Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 23	February 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 02:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bradbrooke[edit]

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

I was unable to find any significant coverage for Bradbrooke, just bare mentions in tables. The added ship source on this article is not in any way an inidcation of meeting notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2019-04 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did this start existing? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or soft delete. I don't know enough about the British Empire Games to see if they were prestigious enough for automatic notability. Sourcing is weak. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete The empire games were the forerunner to the Commonwealth Games but there is nothing here to build an article on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Theresienstadt Ghetto. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Given Town[edit]

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

Insufficient sourcing both here and at cswiki. Did a BEFORE search that didn't turn up anything useful, though I don't speak Czech so I'm not comfortable PRODing it. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Theresienstadt. I assume good faith in translation and thus that the conclusion is correct that the footage is part of a Nazi propaganda film. If so, the footage is notable, but does not need a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. I added two English language sources after this was nominated so everything there is now verifiable. There is a suggestion of notability for the documentary film juxtaposition of found propaganda footage with drawings from concentration camp artists independent of the propaganda film itself. However, these sources alone are not the most extensive coverage though there is almost certainly more in Czech, as the mention of a contemporaneous newspaper interview and coverage attests. If merged, an argument could be made for either Terezín_concentration_camp#Legacy or Theresienstadt_(film)#Historiography with my preference for the former. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Planet42[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, and is WP:ADMASQ with WP:CITEKILL/WP:BOMBARD Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have not reviewed the 28 references, and a reviewer is not expected to review the 28 references that this article has been reference-bombed with. When an author pushes an article back into article space twice after it has been draftified twice (by User:Jupitus Smart and User:Jovanmilic97, there are at least two possible explanations: either they are being paid, or they are not here to edit collaboratively. The lede sentence is a blurb, and the rest of the article isn't any more neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article may be very bad, and its author may behave badly, without the notability of the subject being compromised. There do seem to be half a dozen reasonable references. Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is a candidate for WP:TNT. The article is not very NPOV and the references section is larger than the rest of the article! As for whether or not it passes GNG, I think it's on the line. If someone were motivated enough to HEY, I might change my !vote. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 02:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is about a company/organization so WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Scott Kleeschulte[edit]

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

I do not see any indication of special widespread interest, if only because there is not enough known. WP is not a directory of missing children. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Missouri. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine missing person case. Nothing notable there, no lasting significance. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately no lasting impact or changes stemmed from this disappearance. Star Mississippi 14:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is non-notable, no reliable sources found. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Respect diversity[edit]

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

This article was created in 2003 by an IP editor (because in 2003, IPs could create articles). In its nearly 19-year history, it has never cited a single source, and in my opinion it's not sourceable, because this content is pure OR from start to finish.

We could, perhaps, eventually host an article, redirect, or disambiguation page with this title. But I feel that this content is not a useful starting point. Please will the community authorise its deletion. —S Marshall T/C 22:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's because back in 2003 it was the same editor's attempt to fill in one of the Ten Key Values of the Green Party of the United States and create a general umbrella article. vide Special:Permalink/1463170 and Special:Diff/1463077. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:TNT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. This page doesn't read like an article. KidAd • SPEAK 02:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NOTEVERYTHING this article is not a wikipedia topic and it's totally unsourced. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 15:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Hardwood Floor Association[edit]

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

Nonnotable trolls. Created by an SPA in 2007 and nobody cared since then besides wikignomes Loew Galitz (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Oregon. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sadly. This is a wonderful bit of underground punk history, but so underground that only the participants can affirm that it happened. There is a mention in SF Weekly article, with this being an early name of the group Christal Methodists. Some of this could be added to the article History of the punk subculture. It's too bad to lose this. Is there a punkapedia that we could send this to? Lamona (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey_Likes_It_Ice_Cream[edit]

