all to List of Animorphs books Artem.G (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17[edit]

Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable aviation accident. Cargo plane crashes are common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep This was a total hull loss and was a fatal accident too. Also, cargo door regulation changes for Evergreen and for McDonnell Douglas were significantly revised. Appears to pass WP:AIRCRASH. We also already do have American Airlines Flight 96, which was even less of an incident but just because it is a cargo aircraft, doesn't mean it is non-notable every time. Seems like this one checks out. Username006 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 20:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANTI FADE records[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popboomerang (2nd nomination) Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's an important record label within Melbourne and Geelong. They've had 80+ releases, have been around 10 years, and their bands get regular press. If anything I'd like to see more Wiki pages about their artists.Jimmyjrg (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their bands getting regular press is irrelevant per WP:NCORP, which entails that the label must have gotten press. Because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Geschichte (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Significance of label, quality of page, and level of media about artists.Tenniscourtisland (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not very impressed/convinced by the boilerplate "as for Popboomerang" rationale, particularly as that nomination reason was that Popboomerang had "very few notable artists", then when it is suggested that this label's roster has significant coverage, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I've added a few references and pruned out any connected citations, coverage (of the label as well as its artists) is decent in significant independent publications such as Beat Magazine and NME, and also Forte which has covered the music and entertainment scene in regional Victoria since the mid-1990s. --Canley (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a reasonable start class article about a notable (although 'alternative') record label with a lengthy publishing track record. Pakoire (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources for notability. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Deleon[edit]

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

Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Edwardx (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify. With the possibility of the subject becoming notable in the near future, this is the best alternative. ✗plicit 00:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hermione Cull[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No senior appearances for either club or national team. BlameRuiner (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She does meet notability. She was chosen to play for Arsenal. She is one of the four goalkeepers to play for Arsenal. She has participated in several matches; it doesn’t matter that she has always been on the bench, she was still part of the team those times. She’s also the goalkeeper for the England U19 team. She was meant to be playing for Arsenal a few days ago, but she was unable to because of COVID-19 restrictions.--PageThoodward (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are substantially stronger in the light of the applicable guidelines. These guidelines are, to summarize: (a) notability requires substantial coverage in sources (WP:GNG), and (b) notability is presumed for sportspeople who have participated in matches at a certain level (WP:NGRIDIRON).

The "keep" side's arguments are limited to invoking the NGRIDIRON guideline, but they do not address that NGRIDIRON only establishes a presumption of notability, which can therefore be rebutted. That's the argument the "delete" side makes: they argue that since no substantial coverage in reliable sources can be found about this man, the presumption of notability established by NGRIDIRON has successfully been rebutted.

And it is this argument by the "delete" side that is not addressed adequately by the "keep" side. To do so, they'd need to cite specific notability-establishing sources to rebut the rebuttal of the presumption of notability. Because they fail to do so, I must give their views less weight and find a rough consensus in favor of deletion, taking into consideration the weight of the arguments presented. Sandstein 09:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Vainowski[edit]

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

Played in just a single game. I could not find a single source on newspapers.com or google beyond stats databases, so I don't believe the "presumption" of notability in WP:NGRIDIRON is upheld. None of them even say which game he played in, just that it was one in the 1926 season. Reywas92Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 03:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Oh so now you're targeting my creations? Keep per pass of NGRIDIRON. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where there's smoke there's fire. NGRIDIRON is not an iron law that any player is exempt from significant coverage, it's a "presumption" of notability ("conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept"). The top of the page says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." However, this is not the case here: sufficient sources do not exist. Applicable policies and guidelines section: "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." Reywas92Talk 16:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to note that in cases where a professional career is known, we've never deleted an article on a National Football League player. Similarly, I believe no MLB player, no NBA player, and no NHL players have ever been denied of an article (except in cases where the given names were not known). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Reywas92: By the way I found which game he played in, a week two loss versus the Detroit Panthers, see here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • "professional career" one game is not a career. Merge/redirect to 1926 Louisville Colonels season would be a good ATD, that needs a roster. Reywas92Talk 18:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where a professional game has been found, no player in either of the "Big Four" Leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) has had an article deleted, merged, or redirected. (excluding players without known given names) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I also found that a person known as "Vainowski" or "Vanowski" played professional football in several other seasons between 1923 and 1931. See him on the Pullman-Roseland Panthers in 1924: [4]; the Panthers again in 1929: [5]; a Harvey, Illinois professional team in 1925: [6]; and the Rockford Gophers in 1923: [7]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is original research and I have removed it. You do not know these are the same person. Reywas92Talk 23:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Did I say it was the same person? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So it's not relevant to include, especially those with different spellings! Reywas92Talk 23:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Typos were much more common back in the 1920s, which could explain the differences in spelling. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NGRIDIRON. This is not a sub-stub that has existed for five or ten years without any development.The article has existed for barely a year and should be given time to develop further -- the article has grown eight fold (from 200 characters of narrative text to more than 1,650) in the day since the nomination. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Meeting WP:NGRIDIRON means nothing if the player fails GNG, per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES and that football is not very different from football, so to speak. Geschichte (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find NGRIDIRON much different than NFOOTY. In American football, you only are notable when you've played in either the NFL (which Vainowski has), CFL, AFL, AAFC, or USFL (or meet GNG). For NFOOTY players, you can play one minute in probably 50+ different leagues (including some tier 3 or tier 4 minor leagues) and still be considered notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd also like to note again that no NFL player ever, has been denied of an article when his professional career is known. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we keep MLB players appearing in one game, I would assume it's the same for NFL players. Although most baseball articles I've seen mention the game in which the player played. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article meets WP:NGRIDIRON by playing in at least one game (though probably several games). It is now a decent stub with some biographical info, so merging to a list would not make sense. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @BeanieFan11, Oaktree b, Cbl62, and Editorofthewiki: Per NSPORT, meeting any sport-specific guideline does not exempt an article from the requirement of ultimately meeting GNG. This is in the first sentence of NSPORT, in the FAQs at the top of the page, and the first paragraph of the Applicable policies and guidelines section. It is completely irrelevant whether or not we've ever deleted Big 4 athletes; all that matters is the subject having SIGCOV in IRS. JoelleJay (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not disputing that "ultimately" it needs to pass GNG, but this is a relatively new article that is a clear pass of NGRIDIRON that has been developing nicely. This is not like so many cricket substubs that have existed for more than 10 years and remained in bare-bones condition. The presumption of notability should be credited in this case. Cbl62 (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's had a full year for editors to expand. Are we supposed to wait 2 or 5 or 10 years for a stub to get attention? Why not userify/draftify and list it at the gridiron project as an article to find sources for, like many subjects are at Women in Red? No other biographies outside sports enjoy such a grace period for editors to add material after a topic has been brought to AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify??? I see no reason for that, the article appears to be in great shape IMO. Also, unlike Women In Red, it seems few editors in WP:NFL work on historical articles of this era (besides me and Cbl62), so I doubt it would get much attention in draft. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So the hope is that a hypothetical editor in the future who happens to have access to local/offline refs will stumble across this article, realize it lacks SIGCOV sourcing, and expand it accordingly? What if they can't find sources? Would it be acceptable to delete it then?
Most of the current sources, and the bulk of the article, are in this section:

A player identified by the name "Vainowski" or "Vanowski" also played line positions for other professional football teams in Illinois from 1923 through the early 1930s, including the following appearances:
"Vanowski" played for the Rockford Gophers during the 1923 season, recording a safety against the Moline Indians.
"Vainowski" (sometimes referred to "Vanowski") played at the right guard and left guard positions for Joey Sternaman's Pullman Panthers of the Midwest Football League in 1924. He was described as one of the "shining lights of the Pullman squad."
"Vanowski" played for the Harvey Athletic Association (Harvey, Illinois) professional football team during the 1925 season.
"Vainowski" returned to the Pullman professional football team in 1929.
"Vainowski", identified as a 238-pound tackle out of Loyola, again played for Chicago's Pullman Panthers in 1931.

, which is just trivial mentions and smacks of WP:OR, and the only coverage of "him" is from two bare-bones obits that don't even mention his NFL career. JoelleJay (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: @Reywas92: Vainowski is admittedly an edge case, and so I understand your skepticism. If it were to be deleted, it would not be a significant blow to Wikipedia's coverage of American football. That being said, this discussion raises two important points.
First, not every biographical article needs to be capable of expansion into a Feature Article. If this article is never expanded beyond where it is today, it still represents legitimate and valuable encyclopedic content IMO. The NFL is the tippy top of the pyramid in the sport of professional American football, and Vainowski was one of the pioneer players in the early days of the sport. The current article hits the essential points. Vainowski played professional football for nine years from 1923 to 1931. Unlike the modern game, players did not become rich from playing professional football in the 1920s. Accordingly, and as reflected in the article, Vainowski returned to a normal life, working for the telephone company for 34 years, marrying and having four children. There is not a lot more that can be said, or that needs to be said, about Vainowski.
Second, it is important to keep in mind that NGRIDIRON is very tightly focused. The only players from the years prior to World War II who qualify for a presumption of notability are those from the NFL from 1921 to 1939. This in stark contrast to rugby and soccer, where we have SNGs that purport to establish notability for tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?) of players who appeared in as little as one game in dozens of leagues at varying levels (top of the pyramid and on down to the middle of the pyramid) and for more than two centuries of competition. The rugby and soccer SNGs have resulted in a plethora of sub-stubs and have drawn the ire of many editors. While some sports have failed to properly tailor their SNGs, American football is not one of those sports. NGRIDIRON was tightly focused alreaady, and in the past year we have narrowed it even further by eliminating the Arena Football League and squashing efforts to add the World Football League. Earlier this year, I also proposed raising the bar to two games (which BTW would have excluded Vainowski), but that proposal did not find consensus.
My overall point: The NFL notability guideline is not a problem area for Wikipedia. Vainowski presents an edge case where reasonable minds can and will differ, but IMO the article already presents sufficient encyclopedic content and should be kept. Cbl62 (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the NFL was so different in this period that playing in it wasn't even worth mentioning in a 1950s obituary, and as a consequence all we can gather on him is insignificant scraps from non-NFL game reports, then I think the only value to the encyclopedia of having a standalone article is to satisfy a sense of completion rather than provide encyclopedic coverage. If he hadn't played this one game, he would 100% not have an article; and since this one game did not garner SIGCOV of him--to the extent that someone asking for info on his team's composition just 9 years later received almost nothing from someone in contact with its manager--then what does this article achieve that can't be mentioned in a redirect to the team/season/etc.? JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You raise valid points User:JoelleJay which is why I advocated a two-game minimum for NGRIDIRON. I wish my proposal had been accepted. There is however a legit POV that the NFL is different and special. Press coverage of the NFL in the 1920s was not as it became later but there is a reasonable view that the early pioneers of the NFL should be Wikipedia notable for their early contributions in getting the NFL started. On balance, though, no tears will be shed if this particular one game NFLer is deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON. SNGs are particularly useful for cases like this, where the subject is almost 100 years old and most contemporary sources are unavailable. Rlendog (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is apparently going to need some closer thought, because the NSPORTS SNG is particularly clear that GNG has to also be met (and it currently isn't). The idea that even after a year there's still a Keep !vote going "we should keep it since we might get more in the future", but if we can't find the sources now, why should we expect to in the future? With regard to BeanieFan's repeated argument that other articles under gridiron haven't been deleted, firstly I'm not confident that's the case, but secondly, almost all gridiron applicable individuals meet GNG, if you wanted to cite valid precedent you'd need to prove lots of "Yes to gridiron, no to GNG, but still kept" in the recent past. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been closely following American football AfDs for the past decade and can verify that we have not (to my recollection) ever deleted an NFL player. As noted above, the NFL is the tippy top of the American football pyramid. I did propose this summer raising the bar to two NFL games, but that proposal was soundly rejected by the community. Cbl62 (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: While I've only been on wikipedia for a year, I've searched extensively through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football/archive to check the consensus of American football AFDs—and—as I've repeatedly stressed, found that no NFL player has ever been denied of an article (I'll note that in c. 2009 several were deleted, but later restored when their professional career was found). If you're not sure that's the case, then you can look at every American football AFD with "delete" as the result in the past decade to be sure. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62 and BeanieFan11: my delete !vote included several aspects on this. I do indeed imagine that very few NFL players fail AfD, but I also imagine that very few of those fail GNG (more strictly, NBASIC). Here, we would seem to have a person who does fail GNG, whilst passing GRIDIRON. You've not contested that the NSPORTS criteria necessitate passing GNG as well. If you believe that it's sufficiently falling out of being descriptive, then the logical act would be for one of you two to formally request a policy change to exempt the GRIDIRON scope from GNG (in the same way as NPROF is). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 18:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but remove all the content about other players with similar names who may or may not be the same person, per WP:FRANKIE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi @Metropolitan90:, while no doubt you're right about what to remove if kept, could I ask what your specific grounds are for keep? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's presumed notable per WP:NGRIDIRON for having played one NFL game. And he's not just a name in one boxscore with zero other data; at least we know when he was born and when he died. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Metropolitan90: but NSPORTS/Gridiron is abundantly clear that they also need to pass GNG - how does it do that? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Riddle me this: what is the point of an SNG if they also have to pass GNG? This type of article is exactly why SNGs exist. Curbon7 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            Per NSPORT: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. In other words, the purpose of the SNG is so mass article creators can pad their stats quicker an article may be in mainspace sourced only to refs that verify the subject meets the SNG, such as databases, without the threat of immediate A7 deletion or AfD challenge. Other biographies with such sourcing should very quickly attract scrutiny from NPP/AfC reviewers/general patrolling editors, but if the SportsRef Stamp of Approval is there editors are much less likely to put in the effort to investigate whether the subject actually meets GNG. It also gives editors a bit more leeway with how long they can take to find offline/untranslated/etc. SIGCOV. But once notability is challenged, those who want to retain the article are expected to produce GNG sourcing or provide a very credible claim that SIGCOV exists (like pointing to a specific book that isn't accessible online but would be expected to contain adequate coverage). It seems editors trust GRIDIRON's predictive accuracy enough that NFL players are extremely rare AfD targets, but that doesn't mean they all actually meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The NSPORTS exception is generally only applied to soccer wherein hundreds of thousands of players could pass the SNG with a few minutes of appearance in a signal game, as well as a few other limited examples. WP:NGRIDIRON, and SNGs in general, are made for the purposes of this exact articles, otherwise there would be no purpose for an SNG if they also need to apply on GNG. SNGs are basically custom-made for historical bios such as this, whereupon we presume that sources exist in some offline form if the criteria is passed. Curbon7 (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's incorrect. If you want the NSPORTS carveout to be just on football (I suppose I should say association football, here, to be clear) then the gridiron (and every other sport SNG) supporters should be encouraging a policy change, not just flat-out ignoring extremely clear text. To give examples of other sports where this has been applying, we've had an avalanche of NCRIC cases in the last 6 months on this exact point. I've also participated in AfDs on table tennis and athletics specifically with regard to NSPORTS/GNG. While a tad sarcastic, JoelleJay's reasoning on why SNGs like this exist is correct. So it's not "no purpose" in general, but once we actually get to an AfD, then other than NPROF/NCORP etc, then there's no purpose. I imagine the closer's going to have fun on this one. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to not passing GNG. Appreciate that he played in the NFL, but as others have pointed out he still needs significant coverage, which he apparently lacks at the moment. JonnyDKeen (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes the SNG. It may be an edge case on GNG, but there's no point to even having an SNG if we're going to delete the edge cases. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the above discussions on the purpose of NSPORT and its relationship to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't assume that I didn't. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently I hadn't !voted on this yet. He can be listed at his team's page and season and expanded from there if anyone actually finds SIGCOV, but so far nothing has been found to support his meeting GNG--which is the guideline governing all sports bios once notability is challenged--and no one has invoked a PAG-based reason to keep. JoelleJay (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'd like to note that for some reason Newspapers.com is having trouble identifying some results from the 1920s-30s, which makes it even more difficult to find sources on this topic. Considering that he played nine seasons at the professional level (and possibly some more in college at Loyola) and the issue with Newspapers.com that I just mentioned, I believe that sources should be presumed to exist and the "presumption" of notability should stand. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the first I've seen for just directly stating that sources can't be found and should just be assumed to exist. Wikipedia doesn't really have an effort threshold in retention-terms (so BEFORE has a reasonable expectation, but that's on nominators wanting to delete), so even if it would be a huge amount of effort to actually find sources, that doesn't mean they can be assumed. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have already found sources, though none of you delete voters are happy with that, so I said additional ones are likely to exist due to playing nine seasons (few people can say they played one) at the professional level. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BeanieFan11: I thought I'd read all the sources you'd linked in - do any of them have significant coverage, in case I've missed any? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while online sources are not there, I think this is a perfect example of an SNG working, since he does meet WP:GRIDIRON. I haven't kept up my membership on Newspapers.com, but there appears to be some coverage of him. Onel5969 TT me 14:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Polygon#Naming. If anyone needs anything from the page, let me know and I'll drop it on the talk page of the redirect.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enneadecagon[edit]