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

I'm willing to be proven wrong, but looks like a fairly run-of-the-mill ice-cream shop with nothing more than the normal publicity that I'd expect. I can't see great sources. Someone just added some information about them teaming up with Microsoft, which looked potentially interesting, but they ref-bombed it with a huge list of very weak sources, so I'm not even convinced by that. Doesn't look in any way notable. Elemimele (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. Mikey's has collaborated with Geico, Microsoft, and Ewing, but more importantly it has a ton of coverage in reliable sources, including Vice, Essence, NY Post, and ABC News, among others. pburka (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because it's a stub right now doesn't mean it can't be expanded. A quick Google search turned up dozens of articles, some almost 10 years ago and one from only 6 days ago, showing that it does have lasting coverage. >>> Wgullyn.talk(); 01:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wgullyn: I'd be really grateful if you could suggest one that's not an interview. It'd be just so good if we can get this article supported by at least one source that's independent of the subject. All four of those suggested by Pburka are interviews/churnalism and when I did my googling, all I could find was a complete plethora of almost identical interview-based pieces, and blog-type stuff about the Microsoft icecream. Elemimele (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of honesty, I should make it clear that I removed a sentence about the microsoft collaboration before creating this AfD because it was supported by no less than 17 citations, all of which were to interviews, blogs etc.; anyone who wishes to assess those sources is welcome to have a look at the previous version here [1]. Elemimele (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some reliable sources on the topic, including The Verge NBC eater.com. Sure, there are a lot of interviews, but there are definitely secondary sources in the mix. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dismissal of any source that includes an interview isn't supported by Wikipedia policies, and dismissing reliable sources as "churnalism" certainly isn't. Regardless, the business has also received significant coverage in Rehabilitation Is Reentry (Garot; p. 315; Routledge; 2019), and Stronger Together (Clinton and Kaine; p. 201; Simon & Schuster; 2016). pburka (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of editors fail to realise that sources may be used to support facts/information within an article - and sure, interviews are fine for that. But there's a different examination for sources used to establish notability - and primary sources (which is what an interview is) are not acceptable for certain topics, such as companies/organizations. Check out WP:ORGIND and the definition for "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 12:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please do put the book references in. But honestly the existing sources apart from your books are not good sources. Theverge one says next to nothing about the ice-cream business, it's mostly a promotional piece for microsoft, and quite probably commissioned publicity. The Newyork entertainment piece is a short interview piece featuring 4 icecream outlets, of which this one gets less than 30sec. The eater is also really just a passing reference, being mostly about Hilary Clinton. These are fine as subsidiary references, but is there anything in depth and independent? If the books are, please put them in, because the article desperately needs them.

as for the comment about dismissing interviews, Pburka, I quote "Generally speaking, it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts, so long as the article is also using a good mixture of other types of reliable sources" from Wikipedia:Interviews. That's precisely what I want. Elemimele (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you're not mistaking an essay for policy. pburka (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. The WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS section most likely applies to this type of company.

I'm assuming all the sources are reliable (unless obvious blogs or social media) and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
As per WP:SIRS each reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant, there can be 100 references but for the purposes of establishing notability we only require a minumum of two that each meet the criteria
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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, *interviews* fail ORGIND. They are considered primary sources for most purposes. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

Not a single reference either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria. Most discuss the tie-in with Windows11 but even then, the others focus on the owner/founder - great story but doesn't translate to notability of the company for me. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. If anyone wants to post other references (perhaps reviews?) I'm happy to review and perhaps change my mind. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete - despite refbombing, there is little independent coverage from good sources. 22:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep References represent SIGCOV and are independent and reliable. Passes GNG GoldMiner24 ^Talk 15:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article, not notable as explained by HighKing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Routine promo article with no historical or encyclopeadic value. scope_creep^Talk 02:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are assertions about the sources that are diametrically opposite to one another, but at the moment the closing admin is being asked to judge the sources for themselves; elaboration from all parties of why they consider sources counting toward NCORP, or why they don't, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: thank you for your accurate summary. My personal view is that although the supporting sources are in good places, they're all fairly trivial, and generic: for example one is an interview piece visiting several ice-cream outlets, which means it's more about the concept of ice-cream sales in NY than about Mikey's, and is a rather short feel-good space-filler; the Microsoft bit is about Mikey's, but my impression is that some marketing people had a mutually-beneficial idea, and this is the sort of publicity they'd generate to carry it through. My attention was drawn to this article in the first place by an addition that was ref-bombed with 17 sources, some of which were automatically tagged as deprecated and unreliable [2]. But of course many bad sources doesn't mean all bad sources. And I am absolutely happy to put my hands up and admit I don't know the full details of the ice-cream or publishing scenes in NY: an independent assessment of the sources from someone else would carry far more weight than mine. Elemimele (talk) 14:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minimal coverage exists of this two (three?) location ice cream chain. Fails WP:GNG. Also, WP:TOOSOON. It's a nice feel good story - hopefully more coverage will occur as he expands. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The article would probably be a narrow pass on WP:GNG, but the community norm is that a mere WP:GNG pass when coupled with an WP:NCORP fail renders an article notable. Much of the coverage is about Cole as a person—coverage of Cole's story as a convicted felon-turned-ice cream salesman is an inspiring story, the coverage of which very well may render him passing WP:NBIO. But I'm not really seeing coverage in the online sources that the pair of stores passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm seeing above that pburka mentions at least one usable book (I'm not so sure about Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign manifesto being an RS in this context). I don't have access to the source, but I might be persuaded that coverage goes beyond WP:CORPDEPTH if the coverage in that book is substantial. Is anybody able to describe the sorts of facts that the book contains regarding the article subject? — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe Chong[edit]

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

This article looks WP:TOOSOON The player currently fails the WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines having not yet appeared in a match at the level required. Not finding anything to to show he meets WP:GNG either. Josey Wales^Parley 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Josey Wales^Parley 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Josey Wales^Parley 22:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The player has done an interview with The Sun, one of the largest papers in the UK, this is enough of a notable source to prove he's a person of note. Kobe Chong is a large figure in Malaysia, having a large fanbase and his Social Media following reflective of this. Other Wikipedia editors have made links to Peterborough's Wikipedia where he features on there, again showing he's of note.

Please end discussion as there's enough proof to show he warrants an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benpring112 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Sun is an unreliable source. Fanbase doesn't matter and linking to "Peterborough's wikipedia" means nothing. --Dougal18 (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to draftspace~~ he fails WP:GNG, as there's not enough sources about him (interview with The Sun is useless, as The Sun is a depreciated, unreliable source). Draftspace seems sensible, as he may well make a professional appearance in the next few months. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to delete as per Struway2's comments below. Better to start from scratch if there's copyvios involved here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with draftspace. Thanks all for feedback Benpring112 (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify A case of WP:TOOSOON. The article can be moved to mainspace when GNG or NFOOTY is met. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does have a Peterborough squad number, so might make a debut in the foreseeable future, so I wouldn't normally oppose draftifying. However, in this case the content is not only attributed to the deprecated source – see WP:THESUN, which says There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject, much of it is copy-pasted from that source and therefore a copyright violation. Once that content is removed, there's very little left, and the creator might do better starting again either in draftspace or in their own sandbox. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Struway makes an excellent point above and I completely agree. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to draftspace for now for same reasons as above comments Zanoni (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General K.S. Thimayya Memorial Trust[edit]

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

Currently sourced almost entirely by primary sources, or brief mentions. Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any tips on how to improve the article? If I were to remove the YouTube links, would it make it better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaranJoseph (talk • contribs) 06:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what you need is to provide coverage from independent reliable sources to show that it meets notability criteria. The coverage needs to be in-depth about the Trust, not simply mentioning it or short blurbs in listings. If you can find those, ping me and I'll take another look, but I couldn't find any online. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete . Fails WP:GNG. Loew Galitz (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remote office center[edit]

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

Has lacked sufficient sourcing for over 10 years and seems to be only referencing some old US gov't initiatives. The existence of "remote office centers" can simply be a mention within Remote work. ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question - what's the difference between this and coworking? Would that also be a good redirect target? Chris857 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke Original research. google only a few hits, and I failed to find an encyclopedic coverage of the term. Loew Galitz (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. ✗plicit 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ofer Grosbard[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. scope_creep^Talk 18:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per references in the article, easily passes WP:NAUTHOR #4c. gidonb (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these references have meanwhile been hidden in the edit history. Pointing out that Haaretz is Israel's newspaper of record. gidonb (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC) The references reappeared after mentioning their disappearance here. gidonb (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nomination withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 21:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajen Sharma[edit]