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

Non-notable polygon. The mathworld page is telling: [8]. The only content here that's not completely formulaic is three unsourced constructions: one formulaic quadratrix of Hippias (replace the 19 with n in the construction to get an n-gon), and two original research approximations. The existence of arbitrarily accurate approximations to any n-gon follows from constructible numbers being dense in the reals. Suggest redirect to Polygon#Naming. Danstronger (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. The only footnote, to The Symmetries of Things, gives a range of pages that does not mention this shape at all (nor is it mentioned elsewhere in the book). The unfootnoted reference to Finkel A Mathematical Solution Book has literally one word on this topic and the MathWorld extlink has one short sentence. That's not the in-depth coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Polygon#Naming, per David Eppstein and the precedent of where higher names following this system redirect to (e.g. icosidigon). Double sharp (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. There is an extra source on the talk page. However, it's not used in the article and therefore cannot be used to support notability as the article stands. And since its sole mention of the regular 19-gon is in an exercise – "The next new prime, 19, requires two trisections. The details are left to the reader!" – it obviously would not support notability even if it were used. :) Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per standard practice, sources don't have to be in the article to support notability, just relevant and available. The apparent lack of depth is the more serious problem. XOR'easter (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per lack of sources as discussed. I really like this article and want it to exist, but it just doesn't seem to meet notability. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as a WP:POVFORK. Appropriately-sourced content about the relevant viewpoints should be incorporated (in due proportion) into existing articles. RL0919 (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

African Americans (ethnicity)[edit]

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

Blatant WP:POVFORK of African Americans. Contested redirect. – bradv🍁 16:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely not a POV fork. There are plenty of articles and journals which discuss the African American ethnicity at length as a specific lineage to those who are descendants of slavery. There is no disputing that African Americans are a specific ethnic group that should have their own page dedicated to them, which currently does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taharka155 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would aso appreciate if this Bradv individual would explain what makes this page a POV fork and dispute the fact that African Americans are a specific ethnic group beyond being a racial category.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taharka155 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ComentThis is simply not true. The article African Americans makes the claim that anyone of the black racial group is classified as African American. The article that I created is specifically for those who are descendants of chattel slaves in the United States, which are a genetically, culturally, and historically distinct ethnic group from Caribbean, African, and Afro-Latino immigrants in the United States. The Britannica article which I used as a source also notes this distinction clearly. I have stated previously that Nigerian Americans, Jamaican Americans, Kenyan Americans, Ghanaian Americans, Haitian Americans, and every other Black immigrant ethnic group has a specific Wikipedia page for their people, and yet there is not one for African American descendants of slaves. 95% of Black immigrants do not identify with the term African American, as is cited in the page. I do not see the issue here, as the author of the African Americans page has clearly stated that content contained within that page is pertaining simply to race and not ethnicity. --Taharka155 (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lynch, Hollis. "African Americans". Britannica.com. Britannica. Retrieved 2021-12-18. African Americans are largely the descendants of enslaved people who were brought from their African homelands by force to work in the New World. Their rights were severely limited, and they were long denied a rightful share in the economic, social, and political progress of the United States.
  • Delete Ethnicity can not be determined by descent. This a POV attempt to claim that "pureblooded" African Americans have to have slaves as ancestors. As with any claim about "purity of blood", this is only a racist's pipe dream. Dimadick (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coment@Dimadick:At no point in my article is anything about blood purity mentioned. Literally in the genetics page it shows the genetic diversity of African Americans with European and Native American heritage. I don't know why this statement about being a pipe dream is not considered an insult. Also I will expect you all to also be marking Nigerian American and all other immigrant ethnic pages for deletion as well. If not I will nominate it for deletion --Taharka155 (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coment@Dimadick: Also addressing your claim that ethnicity cannot be determined by ancestry, this is from the Oxford's definition and the official wikipedia page on ethnic groups: "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area". The claim that ethnicity is not determined by descent is purely opinionated and not based on reality. --Taharka155 (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main African Americans article, it's basically once and the same. Could be a brief mention in a genetics section in the other article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I agree with Oaktree b and support merging with the African American article Safyrr 22:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is relevant and is properly documented with citations. Louie (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Article is not a fork of African Americans. That article clearly states in the introductory statements that it is a category based upon race, and includes a multitude of ethnic groups. African Americans (ethnicity) is properly cited, and gives ample information of what distinguishes it from the that article. There is a clear distinction between ethnic African Americans and for example Kenyan Americans, or Jamaican Americans, both of whom have pages dedicated to them that exclude African Americans who descend from enslaved people. I have a number of cited genetic, historical, cultural, and socioeconomic differences that clearly distinguish these groups from those African Americans who descend from slaves brought to the United States, which clearly identify them as a separate ethnic group, something that the article African Americans simply does not do. Information pertaining to African American slave descendants such as their history and culture is vast and it deserves its own separate article. --Taharka155 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The article is about an ethnicity called "African Americans" which excludes each and every person not descended from enslaved Americans. None of the given sources supports the existence of such a group. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @Rsk6400: The sources you provided when you described African Americans as an ethnic group, do not make any mention of ethnicity, only race. "The Black racial category includes people who marked the “Black, African Am., or Negro” checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican." This clearly denotes several ethnicities, with African American being specifically listed apart from Haitian Americans, Jamaican Americans, etc. --Taharka155 (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @Rsk6400: - The ethnicity which I've provided many citations for as being distinct genetically, culturally, historically and in socioeconomics from other Black immigrant ethnicities doesn't exist..... This is ethnocidal language that erases an ethnicity and contrary to everything cited within the article and the works of many notable historians and anthropologists.
  • Delete/Merge Obvious POVFORK, the African Americans article begins African Americans are an ethnic group consisting of Americans with partial or total ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Emphasis mine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment @Hemiauchenia:No ethnicity is based entirely upon race. The page for African Americans is mislabeled and the source provided does not mention it as an ethnicity but a racial category. "The Black racial category includes people who marked the "Black, African Am., or Negro" checkbox. It also includes respondents who reported entries such as African American; Sub-Saharan African entries, such as Kenyan and Nigerian; and Afro-Caribbean entries, such as Haitian and Jamaican."https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf" I have since edited the page to reflect that myself --Taharka155 (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)contribs) 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, a distinction between "race" and "ethnicity" with regards to African Americans is not clearly drawn. There is no justification for two separate articles. As for your claims regarding Americans who are recent African migrants, the African American article notes: The term African American generally denotes descendants of enslaved Africans who are from the United States,while some Black immigrants or their children may also come to identify as African-American and According to U.S. Census Bureau data, African immigrants generally do not self-identify as African American. The overwhelming majority of African immigrants identify instead with their own respective ethnicities (~95%). Immigrants from some Caribbean, Central American, and South American nations and their descendants may or may not also self-identify with the term. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: Regardless of what the African Americans article makes note of, the opening statement and its citations clearly do make a distinction, as do a large number of citations within the article for African Americans (ethnicity). The African Americans article make absolutely no clear separation between the various ethnic groups that the US Census defines as racially African Americans. I have provided citations which demonstrate that African Americans (descendants of slaves) are genetically, culturally, and historically distinct from Africans and Caribbeans, as well as having vastly different socioeconomic issues. If this does not warrant a separate article, then there are a large number of articles that also need to be deleted including Kenyan American, Nigerian American, Jamaican American, Haitian American, etc. There's no reason for any of those groups to have ethnic articles when the largest and oldest black ethnicity in the United States, descendants of Americans slaves who have a unique history, culture, genetic profile, and socioeconomic circumstances do not have an article. Even when so many anthropologists and historians have distinguished them as an ethnic group. Even the quotation from the Census provided above distinguishes African Americans as a separate ethnic group.--Taharka155 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an essentialist WP:POVFORK of African Americans under wrong premises that The article African Americans makes the claim that anyone of the black racial group is classified as African American. Whereas the lede of African Americans actually says that ...some Black immigrants or their children may also come to identify as African-American (emphasis added). Ethnic groups, like all social groups, are fluid to varying extent. A page that is created with the sole to intent to present a monolithic, essentialist POV of a social group identity has no place in WP. –Austronesier (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment@Austronesier: This is very opening statement of the African Americans article "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans and formerly, Afro-Americans) is an ethnic group consisting of Americans with partial or total ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa". I'm not paraphrasing. People who are Kenyan Americans and Jamaican Americans are included in the article, and it includes the history of voluntary immigration from Africa in recent decades. As I've previously stated, there are dozens of wikipedia articles that distinguish other Black American ethnic groups such as Ethiopian Americans that exclude African American descendants of slaves, and yet there is not a single wikipedia page dedicated to that group. The citation provided from the Census bureau even makes the distinction between these groups. There's no reason why wikipedia should not have an article dedicated to this ethnicity, other than a very blatant and systematic attempt to erase their unique culture and history in America. Claims that is has no place on Wikipedia is proven wrong by the great many articles for Black ethnicities that exclude this ethnicity.--Taharka155 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're not paraphrasing, but you're omitting the following sentences, and by doing so you misrepresent what the article actually is about. It's a straw argument. And the complete denial of the possibility that people with different ancestry can assimilate into and be accepted by the mainstream of the African American community as one of theirs is an insular view. Spell out that "People who are Kenyan Americans" refers to Barack Obama, who you don't consider to African American only because of his "bloodline". –Austronesier (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Austronesier: The same way that African American slave descendants are excluded from being labeled Kenyan American and are featured no where in the Kenyan Americans article, yet they can be in the article for African Americans… No one can “assimilate” into the Kenyan American community, but the African American community is just some open door for anyone with Black skin according to people who aren’t even African American. There is some very clear bias going on here against people who are slave descendants, along with false ideas being spread by people who are not African American and learn about Black people in some book.Taharka155 (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete .... complete misunderstanding of the concept. READ.Moxy- 00:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that American Descendants of Slavery is an existing article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Austronesier and others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Revolution[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of New Page Patrol. Zero sources, zero indication of wp:notability. Redirect has been removed twice. North8000 (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As onel5969 noted below, this probably needs more than just another simple conversion to a redirect.North8000 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kuku Lau[edit]

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

Possible hoax article. From a quick look there's no mention of this god other than wikipedia-derived sources, and the sole reference(added ~2008) may fall into that category itself. There's no mention in the Journal of the Polynesian Society, which has a lot of early Polynesian mythology material (at least as collected by pakeha). As it cannot be verified by reputable, independent sources, I propose deletion. --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if confirmed as a hoax, this would be the longest-lasting one on the English Wikipedia, existing since September 30, 2002. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetu, which is a similar deletion discussion. wizzito | say hello! 23:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking at the book "MYTHS AND LEGENDS OF THE POLYNESIANS" (predates Wikipedia), it says this: "The ones with whom Pele had the angry contention were Kukui-lau-manienie and Kukui-lau- hanahana, daughters of Lima-loa, god of the mirage." It also mentions the two daughters in the glossary.
Also, looking at the book "Pacific mythology : an encyclopedia of myth and legend" by Jan Knappert (also predates Wikipedia), it says this: "Mirage - The goddess who deludes voyagers by showing them non¬ existing countries on the horizon is called Kuku Lau." So maybe real, but not enough for an article. wizzito | say hello! 23:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe not a hoax then. But definitely not enough for an article. The first suggests a merge with Hawaiian religion; for the second, it would be easier if we knew which subgroup it was from.--IdiotSavant (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. This article relies on 1 source and the article looks like it could be made in 5 minutes. It is notable throughout Polynesian culture so it is not a hoax and it is article worthy. HelpingWorld (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A "legit" goddess but not legit enough to have any signficant coverage in reliable secondary sources, let alone the mentions are too passing (i.e. the name listed in new age books about gods) to work towards WP:BASIC. Fails WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Missvain; no significant coverage. I don't suggest a merge because I'm not convinced the information in the article is accurate. There is one source, mentioned above by Wizzito, which names Kuku Lau as the goddess of the mirage. However, most of the sources I've found describe a god of mirages called Limaloa (eg. [9] [10] [11]). The other source given by Wizzito says that Limaloa's daughters were called "Kukui-lau", so possibly this is where confusion has crept in, or maybe the daughters inherited the post of mirage deity. Either way, we don't have enough information to verify the single sentence in the article, so a merge would be inappropriate. Hence delete. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of former Island Records artists. Merge as WP:ATD.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Island Records artists[edit]

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

This is a directory of musicians and bands currently signed to a specific record label. It's entirely sourced to Island's websites, and includes many non-notable musicians. Lists of "current" things are rarely encyclopedic to begin with, and this one is infrequently edited, so it's doubtful that it's actually current. Fails WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GNG. There are a number of similar lists of other labels. If this is deleted, I intend to nominate the others as a group. pburka (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Odeon Beatclub[edit]

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

Practically unsourced and I can't find significant coverage. The band had some airplay and appearances on radio shows and festivals if the article is to be believed, but nothing that would make them pass WP:MUSICBIO. Lennart97 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silence at Sea[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage of this band, nor any other indication of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bonington[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable person with some internet hits but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The references are spam links, primary documents, and YouTube videos--the whole thing is an obvious piece of fluff. Trufflegoblin, who wrote this up, is blocked for socking (as the sock of another COI account), and if they weren't, they should be blocked for promotional editing (see Charles Landry). Anyway, the father, Chris Bonington, is eminently notable; the son, not so much. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Bowen[edit]

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

This article has previously been deleted twice under CSD criterion WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Those versions were almost identical, but written by a different editor. A third nomination was declined with the rationale that "his has some nice references."

The current version of the article has citations that to a casual reader might look like significant coverage of a successful artists in independent, reliable sources. A closer look shows that Bowen is a (barely) emerging artist, who has not received any critical attention by experts in the serious art press, but did receive some promotional coverage (she has seemingly hired a PR agency) by wellness, lifestyle and beauty editors in fashion, interior design and lifestyle magazines. Lifestyle magazine may be reliable in some contexts, but here they are not, because they lack the expertise to writing knowingly about the subject and mostly just repeat what she says about herself. She meets none of our notability criteria for artists, WP:ARTIST, has not been exhibited in a real gallery (a bar or restaurant doesn't count), has not won any awards and is not represented in any museum collections, or otherwise received any significant critical attention.

In summary; this article that promotes the subject with references to paid-for content in unreliable sources by non-experts.

detailed description of sources
  • 2019-09-26 The Times Not significant coverage, but note the caption: Nat Bowen with some of her large-scale resin artworks, which will be on display at the Start contemporary art fair at the Saatchi Gallery in Chelsea. (emphasis mine) What you need to know: The START Art Fair took place from 26-29 September at the Saatchi Gallery. https://startartfair.com/ It is not curated by the Saatchi gallery, participants pay a fee (between £4,500 and £15,000).
  • 2020-10-08 Evening Standard, by Abbianca Makoni, a crime reporter. The headline (note: headlines are typically NOT written by the reporter, but by a cipy editor) is sensational, £100,000 artwork made from meteorite dust and black diamonds to go on show at the Saatchi Gallery. But the Saatchi gallery did not exhibit it, it was merely the venue of an art fair, where Bowen (or her agent) paid for a booth. Note that the article does not report on an event that took place, it's an announcement. The price is also misleading; it's the asking price, not what it sold for, if it sold at all, because it is still listed at https://natbowen.com/back-to-light-saatchi-gallery For the curious, "Black Diamond pigment" is a trade name for a cheap mica-based pigment. 1000 carats of (real) crushed black diamonds may sound expensive, but it really isn't. Diamond powder is a common abrasive, and 200 grams of it might cost as little as 10 USD.
  • 2021-04-12 Forbes is not a reliable source when written by a "Contributor". See WP:FORBES
  • 2021-05-10 The Daily Telegraph This was first published in the Business section of The Daily Telegraph and like the Times is a caption of a photo of the artist posing in front of one of her works. This one is supposedly made of "natural pink rose petal pigment" That sounds precious, but rose petal pigment is a commonly used pigment in cosmetics, mostly consisting of iron oxides. Pink diamond powder is also used in cosmetics.
  • 2021-05-28 Vanity Fair This one is not bylined, but written by "V.F. Art" which is hyperlinkeed to https://www.vanityfairart.com/. That domain hasn't go a proper certificate, but redirects to https://www.worldofinteriors.co.uk/interiors-index, another Condé Nast publication that "uniquely places the finest craftsman, artisans, textile designers, galleries, ateliers, artists and workshops at the fingertips of our followers and readers". Also, anything that starts with "is pleased to announce" or "proud to unveil her latest" is a press release.
  • 2021-06-01 Tatler by Hope Coke, the Social Media Editor at Tatler. Again, it's an announcement, not a review, of an event in the bar of a hotel.
  • 2021-06-10 Marie Claire, by Marzia Nicolini their Wellness & Beauty Editor. Basically an advertorial for https://thew1london.com/ (it looks like https://thew1london.com/property/townhouse-5/)
  • 2021-08-06 [14] by Leanne Bayley, Head of Lifestyle. Note the "We may earn a commission for products purchased through links in this article" at the top. One of those links is https://www.dorchestercollection.com/en/london/45-park-lane/art/
  • 2021-09-19 The Up Coming, written by "The editorial unit" calls Bowen "one of the UK’s leading abstract resin artists". That also how Bowen describes herself ("a leading British abstract resin artist"). It's not so clear who the other leading abstract resin artists are.
  • 2021-09-28 Forbes, by Kate Hardcastle, another Forbes Contributor and highly respected and successful businesswoman with award winning success in delivering commercial & successful ventures and partnerships, according to herself. Here Bowen is given space to suggest that her smaller works would make "a possible investment for more people".

Vexations (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto naming controversy[edit]

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

While the subject of this article is not fictitious, it doesn't seem to rise to the level of notability required for an independent article. Possibly should be merged with Cryptocurrency. Fiachra10003 (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This page is about both cryptocurrencies and cryptography. It is unsuited for a single one of these for merging. It can be duplicated to both, but that would be worse than keeping this article. It meets the WP:GNG, the sources are reliable, secondary, independent and give significant coverage. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Photo' is correct - this clearly has more than sufficient sourcing and doesn't have a single logical merge target. With those both being the case, Keep is the logical outcome Nosebagbear (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been the subject of some controversy for an extended amount of time now. Let's go over the alternatives real quick: Editing -> article is short but in good shape. Tagging -> doesn't seem applicable. Merging -> As Nosebagbear pointed out, this article does not make sense as a section in either cryptocurrency or cryptography (if it should be merged at all, the slightly more sensible place would be the cryptocurrency article). Redirection -> Nope. Incubation -> Irrelevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phiarc (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Brick Partners[edit]

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

Nn article, corporate spam by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Packistani/Archive. Doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Maged El Sadat (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete (A7ed). AfD has become moot with its CSD deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shanu Kumar[edit]

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

Non notable Youtuber. Behind the moors (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giraffer IMDB doesn't allow anyone to create your own profile. ref #3 Here is a news article. Iwikihelper (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Found one of his short film on Filmfreeway here Iwikihelper (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Behind the moors User:Iwikihelper User:Giraffer Found one of his YouTube channel having more than 800k subscribers Imhere4help (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source. , I'm not inclined to treat it as a valid source. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 11:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7, also block the creator for socking to remove the CSD tag. JavaHurricane 11:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Shaoziyang[edit]

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

I'm sure he's a talented kid but this is just another case of over-exposed junior player in big club who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bankole Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, One reliable, independent source found, but that hardly suffices. Draft exists. Kleuske (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft doesn't exist. Techiequest (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Techiequest[reply]

You moved it to Draft:LYDA [15], but it's effectively the same. An earlier draft got deleted for unambiguous advertising or promotion. ([16]). Kleuske (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The draft you mentioned is for LYDA, a non-profit foundation for Africans. The previously deleted draft had unambiguous advertising or promotion, this article doesn't contain unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Techiequest (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Techiequest[reply]
It's It was a near verbatim copy of the article under discussion here and mentions that organization only in passing. I see you hastily "rewrote" it ([17]). WP:GAME. Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Hsu[edit]