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

Sources in the article and available via WP:BEFORE do not contribute to the WP:GNG or any applicable WP:SNG. Sources that are significant are not reliable or not independent and significant coverage is lacking from nearly every source. See source assessment table for further detail. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Eggishorn
Kashyap, Samudra Gupta (18 April 2014). "In ULFA's former bastion rises new opportunity". The Indian Express. Retrieved 27 December 2021.</ref><ref>Mahanta, Nani Gopal (2013). Confronting the State: ULFA's Quest for Sovereignty. SAGE Publications. p. 59. ISBN 9788132113270.	Daily broadsheet newspaper of Mumbai	generally considered reliable	passing mention only	✘ No
Mahanta, Nani Gopal (2013). Confronting the State: ULFA's Quest for Sovereignty. SAGE Publications. p. 59. ISBN 9788132113270.	Independent academic publishing house	Major academic publisher generally considered reliable	passing mention only	✘ No
"ULFA leader Rashmita Asom alias Jahnabi Mahanta Rajkonwar passes away". Times of Assam. 8 February 2013. Retrieved 28 December 2021.	~ Founded independently but recently purchased by a consultancy	? significant reliability concerns	passing mention only	✘ No
Gokhale, Nitin Anant (1998). The Hot Brew: The Assam Tea Industry's Most Turbulent Decade, 1987-1997. Spectrum Publications. p. 19. ISBN 9788185319827.	Academic publication	Academic with large number of cites	No mention of Sharma	✘ No
Misra, Udayon (2000). The Periphery Strikes Back: Challenges to the Nation-state in Assam and Nagaland. Indian Institute of Advanced Study. p. 141. ISBN 9788185952741.	Published by Indian Institute of Advanced Study	IIAS generally recognized as reliable	Passing mention only	✘ No
Gogoi, Dilip (2016). Unheeded Hinterland: Identity and Sovereignty in Northeast India. Taylor & Francis. p. 69. ISBN 9781317329213.	Academic source	Major academic publisher generally considered reliable	passing mention only and claim cited fails verification	✘ No
Das, Samir Kumar (1994). United Liberation Front of Assam: a Political Analysis. Ajanta Publications. p. 95. ISBN 9788120204072.	? Cannot assess due to limited information on author and publisher	? Cannot assess due to limited information on author and publisher	passing mention only and claim cited fails verification	✘ No
"Rakta Borna Protigya (ৰক্তবৰ্ণ প্ৰতিজ্ঞা) Poem of Uddipta Hazarika alias Rajen Sharma". YouTube. Retrieved 10 January 2022.	YouTube	YouTube	3 minute poem recitation	✘ No
"Voice of Ulfa caught in Bhutan net - Shroud of secrecy over evacuation of injured Bhutanese soldiers to army base in Guwahati". The Telegraph (India). 17 December 2003. Retrieved 28 December 2021.	Daily broadsheet newspaper of Kolkata	generally considered reliable	passing mention only	✘ No
Shah, O.P. (1989). Parlance: Volume 13. University of Virginia. p. 24.	? Cannot assess due to limited information on author and publisher	? Cannot assess due to limited information on author and publisher	Failed verification and a 1989 source has been cited for a 2019 event	✘ No
"In the Court of Judge: Designated Court, Assam" (PDF). 31 August 2015. Retrieved 28 December 2021.	Court proceeding	WP:RSPRIMARY and conflicted testimony is apparent	Case about Sharma's death in a shooting	✘ No
"মোৰ ৰক্তবৰ্ণ প্ৰতিজ্ঞা " কবি: ৰাজেন শৰ্মা ( উদ্দীপ্ত হাজৰিকা)". YouTube. Archived from the original on 10 January 2022. Retrieved 10 January 2022.	Facebook - NB: the website is given as YouTube by the cite template but this is incorrect	Facebook	poem recitation	✘ No
Ahmed, Farzand (31 March 1980). "Extremist guerrilla organisation ULFA runs parallel govt in Assam with ominous implications". India Today. Retrieved 28 December 2021.	Flagship publication of India Today Group	generally considered reliable	~ One paragraph concerned with Sharma's funeral after he was lynched out of 22 mostly concerned with other events.	~ Partial
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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom's source assessments, and noting as well that essentially all substantive content on the page has been written by socks and/or UPE editors. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom's analysis of sources. If some significant other emerges a different story, but as stands its delete. Salt is probably a good idea too. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I searched by his alias i.e. "Uddipta Hazarika" and found 5 good coverages in Google books. Those books were not added as source to support the article. Maybe we can modify it with good citation. (Though the article person died before my birth, I have read about him and his poems too ) Maybe we should consider improvement. --Priya Ragini (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have attached more sources. --Priya Ragini (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion with refbomber