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

Non-notable car designer. Fails WP:GNG. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Subex. ✗plicit 10:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sectrio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All the information about this company comes from company-sponsored press-releases like this one. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solomartel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All the information about this company comes from company-sponsored press-releases. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have undone your changes because the page is still in development and those sources can indeed be replaced by other ones but removing all of them at once will only make things worse by making the job more complicated, even among the press releases, 30% only were Press releases and those releases were from third party companies, i.e OCBC bank and the public investment fund of Saudi arabia, the Articles about the PIF almost exclusively brag about that specific organization and dedicated only one paragraph to Solomartel.The remaining ones, I.e 70% of those were legitimate news articles, those were legitimate articles covering investment deals, they were written in a neutral tone and were not promotional articles, plz add evidence to your claim that would nullify the nature of the article. Moreover, all news outlets need to disclose paid advertising content, even among the Press releases, news organizations always verify the legitimacy of the news pieces before publishing any content on their platforms even for Paid press releases, to try this yourself, contact any PR firm and try to publish any piece of news without clear evidence and having them dig up an investigation. Plz feel free to contribute but plz be more careful with my work so as to not vandalize it, will only make things worse and more difficult for me, I thank you very much in advance. SUPERGTOR (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a new editor, that's never had a previous account here for sure, I can see how you're confused. You chose to create this page in article space; it's live and subject to editorial policy and guidelines. If you'd like to use the draft space in the future, that's probably a good place where you can claim "development" and learn a little more about our guidelines on reliable sources. I can see absolutely zero "legitimate news articles", nor can I find anything in a neutral tone. Almost every single source is silly puffery written for paid placement or press releases. The claim that press releases are vetted and fact-checked through the syndicated feeds is absolute nonsense. Most reputable published will clearly denote press reprints and include explicit disclaimers of editorial oversight or involvement. As such, these will never be considered reliable sources for any extraordinary claim, especially not those dealing with financial considerations and return claims. Buy hey, let's look through this crap:
  • disruptmagazine.com: this is one of the worst: it's a paid placement hub for blackhat seo that we're run across a million times before. the guest blogger only posts puffy adcopy across multiple sites. this is not a RS in any way.
  • www.buzzfeed.com/gywobyv/ngf-f3zpnytidb: This is a "community post" from an unknown author with a stolen template photo. no idea why you would this this is acceptable.
  • hindustantimes.com: This is a "Brand post" with an editorial disclaimer ("This content is distributed by Digpu News network. No HT journalist is involved in creation of this content.") On The "Digpu" site, this is clearly marked as a paid placement press release.
  • marketwatch.com: very clearly marked as press release, with a clear disclaimer of oversight.
  • apnews.com: very clearly marked as press release, with a clear disclaimer of oversight.
  • business-standard.com: very clearly marked as press release, with a clear disclaimer of oversight.
  • theprint.in: exact same press release as above, including the same disclaimers.
  • aninews.in: exact same press release as above, including the same disclaimers.
  • ibtimes.sg: this is a depreciated source and cannot be used on Wikipedia at all, please see WP:IBTIMES. oddly enough, it's depreciated for the exact same reason many of the others are on this list: junk articles that fail to identify paid influences.
  • cyber.harvard.edu: This is pretty interesting. It's an open wiki that was left unmoderated and is now almost 100% pure spam - poke around there a bit. The main page of that wiki starts with "Whether it’s your first wedding anniversary or your 50th, your anniversary is a special day to tell your partner how much you love them" and is covered in spam links. This also comes across as pretty suspect behavior - why in the world would you have thought this was acceptable? How did you evaluate it?
  • canvas.ubc.ca: unpublished student blog post that sources press releases and paid placement junk. This is not, in any way, a peer-reviewed publication by that institution - it would get utterly trashed.
  • deccanchronicle.com: Sorry, the Deccan Chronicle is terrible; they fail to label adcopy all the time. You cannot look at me with a straight face and say "iconic Solomartel real estate fund" or "dubbed by many as America's most profitable publicly available real estate investment" is not complete drivel.
After re-reviewing the sources, I have to ask this: do you have a conflict of interest with this firm? It's very difficult to imagine that you've mis-read the veracity of those sources this poorly. Also, stop with the "vandalism" claims; this is clearly not that. Kuru (talk)
Sock votes, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Murgh Krahi. Spicy (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The sources covering the company are legitimate news articles, I learned about this company through the news and it has been covered in a wide array of news outlets in the past 2 years, they are quite well known especially in India, only a minor part of the sources are press releases and this investment fund has been mentioned in a research paper from the University of British Columbia in Canada and many other references exist that demonstrate the notability of the company. Moreover, I have not seen a press release of theirs until now, I only did after seeing your request for deletion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simocre (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC) — Simocre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's exciting news; please provide some of this "wide array" that meets our requiremsnts. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,After further consideration of the contents of this deletion request. I have attentively considered it and can relate to your concerns, I do however think that the nomination is not relevant for this particular page. In fact, out of all the references mentioned, 8/12, i.e 67% of them are not press releases but genuine articles in news releases such as Hindustan times (the second largest journal in India), Deccan Chronicles (another well known Indian news outlet), Ibtimes Singapore and many others none of which are press releases and almost all of those news outlets have wikipedia pages.
An article published by the university of British Columbia discussing the influence of the internet on the investment industry mentionned and thoroughly analyzed this company as well as its financial activities and it is that article which influenced my decision of creating the page for this company. This same financial article was featured on the website of the cybersecurity department of the university of Harvard. This is clear academic work which can be considered as legitimate.
Moreover, the only articles which are press releases, i.e 33% of the remaining sources have all been paid by parties other than Solomartel meaning that none of the references used for the creation of this wikipedia page have been paid by Solomartel. Those press releases have been paid by OCBC Bank and The PIF (Public investment fund), the Sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia. These articles focus almost solely on OCBC and the PIF and barely discuss Solomartel, they only cover the invesmtent deal.
I also think that the fact that the company made deals with the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, the Royal family of Qatar, the Bank of Baroda and OCBC bank (the second largest bank in southeast Asia) are all clear indicators of the notability of the company. I thus think that it would be appropriate to remove the mention for deletion and instead perform a page patrol of the page and adjust certain details (if can find ways of improving the page) before official publication.SUPERGTOR (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As outlined above; none of these sources are useful and your analysis is poor. If I had run across it first, I would have moved it to the draft space and asked for improvement. The editor who found this chose to move it into the deletion process, so here we are. Kuru (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all the sources that were previously present were from deprecated sources or were clearly marked as paid-for articles or "community contributor" pieces, which are clearly unacceptable. A quick search for suitable replacement sources didn't yield anything. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This company is a well known company out here in Punjab, they have been bhiring many programmers also, I heard they have been building lots of properties in India also, it is almost a part of popular culture at this point.Muhammadsaqibmughal (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Muhammadsaqibmughal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Blocked sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Murgh Krahi). Spicy (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Press releases are not independent sources. Also, a note for all the sockpuppets / 'new editors' voting keep - this is not a vote, if your arguments are not grounded in policy they will be ignored. There is no substitute for bringing real reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sock votes, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Murgh Krahi. Spicy (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added one reference from India's best-known news journal EDtimes which has not yet been added, that one was clearly not paid just as the majority of these sources, the journal regularly covers all sorts of Entrepreneurs, artists and other innovators in India. Moreover, I do believe that a lot of the judgements made previously were incorrect. An Indian perspective is necessary in this case: for instance, Deccan Chronicle is one of India's main news outlets, it is in the top 10 English dailies in India, also they are locally known for not doing PR and screening their content very well compared to Times of India for instance. Here the article is clearly valid, a piece of PR is very easy to distinguish from authentic news and Deccan Chronicle does keep notices of advertisement if the content was paid. Also, I think that with time there will be more references to be used for this investment fund which I will not hesitate to add if I have time, I think it is important to remain calm and neutral with this matter. Murgh Krahi (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've just come back after more than a year! Welcome back. Can I ask what drew you back to this discussion? Also, I must point out that EDTimes (which bills itself as a 'youth blog') isn't a reliable source, let alone 'India's best-known news journal. - MrOllie (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Only a minor portion of the references are press releases, not all of them as said before and given that the Press releases represent a minor part of all references, it does not influence the reference count considerably. The Press releases are not paid by Solomartel and have a neutral perspective, I re-read it a few times to be sure of it, those can still be considered as valid references. Solomartel is indeed a notable company in India, the notability is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver5647 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Oliver5647 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, The fact that this investment fund signed an investment agreement with the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia shows the notability of the company. Additionally, it is important to remember that in order for company press releases to be accepted, they ask for bank statements as proof of a transaction and they least they do is verify that the publication request has been sent by an email address with the same domain as the companies mentioned in the news releases and verify the stories independently to avoid publishing defamatory statements meant to destroy a company's reputation. Media outlets even ask the participants to comment the reported event as they can still be sued afterwards. Let's take as an example the APnews press release, which was publish by a PR company named Newswire, here is what is written statement on the company's guidelines:
"If a release contains pertinent information that Newswire is unable to verify independently, we serve the right to refuse".
A Simple verification of their website yields this result, same for all other PR companies. The disclaimers stating that "they are not responsible for the content" are there to present the fact that the news outlet does not take responsibility over the views expressed by the organization or the individual which wrote the statement and if a reader is unhappy with the content, they cannot blame the news outlet. This does not mean that the media outlet publishes unverified information without any background checks, that would simply be absurd. And if a magazine, a news channel or any media outlet publishes totally false information, they can and are almost always sued afterwards. --Anjum Sharjeel (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the notability of this company is undisputed, they have earned the reputation they currently have. Many sources can indeed be removed, mostly because of duplicates which are just uneeded. That being said, most of the sources are good news articles and need to be kept. We cannot judge those articles on the basis of wild speculation and without any proof. For instance, is there any proof that the articles on disrupt are paid other than personal assumptions. Maybe some of you consider those sources as irrelevant due to personal preferences, religious or political beliefs but there is no solid ground to consider those numerous sources as "All paid PR", such comments are simply invalid. Such sayings cannot really be based on anything other than prejudice or paranoia towards those specific sources. Ibtimes is a well known journal and so is Deccan chornicle or Edtimes, a leading youth journal in India and these well known journals are currently in use on thousands of articles of our project. Disrupt magazine is a less reputable source indeed but still it can be part of the reference list, it is not in any way irrelevant to the subject. Unless proof is provided, we cannot reject a thesis...this is common sense I think.Techgadgets (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I notice multiple users removing the sources on this page constantly, given that the discussion for deletion is still ongoing, I would ask that the article be kept in its full current state for everybody to judge it or if you want to adjust a few sources, make sure to do so without vandalizing the entire article. I am under the impression that users who totally remove the content do so with the goal of influencing the discussion given that users cannot check the references and given that all users could have the same idea at the same time, I am suspecting that this may be a case of sockpuppetry. I do want to remind everyone that our goal is to edit and maintain wikipedia to its optimal state, not delete specific articles due to personal preference.Techgadgets (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Techgadgets:Yes, I am also starting to suspect that this is a case of sockpuppetry because it is very strange why a few people would all attack the same page at once. The behavioral patterns followed by many of them are the exact same; they just say that all sources are paid PR which is not the case and then vandalize the references. Also the aggression in communication is something that many users in this discussion share. This is all very strange, usually users are a lot kinder to one another and give a variety of arguments but here it looks like it is the same person behind different accounts or they are all friends defending a common cause. Also somebody started a sockpuppetry investigation against me which may also be a way of trying to scare me off from participating. Could you please start a sockpuppetry investigation for me ? I am still new to the project and do not know the project that well.Muhammadsaqibmughal (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity spam sourced to paid for black hat SEO nonsense. There is no actual reliable coverage. SANTADICAE🎅 21:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly not a good faith attempt to contribute to the encyclopedia, given the sockpuppetry. Undisclosed paid-for spam and sockpuppetry should not be rewarded. MER-C 16:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are not independent of the subject Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 09:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gokulraj Baskar[edit]

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

Non notable filmmaker. His only claim to fame is a movie that was announced in mid 2020 but is yet to begin production. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER Jupitus Smart 08:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Dickens[edit]

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

Failed before search, the sources are either press releases, otherwise not independent, or don't mention Dickens. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bloggers.SG[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The external links in the article (which are mostly dead) are either lists of blogs in Singapore (most of which no longer exist), or non-independent primary sources. For what was supposedly a first-of-its-kind event, there seems to be little, if any, lasting significance. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Saint Thomas Christian denominations. ✗plicit 11:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marthoma Family of Churches[edit]

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

Scholarly sources are not available to prove that this is a valid family of Christianity. Sources instead, list this church as an individual denomination within Protestantism. A single ecumenical source, which is known to self-report the claims of its member churches, is not enough to create a new Church family Macinderum (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WCC is an ecumenical organization that largely self-reports the claims of its member churches. Check this WCC page for example, which says that membership figures for individual member churches, published by WCC, are provided by the churches themselves. Likewise, if the Mar Thoma Church claims that it is also a separate family of its own, then the WCC will report so. Ecumenism will fail, if the WCC starts to question the fanciful claims of its member churches.

Now let's look at what independent scholarly sources say about the Mar Thoma Syrian Church. The Association of Religion Data Archives groups the MTSC with Anglican churches (check proof). Using this source, the MTSC is placed in the Anglican family in pages 448-449 of The Oxford Handbook of Christianity and Economics (2014). The Mar Thoma church has its origins in the Anglican missionary activity, among the Saint Thomas Christians of colonial India, and is in full communion with the Anglican Communion. The book Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twenty-First Century (2014), published by Taylor & Francis, in page 488 lists the MTSC as an individual church of Protestant confession, and in page 489, says that the MTSC is within the Protestant Episcopalian (Anglican) tradition. Regarding the origins of MTSC the book says in page 568 that,

The Syrian Orthodox also became the target of Anglican missionary activity, as a result of which the Mar Thoma Church separated from the Orthodox in 1874, adopting the Anglican confession of faith and a reformed Syrian liturgy conforming to Protestant principles.

The book Christian Worship Worldwide (2007), published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company in page 94, groups various Churches in Kerala into families, and places the MTSC within Protestantism. Thus, reliably published sources does not list the MTSC as a denominational family, but as an individual church within Protestantism.--Macinderum (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. This has been expanded with 11,000 bytes and has 39 references. Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Twist[edit]

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

Has not been the subject of any non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of Twist. Claims made in the article appear unverifable. Generally does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NM. Appears promotional also. Such-change47 (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Northern Trains routes[edit]

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

A number of reasons for not needing this. Firstly it is overly-detailed (e.g. little icons for facilities at individual stations) and reads like an actual railway-company published timetable - wikipedia is not a travel guide WP:NOTTRAVEL and we don't need. this. Then there's the issue of WP:NOTDIR - just because we can list it doesn't mean we should as it's not clear (to me) what value it adds to the encyclopaedia. It is hopelessly out of date. Some of the routes are tagged as correct as-of 2019, some 2020, some not at all. Given that rail companies publish timetables every few months, something that is up to three years out of date again serves no good purpose in an encylopaedia. Then there's the fact it is unique in UK rail Wikipedia articles - there is no other "List of xxx routes" article for other train operating companies in Category:British railway-related lists. Finally it largely duplicates in a less easy to read manner what already exists in the Services section of the parent Northern Trains article. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Kamalabadi[edit]

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

Hossein Kamalabadi

Run-of-the-mill animator. An article should speak for itself and should explain how the subject is notable, without the need for the reader to view the references. However, the references have been reviewed, except for those that contained malware. They include multiple profiles for the subject on social media, blurbs for the movies that he has animated, and a map of Tehran. None of the references provide significant coverage of the subject.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 The Film Catalogue About the company. Does not mention the subject Yes No Yes No
2 Virgool.io A profile of the subject No No No
3 Manzoom.ir Subpage not found No No No No
4 Iranads.club A profile of the subject No No No
5 http://hosseinkamalabadi.r98.ir/post/3/kamala Access to webpage blocked by antiviral software
6 matalebha.ir A profile of the subject No No No
7 Google Maps A map of a section of Tehran Yes No Yes No
8 Virgool.io Profile of Eshraghanimation - Lists that the subject works for them No No Yes? No
9 cinando Profile of the company - Did not find mention of subject No No Yes? No
10 Instagram Pictures - Relevance not certain No No No No
11 www.khabargozarisaba.com Access to webpage blocked by antiphishing software
12 Cinemapress.ir A blurb for one of the subject's movies No Maybe No No
13 Aparat.com A blurb for one of the subject's movies - Talks in Persian No Maybe No No
14 Virgool.io Another blurb for the same movie No Maybe No No
15 ISEC Inc.com Appears to be information about a client No No No
16 Aparat.com A blurb for another movie - Also talks in Persian No Maybe No No

The stub article does not explain how the subject satisfies general notability because the references do not establish it. This page was moved to article space by the originator once after being declined, and was then moved back to draft space by User:IVORK and rejected. The page was then moved to article space a second time by the originator without discussing the decline or the rejection. The originator is not required to use the Articles for Creation process, which is optional, but going through the motions of using AFC and then ignoring the reviews is not evidence of willingness to edit collaboratively. The originator is required to satisfy notability, and this article does not satisfy general notability or any other guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing discussion involving blocked socks; see SPI. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Note:

Hossein Kamalabadi, Is a creative person in Ishraq Company Famous in Iran 86.55.87.19 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC) — 86.55.87.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hossein Kamalabadi.

This person has a reputation And She works for Ishraq Company and is a creative person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negar10 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC) — Negar10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Negar10 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Samansadeghy (talk · contribs). [reply]

Is a creative person in Ishraq Company Famous in Iran 86.55.87.19 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Kamalabadi is a creative person in Iran 188.229.11.186 (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing discussion involving blocked socks; see SPI. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • ref

Two reliable websites

  • ref

Creative person https://vrgl.ir/Y4lE2 https://opengovca.com/corporation/11249681 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.114.221.36 (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ref

https://canada.hkcorporationsearch.com/director/HOSSEIN+KAMALABADI

Hossein kamalabadi is Creative person 37.137.2.177 (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - absolutely zero coverage in WP:RS. Sources presented during this discussion and in the article itself do not meet WP:GNG requirements by any stretch. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graphene Flagship[edit]

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

I'm not sure this has any notability independently of Graphene, the substance. Almost all the references are first party DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added. PianoDan (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. I have been approached (out of the blue) by someone involved with the project, who has offered to improve sourcing. I will ask them to post on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not convinced this subject meets our WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST guidelines. Hyperlocal coverage and regional Emmy's, etc, don't = notability or inherited inclusion on Wikipedia. We'd have quadruple the articles about local journalists if they did.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Byon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. She has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable. She was only made famous after several news outlets revealed her name. The journalist who got pulled over by police doesn't have an article. Perhaps redirect to the Kenosha unrest shooting page? Destroyeraa (Alternate account) 02:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article is about a minority woman journalist, a gap that Wikipedia has been attempting to close for years now. I believe the subject is at least marginally notable and this article might help Wikipedia look less like a boys' club. Furthermore, WP:ANYBIO states: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times and she has received a first place prize in the Society of Professional Journalists, is VP of the Asian American Journalists Association and has been nominated for an Emmy Award. 173.87.170.14 (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the inclusion of speculation about the involvement of her and a third-party in the Kenosha bus incident appears to be contradicted by WP:BLPCRIME and Snopes, so I removed it, along with what appeared to be a blog that relied on a report from the WP:EPOCHTIMES that was used to source other information in the article. What remains is a brief burst of coverage related to a minor viral moment, two regional Emmy nominations, an award from the SPJ, and sources verifying her career and education. Based on my research, there appears to be insufficient WP:SECONDARY support from independent and reliable sources for WP:JOURNALIST or WP:BASIC notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who made this deletion originally? Things like this are why nobody trusts wikipedia anymore. "Speculation" about her involvement in the stalking of a jury bus in a major court case? There was no speculation. The judge immediately barred her organization from participating in the trial. Stop playing partisan hackery on wiki, please. WP:NOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.216.7 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: The link to Snopes now says the story is "True" (it had been "Unproven" on November 22). BBQboffin (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the additional reporting by Snopes helps emphasize the WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT concerns I have raised on the article Talk page - for a variety of policy-based reasons, this material does not appear to be suitable for inclusion in Byon's article, and does not appear to offer substantial support for notability per WP:BASIC or WP:JOURNALIST even if it is included. Beccaynr (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being a minority and a woman doesn't mean your article is relevant. There's plenty of minority women local news contributors and mid-level network employees out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamona99 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep along the lines of 173.87.170.14 - she's been nominated or won for multiple awards that seem significant. NHCLS (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable for (1) Two Emmy award nominations and the 1st place SPJ Award; (2) Starring role in the "Irene, the Coffee Intern" viral video on Huffington Post comedy section; and (3) Mentioned by name by the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
Yes, (3) made her "famous" as the OP noted, but she was "notable" for (1) and (2) before that happened.
The essay What BLP1E is not informed my thoughts: While (3) is "One Dominant Event", it is not the only event she's notable for. I see "a pattern of involvement in smaller (but still worthy of mention) events", which, considered in aggregate, make the subject notable.
I'm not aware that Epoch Times or "what appeared to be a blog" was ever a source for anything in this article and it isn't currently. The Snopes source that Beccaynr found confirms her job title and location and quotes the judge's verbatim words in court, naming her in context, so I added it to the article just now, thanks. BBQboffin (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the revision history of the article, I noted in the edit summary [18] where I removed what appears to be a blog that relies on a report from the WP:EPOCHTIMES, which you appear to have added when you created this article [19]. Beccaynr (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the your[News] source I originally put on was sourced by Epoch Times. Careless of me. Good catch there, and good riddance to it, but a moot point (WP:IMPERFECT). The Kenosha trial paragraph now has 5 sources including AP, KenoshaNews, Law and Crime, etc. BBQboffin (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E seems relevant because there are no significant events for which reliable sources cover Byon, she appears to be a low-profile individual (e.g. local leadership position, regional Emmy nominations, local SPJ award) and her roles in the minor events are not substantial or well-documented. Per WP:BLP1E, this article should be deleted because there appears to be no substantial support for notability; instead there is a minor viral moment created during the pre-2012 clickbait era of the Huffington Post (per WP:RSP), and a recent allegation of her peripheral involvement in an event Snopes describes as currently "unproven". WP:BLP1E states, biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view, which seems to be happening here, due to the lack of WP:SECONDARY coverage of her work as a journalist. Beyond the concerns discussed on the article Talk page, five sources stating the same/similar information does not help support notability for Byon (e.g. per WP:GNG, fn 3 It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works) but does seem to help show this is a WP:MINORASPECT of her BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These "regional" Emmy nominations and "local" SPJ award and leadership and "minor" viral moment each originated in the LA/San Diego market, which is tens of millions of people and therefore more competitive. It's a "pattern of involvement" (as per What BLP1E is not); she didn't just win second place in the Podunksville pie-eating contest and then fall off the radar. Snopes' "Unproven" rating is regarding the veracity of the allegations, not the judge's mention of her name in the trial (which 5 different reporters from 3 different news outlets have named bylines for in the refs). As for "The concerns discussed on the article Talk page", I agree those are valid ones and worthy of discussion and reaching consensus about there. If the article can be rewritten to address those concerns, lets do that as opposed to deletion. I also agree with the trial part being a WP:MINORASPECT and consequently it is only two sentences out of twelve currently in the article. 5 of the 15 sources pertain to it but I only added more to try to address the WP:RS concerns you raised. BBQboffin (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She has credentials as a producer with a major media outlet. — Maile (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the awards and award nominations would seem to establish notability irrespective of anything Kenosha related TocMan (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think this is a fairly marginal case, but meets WP:ANYBIO because of the awards. I also don't think it hurts Wikipedia to have more articles on female journalists. Marquardtika (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed Union-Tribune wins 36 awards including top news site in local journalism contest (San Diego Union Tribune, 2020) from the article because it does not mention Byon, but I think it helps show the SPJ San Diego award is not a well-known and significant award or honor per WP:ANYBIO. The two Pacific Southwest Emmy nominations also do not appear to support WP:ANYBIO notability, including because these are for work with a group at NBC 7 San Diego, 2019, 2021, despite how the article had described the 2021 nomination as "this time personally for her work with NBC 7 San Diego" [20] [21]. I also think we can have more articles on female journalists by writing articles on subjects with notability supported by independent and reliable secondary sources, but this BLP does not appear to have sufficient support according to our policies and guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The awards she was nominated for are properly called "Emmy Awards" and were reported in the San Diego Union Tribune with that name. Deleting that source and substituting a name that is not used widely in the industry does not improve the article. While the regional ceremonial awards event sometimes include the name (e.g. "Pacific Southwest Emmy Awards"), but the awards themselves are overwhelmingly referred to in the press as "Emmy Awards" or sometimes "regional Emmy Awards". The "regional" is not meant to be diminutive. The awards are by region so that there is fair competition in covering the same new events, e.g. a TV station in Southern California would not be able to cover Hurricane Katrina as well as a news team in New Orleans, for example. BBQboffin (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regional Emmys are different than Emmy Awards - for example, compare List of Daytime Emmy Award winners, List of Primetime Emmy Award winners, and List of International Emmy Award winners to the Pacific Southwest Chapter of the National Television Academy article. Being nominated twice as part of a group for a regional Emmy therefore does not appear to be the type of award considered well-known and significant per WP:ANYBIO. And the San Diego Union Tribune article linked above discusses the San Diego SPJ award, not the Emmys. Beccaynr (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A regional Emmy is nevertheless a type of Emmy award; as you pointed out, there are Daytime Emmy Awards, Primetime Emmy Awards, etc. and these awards are "well-known and significant". Every single recipient listed on those pages has their own Wikipedia page as one would expect. The Emmy is a well-known and significant award and winners are notable, as are those who have been nominated multiple times. She was the producer and not merely "part of a team". BBQboffin (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marginal, as noted above; barely meets criteria, but still meets.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the !votes are tending towards a keep, the majority are not backed by policy/notability guides but rather personal beliefs. I agree with more women on Wikipedia too, but that's not a valid reason to !vote keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete More of a foot note in the Kenosha affair, rather than notable on her own. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, for Peters, the the only notability factor were the awards (she didn't have a viral coffee video, or a half-dozen news articles naming her in a high-profile murder trial), and with fewer !votes, the result was Keep after just one relist.

Many of the issues were similar: whether regional Emmys should "count" or not as a measure of notability. For a local/regional journalist this Emmy is the most prestigious award they could receive (as they are not eligible to complete nationally), and so to dismiss the regional Emmy award is to dismiss all other awards they won or could be nominated for. The argument for delete is in essence: no local/regional journalist can achieve notability on the basis of winning awards. That argument was rejected in the Susan Peters AfD and it should be rejected once again today. BBQboffin (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In the 2007 AfD discussion noted above, there appear to be multiple concerns raised about whether regional Emmys can create a presumption of notability per WP:ANYBIO. In the 2021 Lana Zak AfD, a lack of independent coverage of awards, including an Emmy, a lack of in-depth coverage of Zak, her awards being related to her work with a group, and the apparent use of the article as a WP:COATRACK were raised in the discussion that resulted in a consensus to delete. The 2018 Leslie Cockburn AfD and article may also be relevant, because there is independent reporting on her national Emmy award. Subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic, and while this is a presumption of notability, an article may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Here, it appears there is no independent coverage about Byon, as part of a group, being nominated for regional Emmys, nor about her win of a local SPJ award, nor her local leadership position in the Asian American Journalists Association, which was inexplicably included in a section titled "Kenosha controversy" [22]. The article appears to function more as a WP:COATRACK for the Rittenhouse trial, although inclusion of this material is disputed, and the article otherwise includes clickbait republished on HuffPo from when she was an intern, which may at best be marginal support for notability, if it is suitable for inclusion. The notability guideline also states that some SNGs, including for people, provide guidance when topics should not be created, and it seems clear there are no WP:JOURNALIST criteria supported by independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Inexplicable? Hardly. Sorry, I've only been editing a few months and I make a lot of mistakes; thanks for fixing the location of the section heading.
    As I read the 2021 Lana Zak AfD discussion, it looks like the page[23] was created by a banned user and there were a lack of sources showing her winning an Emmy, a Peabody, and a Edward R. Murrow award but not much attempt was made to find them. Maybe that will be my next project! Contrast with Byon where we have sourcing to NATAS and SPJ, and they haven't yet banned me for misplacing section headings and mistakenly linking to blogs. :) BBQboffin (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Emmy nom is a very strong indication of notability, even if an award was not obtained. The page could use some reliable sources from news media with SIGCOV so it can remain within the articlespace. Multi7001 (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all of the reasons cited above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is notable and reliable sources are present. Its organized and good quality so its a keep from me. HelpingWorld (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marquardtika. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Long standing AFD precedent is that regional Emmy Awards are non-notable, and all recipients fail WP:ANYBIO and WP:NJOURNALIST because the award itself is not notable. Only Emmys at the national level are considered evidence for meeting ANYBIO or NJOURNALIST. Subject lacks independent significant coverage in multiple sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Note to closer, please consider the strength of the arguments in your close per WP:NOTAVOTE. If you look at the sources, none of the independent references have Irene Byon as the primary subject. The article is mainly sourced to the University of California's Annenberg Media Center's alumni page from which Byon graduated. Byon likely wrote the content of this page herself. That is telling. The other sources are also primary sources, with the awards websites, professional society websites, and press releases being used to verify her local award nominations and wins for the San Diego region (note California has multiple regional Emmys, so these aren't even state wide awards but at the city/metropolitan area level). All the other sources are primary as well, as they are content generated by Byon while on the job. There is no independent coverage of her work outside of the awards, and that coverage is all primary. 4meter4 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There is no "San Diego region" for the Emmys; California has multiple regions because it is a state of 40M people. The Pacific Southwest Region in question includes San Diego, but also Las Vegas, Bakersfield, and several other counties which together comprise a population greater than most US states. If regional Emmys and awards that aren't state wide or national "don't count" for notability, that information should be put explicitly in WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO to reflect that policy. The many !votes to keep suggests to me that it is not consensus here "that regional Emmy Awards are non-notable". As I pointed out above, Susan Peters AfD was a famous example in 2007 where regional Emmys did establish notability, so if that's no longer the case or this AfD was a rare exception, can we please clarify what the official policy is? BBQboffin (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BBQboffin, you are missing the forrest for the trees. A few points. First, cherrypicking a single AFD to establish a precedent for regional Emmys is not a valid argument. WP:OTHERSTUFF states this is an argument to avoid at AFD. One could easily find many other AFDs which had different outcomes as a counterexample. Ultimately it's not fruitful to shift arguments onto other articles at AFDs. Second, Susan Peters was awarded the Silver Circle Emmy Award (a national not regional Emmy Award for media professionals). As such, I don't think comparing her to Byon is helpful. Third, the policy at WP:ANYBIO does not address any specific awards on purpose because wikipedia inevitably covers hundreds if not thousands of awards and their winners in many different fields from all over the world. Policies are meant to be painted in broad brush strokes not minute details. Third, the policy already addresses the lack of notability for regional Emmy winners in its language, "well-known and significant award or honor". Regional Emmy Awards are not significant awards. They do not receive much media coverage, nor are its winners given much thought or attention for that honor after they win. That is not the case for national Emmy Award nominees and winners who are given much coverage in secondary and tertiary sources in relation to the award over time. With 20 regions and 60 award categories, there are 1800 regional Emmy Award recipients every year. It's a relatively common award. Lastly, we have zero independent significant secondary and tertiary sources for this person. As such, there is not a strong argument to keep this article.4meter4 (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Susan Peters was admitted to the Silver Circle (a society, not an award) in 2014. The AfD occurred in 2007, and per WP:CRYSTAL the editors did not keep based on some future expectations. Her page was kept based on the significance and notability that her regional Emmys gave her. WP:OTHERSTUFF states "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." I'm not cherry-picking Susan Peters, but I am sticking a [citation needed] tag on your claim that there's a "long standing precedent" that regional Emmys aren't notable. BBQboffin (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. There are many counterexamples BBQboffin. Such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Frank (meteorologist). Regardless, other discussions really aren't pertinent to this one.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the above, this fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Teh award she recieved is *not* an Emmy, its some regional version of the Emmy. The RS here are largely from non acceptable sources, some alumni material, or they are news sources actually discussing some incident that she was involved with. The sources don't really feature her. No independent sources here establishing her notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A regional TV journalist whose career doesn't meet the criteria in WP:JOURNALIST. Passing mention in the Rittenhouse case doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV. BBQboffin, by my count you have at least fourteen counter-arguments here which is approaching WP:BLUDGEON. Blue Riband► 04:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This requires more discussion on whether being nominated for a Pacific Southwest Chapter of the National Television Academy Emmy award constitutes notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 05:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails GNG by my estimation (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A regional TV journalist - RS doesn't establish broad notability - fails GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. There is mention of an Emmy; however, its simply a local Emmy award, which (as mentioned above) doesn't qualify. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC) - strike double !vote - Beccaynr (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:ANYBIO. 80.247.89.52 (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST Cedar777 (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NJOURNALIST. References are very very poor. No indication of being notable. scope_creepTalk 20:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mere nomination for a regional Emmy is irrelevant towards notability . DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the coverage so far rises to the level of significance needed to establish notability. The Keep arguments seem to be basing the notability claim on the Regional Emmy nomination. However, the only sources reporting on the Regional Emmy seem to be from the Academy itself and from NBC, who as her employer can not be considered a neutral 3rd-party source. As such, she's really only known for this one footnote from the Rittenhouse trial.Aervanath (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Changes that occurred during the debate, as well as editors switching positions more than most discussions, have made it impossible to parse a consensus here despite three relists. This close specifically allows for re-nomination immediately, to reset the discussion, should an editor wish to do so. Daniel (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PCW Ultra[edit]

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

This professional wrestling promotion fails WP:CORPDEPTH and therefore also WP:PWPROM. The only sources which mentions subject in any detail are the results sources from Internet Wrestling Database, which according to WP:PW/RS is only reliable for results and not for establishing notability. SoCalUncensored is listed as "unproven" at WP:PW/RS. The remaining sources are all trivial mentions GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable promotion. Lack of sources talking about the subject, except for routine results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mann Mann (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on significant coverage of the promotion and its formation, structure, and management in multiple third-party reliable sources: [24], [25], [26], [27], and more. This is in-depth coverage of the promotion, not just tangential mentions. A decent article could be written from these sources, so its WP:POTENTIAL should be considered when closing this AfD, as these sources negate any deletion arguments made above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given notable press of the promotion and several aspects such as its establishment, internal organization, and management across several reliable third-party sources: [28], [29], [30], [31], etc. This is comprehensive coverage of the promotion and not just passing mentions. Given the significant coverage the article passes WP:CORPDEPTH and as a result also WP:PWPROM. These sources disprove deletion arguments stated prior. Additional articles can be published by some of these sources as well, so its WP:POTENTIAL should be taken into consideration when concluding this AfD. Lastly, the promotion features several notable professional wrestlers from mainstream promotions like WWE, All Elite Wrestling, and more; further validating its importance. Aceyuta77 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't believe the sources listed above focus on the subject of the article; rather, they all focus on individual people (Kevin Sullivan, Rob Van Dam, Great Muta, Tessa Blanchard, Ricky Steamboat, etc.) who are in some way tangentially connected to the subject promotion, while the lone SI article that does, does so in a "notebook" type article, buried about two-thirds of the way down, and is not mentioned in the headline. Additionally, the above argument from the creator of the article, "Lastly, the promotion features several notable professional wrestlers from mainstream promotions like WWE, All Elite Wrestling, and more; further validating its importance.", does not take into account the final point of WP:PW/NPROM, which is, Having a notable professional wrestler compete or hold a title does not make the organization inherently notable. (WP:INHERITORG). While I am sympathetic to the appeals of WP:POTENTIAL given the recent boom in non-WWE wrestling, the fact is that in 5 years of existence, they have not been the featured subject in any reliable sources as of now, and the promotions notability is still entirely dependent on who performs for it. Per WP:INHERITORG, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." I believe it is still WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. - GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Sending to Draftspace could be a viable alternative? GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is misleading to say that the Sports Illustrated articles are only tangentially related. While they discuss people involved with the company, they do so often in the sense of "This is my backstory and how it led to the creation of PCW Ultra" or "This is how other things I have done in the business are reflected in PCW Ultra". As I said above, they discuss the formation, philosophy, structure, and direction of PCW Ultra. And, of course, it doesn't matter whether the promotion title is in a headline or in the first paragraph. If there are three stories on a page, they are weighed on their own merits and relevance to a notability discussion, not on their placement. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 8 additional reliable 3rd-party sources were presented in this discussion alone. PCW Ultra also has more press from several other credible wrestling sources. These sources include: Sports Illustrated, Bleacher Report, Sportskeeda, Fightful: [32], [33], SoCal Uncensored, 411Mania, PWInsider.com [34] and more. A majority of their coverage has the promotion named in the headline. WP:INHERITORG, states that "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. -- The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable.” In this case, the promotion has several forms of reliable independent sources and hundreds of notable wrestlers associated with it. The critique that “the promotion's notability is still entirely dependent on who performs for it.” is unfair and can be argued against any wrestling promotion. PCW Ultra also meets all the criteria within WP:PW/NPROM.
Subject of multiple independent articles: Between this discussion and the page itself, there are nearly 70 forms of press/sources that cover the promotion and its events.
Promotes a large number of events annually: There are several annual events promoted. These events have thousands of fans in attendance.
Has actively been in business for several years: The promotion has been in business for several years, about 5. All Elite Wrestling for example has been in business for about 2 years.
Having a notable professional wrestler compete or hold a title does not make the organization inherently notable: This is written in reference to a notable individual appearing in a singular or one-off event. Fortunately, the promotion has hundreds of notable professional wrestlers who compete or hold titles regularly; 70 of which are mentioned within the promotions page alone and are supported by reliable 3rd-party sources.

- Aceyuta77 (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep/stubify I think Sports Illustrated covered this enough times to satisfy WP:GNG but the article is in horrid shape nonetheless. It's not unusual for a borderline-notable promotion to have their article bombarded with puffery from primary or unreliable sources.LM2000 (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Switching to delete. As noted in my keep !vote, this article is bombarded with puffery from primary or unreliable sources. Its creator is a WP:SPA that has only edited this article and an article for one of its champions. I think this subject itself is a borderline case with regards to notability, but WP:TNT needs to be invoked here. The article is a mess and almost none of it is salvageable. We've seen COI issues before with small independent promotions and shouldn't reward that kind of behavior.LM2000 (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Heavily WP:PROMO based almost entirely on WP:ROUTINE. What's left seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Not opposed to WP:TNT blowing it all up and seeing if the creator can come back with a much shorter page based on solid sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify With the opinions that it could be notable if the article wasn't so puffed up and given the potential mentioned above and the editor issues, why not draftify it and let it be worked on and submitted through AfD? This way it has to be proven notable, and well-written, prior to it going live. FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I voted "Keep" above, but some good points have been raised here. The article, if kept, should be on potential alone, as it is currently long but contains no assertion of notability. The sources provided in the AfD appear to be the only claim to notability, so moving the article into Draft space isn't a bad idea. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article has been cleaned up to reduce anything that may be considered puffery. All press/sources within article such as Sports Illustrated, Bleacher Report, and Sportskeeda is covered enough times to satisfy WP:GNG. The wording used within the article is not WP:PROMO as it is strictly factually reported information from reliable third-party sources or quotes directly from reliable third-party sources. Press covered satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH given that information within is backed by significant press/sources who are reliable and independent of promotion. Sources/press within the article are not be considered for deletion based WP:ROUTINE given that the guideline clearly explains that "routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability; especially given that this article is in regards to sports events and is significant enough to surpass/meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Aceyuta77 (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck your vote this time as you've already voted and can't do it again. The article is in even worse shape this time around as far as WP:PROMO violations go. Consider this: the article compares in length to Ring of Honor's article; that promotion has been around for 20 years and was the second biggest wrestling company in the US at one point. WP:ROUTINE coverage is stretched as far as it can go. As an example, Rob Van Dam talks about PCW in an interview with Sports Illustrated and there's an entire section about it. There are similar sections for Ricky Steamboat, Terry Funk and The Great Muta (you may want to read WP:NOTINHERITED). You've also uploaded several images from https://www.pcwultra.com/. If these aren't copyright violations then they're proof that there's a conflict of interest going on here.LM2000 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for your feedback on the article. I went ahead and made more adjustments based on the concerns you raised. Although I do disagree with some of the things stated based on reasoning and proof above -- I am open to adjustments and made more. The section regarding Rob Van Dam, Ricky Steamboat, Terry Funk and The Great Muta in my opinion do not violate anything within WP:NOTINHERITED given that they are big moments within these individuals/Wrestling Hall of Famers careers that involve coming out of retirement/returning to a country or industry etc. More reasons were raised above as well. Regardless adjustments were made - thank you for your feedback. Aceyuta77 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I voted keep above due to potential and then stated that moving into draft space may be appropriate until the information from reliable sources was added. Given the recent additions to the article, I am satisfied that it meets GNG and should be kept. It would be nice to see the creation of PCW Ultra described a bit, as the article currently only says its formation was described in a Sports Illustrated article. Could a summary of the formation be included? GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've struck my delete vote. The article has gone through at least two facelifts since it got to AfD, and while it has some problems I don't think deletion is the best route at this point. We can always revisit if the puffery returns and a COI is exposed.LM2000 (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep per improvements made over the course of the discussion, and apparent editor interest in making further improvements. BD2412 T 03:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am willing to withdraw pending the delete !votes made before the improvements being struck. As per LM2000, if problems persist, we can come back in time. @HHH Pedrigree, Mann Mann, and Bob drobbs: -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 09:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC) - Stricken; Comment made moot with additional delete !vote below. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. The organization is not the main subject of the vast majority of the secondary sources. Those sources where the organization is the main subject consist of interviews and therefore lack sufficient independence to pass GNG; even if they are in major media publications like Sports Illustrated. Ultimately, the topic is nowhere close to passing WP:CORPDEPTH with the sources currently in the article. WP:REFBOMBing is not a convincing way to demonstrate notability. We need quality sources where PCW Ultra is the primary subject (not an event sponsored by them or an individual athlete but the organization itself), and in which the content of the article is independent (ie not based on an interview). As far as I can tell, no sources currently mentioned above or in the article match that criteria.4meter4 (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While some of the newly added information is fairly brief, there is more information (about the promotion itself) within the references that can be used to develop the article--discussion of inspiration, booking style and decisions, priorities, goals, and plans. To understand the article's WP:POTENTIAL, it is necessary to look beyond what is in the article at present and see to what extent it could be developed. There is also no rule that says the subject has to be the only topic covered in an article--even if it's seven paragraphs buried after a couple of unrelated stories, the coverage is there. There's no reason to discriminate based on how major secondary sources choose to format their articles, nor is there any reason that the information can't come from the promoters themselves. If Sports Illustrated talks to the owners, that's not a problem due to lack of independence, it's an assertion of notability that such a major source is discussing the details of how the promotion runs. SI isn't going to call up some fly-by-night promotion to report on them--PCW Ultra has obviously caught their eye. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GaryColemanFan. Please take the time to read policy at WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. WP:GNG is specific about sources demonstrating independence in order to prove notability. AFD rulings have historically not counted interviews, even in major media like The New York Times, towards GNG because they lack independence. Your interpretation is frankly not congruent with wikipedia policy as written. Further, the "significant coverage" description at WP:GNG is historically interpreted as sources where the topic is the primary subject. The sources in the article do not demonstrate significant coverage and therefore the topic fails GNG. Further, as a business this article has to meet a higher standard then GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH. The topic is nowhere near meeting that criteria. Lastly, WP:POTENTIAL is an essay expressing an opinion, and is not policy. It has no authority nor relevance at AFD. GNG and CORPDEPTH are enforceable policies which are authoritative when determining AFD outcomes. . 4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty condescending to direct at someone who has been around for years longer than you. Believe it or not, I am quite familiar with basic Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:N, so there is no need for your pretentious wikilinking. WP:INDEPENDENT says that the information should come from news reports. It says that commentary about a subject and a decision about whether it is worth covering should be made through editorial oversight from outside the subject (in this case, outside the organization). Therefore, Sports Illustrated, which has no affiliation with PCW Ultra, deciding that PCW Ultra is worthy of multiple reports demonstrates the notability of PCW Ultra. In other words, PCW Ultra writing about itself on its website or issuing a press release won't demonstrate notability, but a well-known source saying, "Hey, there's interesting stuff going on in PCW. Let's find out about it and discuss the creation and direction of the company" certainly does. Perhaps WP:POTENTIAL is an essay, but the same idea is also stated within WP:NEXIST, which states in bold: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". It has been shown that the company has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, which is exactly what is required to establish notability. There is nothing more to discuss. If you feel the need to keep talking, don't tag me. I know where the discussion is, but if you just want to shout about your misinterpretation of guidelines and policies, then we're done here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I’ll provide a source analysis tomorrow per policy at WP:CORPDEPTH. I patrol regularly at AFD so my take on policy is fairly normal among editors who comment frequently at AFD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 04:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I saw the article, there are a few ideas. SoCal Uncensored is "unproven" as reliable source. PWPonderings is not a reliable source. ProWrestlingPost is not reliable. Cagematch doesn't work for notability. Why there is bold letters in the titles and the events? The event history section can be improve. It's just a section with event + wrestlers who appeared. Animal is dead, it's hard to be part of the promotion. BUT, looks like Fightfull and 411mania covered the events, so at some point, maybe it's notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have not been convinced by the cases presented that this subject passes WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Also, always good to remember the majority of the time, inclusion in Wikipedia is WP:NOTINHERITED.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jubayer Salehin[edit]

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

None of the cited sources, with the exception of #2 (my computer did not allow me to access it for security reasons) provide significant coverage of the subject. I cannot find any independent sources giving significant coverage to Salehin either. Ping আফতাবুজ্জামান, GraemeLeggett and Peacemaker67 who weighed in on the notability issue at WT:MILHIST. (t · c) buidhe 04:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref#2 ([35]) gives a 6 paragraph potted biography of Saledin - but as it is published by the Defence Services Command and Staff College (Bangladesh), where he is the commanding officer, it probably doesn't count as independent, so more significant coverage in independent sources is probably needed to pass WP:GNG. There may be more coverage in Bengali-language publications.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Necrothesp what policy states that? Mztourist (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONSENSE: "Why isn't 'use common sense' an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Unfortunately sometimes sadly lacking, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously its not WP:COMMONSENSE and we have actual policies for notability. Mztourist (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that it is and my opinion stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has been expanded since nomination and all sources taken as a whole indicate notability. Also as per argument by Necrothesp.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp, and point by Vinegarymass911 well noted. When divisional commanders or Commandants of staff colleges are not sufficiently referenced in English language sources to allow a speedy keep, we should start digging more into the foreign-language sources; our systemic bias is awful as it is. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment source assessment table 1 follows:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2021/01/28/rohingya-crisis-pm-hasina-pushes-for-peaceful-solution Yes Yes No Passing mention "DSCSC commandant Major General Md Jubayer Salehin also spoke at the program." ✘ No
https://dscsc.mil.bd/the-college/faculty-staff/?doing_wp_cron=1640249098.7503099441528320312500 No his minimal biography published by the Defence Services Command and Staff College ? Yes ✘ No
https://www.newagebd.net/article/95363/sylhet-cantonment-school-and-college-celebrates-1st-anniv Yes Yes No The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ✘ No
https://www.thedailystar.net/frontpage/news/thoughtless-acts-ruin-noble-effort-1690135 Yes Yes No Passing mention "DNCC Chief Engineer Brig Gen Jubayer Salehin said the police did not consult them before installing the poles on the footpaths. “Coordinated efforts are needed to create awareness among people to keep footpaths free for pedestrians,” he added.' ✘ No
https://www.dailyinqilab.com/article/59663/ Yes Yes No Name check only ✘ No
https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/dhaka/2019/05/18/kalshi-baunia-bypass-drain-near-completion Yes Yes No Name check only ✘ No
https://ndc.gov.bd/Page/GoverningBody No published by the Defence Services Command and Staff College Yes No listing only ✘ No
http://www.bpatc.org.bd/index.php?cGFnZWlkPTEyNA== ? listing by Bangladesh Public Administration Training Centre of its Board members Yes No listing only ✘ No
https://bup.edu.bd/regulatory_bodies/all ? listing by Bangladesh University of Professionals Yes No listing only ✘ No
https://dscsc.lk/joint-warfare-workshop-by-bangladesh-delegation/ ? debatable, published by Defence Services Command and Staff College Sri Lanka Yes No passing mention only ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Mztourist (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment source assessment table 2 follows, there are copyvio concerns with this page:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.news.lk/news/political-current-affairs/item/32772-bangladesh-s-dscsc-commandant-holds-cordial-discussions-with-the-army-chief No Sri Lankan Government official news portal publishing story provided by the Sri Lankan Army No Sri Lankan Army provided the story, so hardly objective Yes Earwig shows 62.7% possibility of CCI violation ✘ No
https://dailysomoyersomikoron.com/%e0%a6%b9%e0%a6%a0%e0%a6%be%e0%a7%8e-%e0%a6%b8%e0%a6%ab%e0%a6%b0%e0%a7%87-%e0%a6%ae%e0%a7%87%e0%a6%9c%e0%a6%b0-%e0%a6%9c%e0%a7%87%e0%a6%a8%e0%a6%be%e0%a6%b0%e0%a7%87%e0%a6%b2-%e0%a6%9c%e0%a7%81/ Yes Yes Yes the entire page seems to have been copied from this source. Because of language Earwig doesn't work on it, but given ref immediately above and fact that creator has a CCI warning on another page, copyright breach seems likely ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Mztourist (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete above source analysis seems solid; subject appears to fail WP:NBASIC. I found a few more articles, but they seem to be either direct copies of the Army press statement (ref #11) or very passing along the lines of those in the first block. Given that they wouldn't establish notability in any case, I didn't check for reliability. Admittedly, my search was limited to English language sources, so it's possible that there are sufficient non-English sources to establish notability; if so, I'd be happy to change my !vote. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single reference to suppport the article is insufficient. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC. Excellent source analysis provided proves this. Fails WP:V and WP:BIO scope_creepTalk 13:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Buckshot06: Start now then. A suitable search term in the appropriate language would be one way of doing it. Only WP:THREE references would be probably enough to draftify it and give time to expand it out with foreign language references. Anybody up for finding three references please? scope_creepTalk 13:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your note Scope Creep. Overall I disagree with the assessment of the source reliability and the assessment in the tables, but Mztourist and I have extremely, extremely, bad blood because of his complete unwillingness to incorporate North Vietnamese sources into Vietnam War articles (and a long and bitter debate, over, all things, the Defense Attache Office of the US Embassy Saigon), so I am not in a position to have this debate objectively. Honestly I am also too busy with other things - I cannot patrol, reference, fix, all military unit and formation related articles across the entire site.
However, to the point: the Bangladeshi Armed Forces' baseline language is actually English, and the BAF/BA site should be taken as reliable for simple biographical facts. That shouldn't be at issue. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says that 'each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.' The official biography of the DSCSC commandant *must* be a reliable source -- or we have to start deleting literally *hundreds* of US military personnel articles based on U.S. Department of Defense official biographies. The fact that Salehin commanded 17th Infantry Division and is the commandant of DSCSC is basic vanilla biographical facts; nobody is likely to challenge that based upon the fact that it came from an official site.
Why are US military websites deemed reliable and Bangladeshi military websites somehow deemed unreliable? That's the core of this question. Otherwise we could start deleting US military biographies wholesale.
Kind regards to all; I regret having to mention and reawaken my bad blood with Mztourist, but it does bear on my trying to debate this issue, on this page. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And a Merry Christmas to you too User:Buckshot06! With a WP:GRUDGE like that its good you're not an Admin any more. Mztourist (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of District of Columbia symbols. ✗plicit 09:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seal of the District of Columbia[edit]

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

The seal is not very commonly used, which explains why the article is unreferenced. Nothing that indicates notability. At best, this should be redirected or merged into a more proper article. Philosophy2 (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Text was PD from the DC government's website, thus no source is needed (I've re-written it to reflect the current seal). We have seal articles for every American state and territory and a explanation of the symbols used, and that inclusion should also include the seal of the nation's capital. Nate • (chatter) 05:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nate - Just FYI language and content on the DC government website is licensed under a Creative Commons license, it's not public domain (only Florida and California are the two states/districts with PD government material). Here's the statement: "Except for third party content that is copyright protected or for content otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License"[36]. Cheers. Missvain (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 09:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Fogel[edit]

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

Businessman does not seem to meet WP:ANYBIO- notability is not inherited from being CEO of Priceline.com. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Many, many mentions in GNews, not sure how notable they make him. None of them used in redaction of the article, which badly needs a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is not notable and its poorly written. Its a strong delete because this article does not meet WP:ANYBIO standers and no reliable sources. HelpingWorld (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Henri Padovani. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Flying Padovanis[edit]

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

There's a multitude of issues here, so let's unpack the suitcase.

No sources, tagged in 2020 but likely none since article creation. The official website is to a MySpace link. (makes me feel like I warped back to the mid-aughts)

They're real, sure, I found coverage of them on this blog for example: http://sonsofthedolls.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-flying-padovanis-they-call-them.html

This set lineup: https://www.uksubstimeandmatter.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19500:26-february-2017&catid=1375&Itemid=156

And the BFI: https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b9177320f

But nothing indicates notability from what I can tell, just passing mentions and unreliable sources. Let's just throw this out. wizzito | say hello! 04:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chubbles: the "let's throw this out" comment was meant as a joke, in fact, I support merging. wizzito | say hello! 22:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, we can speedy close this as a merge, as the nom is in favor of it. Chubbles (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Henri Padovani. Actually there is very little to merge because the band is already described at Padovani's page. The merge wouldn't take too much effort. The band has not received enough notice in its own right to merit a separate article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. From my evaluation of the discussion below, this subject does not meet our guidelines for inclusion at this time due to WP:1EVENT.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slim 400[edit]

Slim 400 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of awards or charted songs. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources, other than news reports of his murder (where the media made mention of his interest in rapping, and his previous brush with death by gunfire). Magnolia677 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Slim was known around the world in the hiphop scene. The only people that don't know who he is are Wikipedia editors that have no idea what is going on in the world outside of their twitter and reddit feeds. It's interesting how this is up for debate but apparently fine to create a page for every single abject failure that has more than 100k followers on a social media website or youtube. Slim's death was international news and is still an ongoing event. He was notable, despite what wikijannies believe. The Wikipedia policy is abused and bent for every other purpose yet a notable event and artist such as Slim is a problem? This site just keeps getting more embarrassing and hypocritical as the years roll by. It is no surprise to anyone why people don't wish to contribute to this site anymore, don't bother to donate when you're begging for shekels, or believe it has any credibility left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.114.117.43 (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, his death was covered in international and national news, there are sources. Pikavoom (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Pikavoom mentioned, his death was covered by multiple reliable hiphop news website. Passes WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brayan ocaner (talk • contribs) 08:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources cited are news reports about his death. None of the sources are biographies of his musical talent, written prior to his death. No charted songs; no awards. He fails WP:MUSICBIO. Moreover, WP:VICTIM does not support notability either, as he is only famous for one event (being shot on two different occasions), and his death did not play a "large role within a well-documented historic event". In other words, if I was gunned down and one of my neighbors told all the reporters at the bloody scene that "he was a devoted Wikipedia editor!", I have no doubt the headline in all of the newspapers would be, "Famous Wikipedia Editor Shot in Cold Blood". But that wouldn't make me notable enough for my own Wikipedia article. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, other sources below. Being shot twice, once in 2019 and once in 2021, both times with international coverage of the shooting is two events, not one. Pikavoom (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only having coverage due to his death is WP:ONEVENT. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMagnolia677 is correct. I had a look at the RS for this article - *ALL* of them are about his death. There's nothing here featuring him, establishing notability, that is independent of the event of his death. WP:ONEVENT applies here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Indeed, as mentioned above, every bit of RS coverage he received was because of his murder, and sadly, news coverage of a murder victim is routine. Outside of that, there is no other evidence of recognition of any kind that would indicate notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not right to call two shootings in two different decades "one event"; his previous shooting got covered in-depth by a high quality source Los Angeles Times [37]; this is the best quality source in his area. A unknown person would not get this. A UK/international tabloid; Evening Standard covered it too. [38]. The Fader (which is a good source for modern hip-hop) covers him before any of these shootings. [39] or [40]. Stereogum; a big internet music source covers him [41]; in 2014 - long before the two different shootings. Hard to sort through the amount of bad sources, but there's heaps of stuff on him that pre-date his death and probably more out there. [42]. Calling two shootings in different decades "oneevent" is already a stretch but this is atleast over 7 years of coverage (although bare). He just makes it and the way of his death pushes him over the barrier and because of the previous slight coverage - not completely a ONEEVENT case. GuzzyG (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the six sources you listed, only this one was not trivial. The rest were news reports of his shooting, or paragraph-long mentions of him. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is meant to counter the claim of "All of the sources cited are news reports about his death"; there is coverage prior to his death, which may be argued as minor, but combined with the coverage of his death (and prior shooting); combine to create a overall package of just passes the line notability. There's an example set here with Halyna Hutchins; "slain rappers" may be bottom-of-the-barrel to some people, but we have established precedence on this site that some minor previous coverage combined with a highly reported on death counts and that this would create an exception in how we treat this subject compared with Hutchins. Is there a policy guideline for why we should treat two careers different? Or do we say that murdered rappers are common, so we should not follow other examples of this same thing? Minor previous career with SOME previous coverage, combined with a higher profile death have nearly always resulted in an article for the subject. I see no difference on why this doesn't apply here other than the assumption that being a rapper makes this common, so we should not go by established (Hutchins) precedent. GuzzyG (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Also fails WP:MUSICBIO due to lack of chart activity and no notable work, as his career was more about coattailing bigger stars like YG rather than his own music. Two weeks later his article still has next to no content, and the only coverage from reliable sources is about his death. Slain rappers will always make headlines no matter how bottom-of-the-barrel they are, and this is no exception. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The one event argument doesn't hold water. His death by shooting was covered internationally in 2021: [43][44]. His non-fatal shooting was covered internationally in 2019: [45][46][47]. So that's two events, two entirely separate shootings receiving international coverage. There is also some coverage of his music and other issues ([48], [49], [50], [51]) in between all this shooting coverage. Pikavoom (talk) 07:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're interpreting this "one event" thing literally to mean one event. In other words, a non-notable rapper being shot is a non-notable event, but a non-notable rapper being shot again a few years later means... 1+1= ...hey, he's notable now! It doesn't work that way. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times covered his first shooting because he was from, wait for it, Los Angeles. The four other sources don't hold up either as it's 6ix9ine and not Slim 400 who's the headliner in what are all clickbait articles. Meanwhile there's zilch out there about his music because he produced no noteworthy work. He's not Drakeo the Ruler by any stretch of the imagination. Kvetch all you want about WP:ONEEVENT but he easily fails WP:MUSICBIO by a landslide. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 19:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times doesn't cover all LA shootings, there are too many. The Independent is not from LA, it is not from America, and it covered his death in two separate pieces: [52][53]. Pikavoom (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete low-profile individual involved in two shootings, one of them unfortunately fatal. At best we should move the article to the event (Shooting of Slim 400), but the event itself does not pass the WP:EVENT guideline. Cavarrone 19:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Public figure, reported on in multiple years, dating back to 2014 [54] (including the different shootings); considering Halyna Hutchins was kept in similar circumstances with just as minor prior coverage and a shorter career, with no event article.. policy wise, what is the difference, am i missing something? Hutchins set a case of minor previous coverage of a artist combined with a shooting death combines to invalidate ONEVENT. Can't say Hutchins death is more high profile as that is the ONEEVENT, it was a combination of minor work and death, which applies here exactly the same. GuzzyG (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GuzzyG: Please take a moment to read WP:WHATABOUT. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it WHATABOUT to say; this case is precedent for a minor reported on career before death; plus death combining to overall together pass notability guidelines? Because as far as i'm aware; (Case citation) and Precedent is a legit thing in this circumstance. If this is different on Wiki; that's my bad - but it's normal practice elsewhere in academia. GuzzyG (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 04:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José Miguel Sagüillo[edit]

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

Notability issues. The only reference is a 2011 paper of his. No substantial coverage found, and I see no claim of meeting NPROF. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Seems to be too few cites in GS to pass WP:Prof#C1 yet, even in a low cited field and language. Can book reviews help? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete. I agree re the citation counts. As for book reviews, I looked on JSTOR, MathSciNet, zbMATH, and Google Scholar, but only found one review of a co-edited volume (JSTOR 20059980), not enough for WP:AUTHOR. But maybe more, for more significant contributions by the subject, can be found elsewhere? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears that a Catedrático is the Spanish equivalent of an established chair, so passes WP:NPROF #5: "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.". -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding, from Academic ranks in Spain, is that catedrático is merely the Spanish equivalent of full professor; likely to be notable (just as full professors in the US would be) but not automatically notable merely because of their position. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but the problem is that the notability guidelines obsess about named chairs. Most countries do not commonly have named chairs, as they do in the USA. In most countries, especially non-English-speaking countries, all full professors effectively hold an equally prestigious post. Hence the section that says "or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". If we applied the guidelines rigidly without taking this clause into consideration then few professors outside the USA would qualify per NPROF #5, which would clearly be WP:SYSTEMIC and against the spirit of the guidelines. Even in the UK, until a few decades ago all professors would effectively meet the requirements of NPROF #5, and those who hold established chairs (as opposed to personal chairs) still do, although most do not hold named chairs, which are fairly uncommon in the UK (especially outside Oxbridge). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with an obsession with named chairs exists. It give partisans the opportunity to WP:Wikilawyer and cut corners. I would be happy for that category to be removed. The only criterion to pass WP:Prof should be demonstrated influence of scholarship and research. Others can try their luck with WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep For being a catedratico at a Spanish university (NPROF No. 5). I agree that he is looking weak on the citation front. This paper didn't show up for me in an ordinary GS search (I fount it via his research gate). It has more citations (30) than his 'The absence of multiple universes of discourse in the 1936 Tarski consequence-definition paper', which is highlighted in the article. I realise the count is low, even for his field, but it is not low enough to make me question whether he less than a regular catedratico in Spain. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that a catedratico satisfies WP:Prof#C5 as it seems routine. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Well, I think Necrothesp's comment above summarises well why I think the catedratico position satisfies Criterion No. 5: full professorships in Europe match chaired professorships in the US in prestige. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I am not convinced that full professorship at a European university is comparable to a named chair in the US. My understand that WP:NPROF C5 is anyway supposed to be a proxy for the other NPROF criteria (especially C1), and significant progress towards the other criteria should be visible. I don't see that here. I also don't see much in the way of other signs of notability. The most likely appears to be WP:NAUTHOR, but this would require reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there any coverage (even a university press release) of when he was named to the position of catedratico? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one is from the institutional web page, but it doesn't say more than that he holds the position. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The impression I have about European chairs is that the situation varies. The newer universities are likely to follow the US pattern, others are transitional. I think each individual instance needs checking, and the best way will be through their website. If he is the only professor of the subject in the university, then it's meaningful. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and among the list of faculty [55] at the department associated with the page linked by Modussiccandi, I see 11 current faculty with Catedrática/o in their title, out of about 60. That does not include the subject here, who is listed among former faculty [56] (where there are another 6 catedratica/os.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find 11 out of 60 a reasonable number. At my own department at a British university, the ratio is not drastically different. In my particular subject group, we have five tenured staff members, three of whom are full professors. I understand, of course, that not all UK universities are in all respects comparable to the subject's institution. The fact that he is retired now is not a problem for me; What matters is that he has held the post at one point. Modussiccandi (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the somewhat successful WP:MILL professor will achieve the Catedrát rank by the end of her/his career. This is not a characteristic of a position meeting WP:NPROF C5, although many such senior professors may be notable. I agree that whether he is retired or not is irrelevant to notability, and did not intend to imply otherwise. @DGG: may have further comments. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a professorship alone does not pass WP:NPROF#5. --hroest 16:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody actually said it did, if you read what was written. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the academic title alone is not enough to pass NPROF. Geschichte (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Reorganize pages as proposed by the nominator. Despite Aoziwe's input, consensus seems to be that we don't want to list Hundred of Belvidere in a "Belvidere, South Australia" dab page, which is therefore redundant. Sandstein 11:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belvidere, South Australia[edit]

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

This is a case of WP:TWODABS. Hundred of Belvidere doesn't really belong, and Belvidere, South Australia (Alexandrina) should be moved here as the primary topic, with the historic locality hatnoted. "(Alexandrina)" is an odd disambiguation, and the article doesn't even explain where it comes from. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both Belvidere, South Australia (Alexandrina) and the Belvidere, South Australia (Light)redirect, and retarget Belvidere, South Australia to Belvidere#Australia as an incomplete disambiguation. WP:NCAUST does not explain how to disambiguate further when "Town, State/Territory" is insufficient, whether to use the LGA or another term. I have added a mention of Alexandrina to that article to explain it. PamD 08:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Merge if required and) Redirect to Belvidere#Australia as WP:INCOMPDAB. --Scott Davis Talk 22:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • FEI There are two quite separate places in South Australia that could potentially be referred to as "Belvidere". There is:
  1. Hundred of Belvidere, to the north of Adelaide, in the Light Regional Council LGA
  2. Belvidere, to the south of Adelaide, in the Alexandrina Council LGA
  • I cannot find any contemporaneous reference to Hundred of Belvidere which does not use the prefixes of "Hundred of". But, there is some reasonable evidence that it was referred to historically as just "Belvidere". See for example here and here. And, there is some evidence that just "Belvidere" is used to refer to places and buildings and facilites in Hundred of Belvidere, for example see Belvidere Anglican Church
  • There is also this page, Belvidere, South Australia (disambiguation), which redirects to Belvidere, South Australia
  • There is also this page, Belvidere
  • Because of the non trivial historical use of "Belvidere" to refer to Hundred of Belvidere, I am inclined to think that the disambiguation page should remain but it has only two entries:
Belvidere, South Australia
Belvidere is the name of two localities in South Australia.
I am from the eastern seaboard of Australia, so I could have it all wrong !?
Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(reply only - my !vote is WP:INCOMPDAB above) - You have done a fair summary (even though I don't know what "FEI" means). There was also District Council of Belvidere which hasn't been written yet. It was established in 1866 and merged into the District Council of Kapunda in 1932. Its area might have been coincident with the hundred. See Talk:St Johns, South Australia for some of the previous conversation. --Scott Davis Talk 13:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FEI FEI == for everyone's information. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Umuhoza[edit]

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

Can't see that sources are good enough to establish notability TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, sweetiepie. I looked up the sources and had a nose around. I've AfD's articles in a shorter time after their creation, incidentally.TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLongTone: Referring to another editor in an intimate manner is not appropriate for an encyclopedic discussion. Please remove that portion of your reply. BD2412 T 00:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands for being promotional. I will watchlist this discussion to see if any actual claims to notability surface. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Did my due diligence. I can't find multiple reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in a significant way. This article features her and her business partner but the article is about the business, not specifically Umuhoza. Perhaps in the future! Missvain (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slimka[edit]

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

Promotional borderline G11 eligible article on a non notable rapper who doesn’t meet any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO and in general sorely lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus a major GNG fail as well. Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article shouldn't be deleted as Slimka meets the second notability requirement, he had an album on the Swiss Hitparade (main musics sales chart in Swizterland) in the top 50 (twice.) https://hitparade.ch/song/Slimka-feat.-Makala-&-Varnish-La-Piscine/Dynastie-1830849 Kamikaze0617 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Pardon me, I think overall the fundamental problem is failure to understand this portion of WP:NM which states “...meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. I am afraid a single criterion met which isn’t an SNG wouldn’t triumph over WP:GNG. If you can show me any two reliable sources not even WP:THREE, just two that discuses the subject of our discussion with in-depth significant coverage I’d be more than satisfied because a google before literally shows me nothing cogent. Celestina007 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per Whpq with three reliable sources. --hroest 15:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

(Applying a level of IAR here, given the AfD which kept it was 7 years ago.) Daniel (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annapurna High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG; I can't find any significant coverage or other indication of notability of this school. Unsourced. (Previously kept in the era when high schools were presumed to be inherently notable, more recently included in a trainwreck). Lennart97 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I found this[57] article that mentions the school, but it’s only a passing mention in a source of unknown reliability. Other than that, there are the usual list sites [58], social pages [59], and of course Wikipedia forks. Interestingly, the user who created the page only has one edit, which is to this page. [60] Jobie James (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The school hit by the earthquake in Nepal is a different school with the same name, as the school under consideration here is in India :) Lennart97 (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_18&oldid=1062107627"