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I took a look at the additional sources, I don't think they make a case for keep. These three sources, [3], [4] and [5] are mere-mentions that at most could help make a case that he should be mentioned at United Liberation Front of Asom. This source was mangled by Google Translate for me [6], but even if given benefit of the doubt on its depth (which, based on what did translate successfully, it probably doesn't deserve) looking at the homepage of the host website [7] it appears to be a blog post and thus not reliable unless the author is a recognized expert on the subject. I checked Google Books myself and only found more mere mentions_signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed these changes as further WP:REFBOMBing that does nothing to improve the article or demonstrate notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why you have removed? A few of them coverages his life. And his death is notable incident which you can't deny. Also you can't deny his organisational position. Mentions maybe, but his death and his position are notable. --Priya Ragini (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the links I left and the source assessment table. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This paper on Assamese digitization says Nila charai, Xahitya are all literary magazines. The state contains as many people as California, but with only 35% connected to internet, a lot of latitude is necessary in things like site appearances. Hemantha (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looking again that appears to be a literary magazine and they have an English About Us page that describes an editorial board. That having been said, I had another go at translation with a different service and...it looks like a false positive. The segments of text that may have been referring to the subject are:

The name Laura did not come to mind at that time. But how can we hurt his respect and sincerity! It's not that I don't love you, it's that I don't love you, it's that I don't love you, it's that I don't love you. He smiled at me and said, "I'm excited, I mean excited audience." Real name is Rajen Sharma. I am her goddess Nripen Sharma. ' Shameless self-promotion for Ballistic Products and a great bargain on a neat little knife for you. The story of his sacrifice, which was read aloud. "I am a follower of Gandhiji's ideals," he said. Lara's ideology does not match my ideology. Even so, owning one is still beyond the reach of the average person. My only son was very talented. Sapon looked at the shelf. He died in the country. We are proud of that. But what happened now? Most of his logs are out of the room. '

and

His words came true. ‘My Lara could be ideal for tens. Many still remember him. Many people have written to Molai Tinukukiya, Margherita, saying, "Goddess Uddipta is not dead. We have named my daughter Uddipta. Uddipta."

At most, this is a literary allusion to the subject in a work of fiction, and based on the text there's still a fair chance that this is a total coincidence. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC as shown by source assessment table. Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now for much the same reasons as the other related AfD. There's a small paragraph on him in this brief book. Works like this poem and a novel Sanglot Fenla being dedicated to him indicate some cultural impact. This paper analyzing some of the pamphlets by the subject, says In their paeans to ULFA rebels and their sympathizers and supporters, the names of Uddipta Hazarika, the first publicity chief of the organization and Kabi Ranjan Saikia are hallowed The appeals of difficult-to-access offline sources, usually made facilely in areas with much higher internet penetration, appear to actually apply here and this article, created only a couple of months ago, should be given more time, with perhaps a notability or sourcing tag. UPE issues were to do with a website owner's attempts to drive referral traffic, and not directly related to the subject AFAIK. Hemantha (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think for the level of coverage that we have, we could source a paragraph at our article for the ULFA mentioning their hagiography of him, but lacking sources that establish basic biographical information as we do, creating an article is premature. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom and Mztourist. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as Hemantha illustrated. Rosguill is also in some condition with illustrations of the person in question. Uddipta Hazarika is very much noted personality in Assam History references. He is still famous for his modern trend of Assamese poetry. I agree with Hemantha that mainstream media always ignores issues rather than Delhi centric, Gov version and upper cast Hinduism of North India. Wiki must consider as Hemantha illustrated. --Nang Nandini (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)— Nang Nandini (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I can't follow what you're trying to say about my comment, and it's not clear where you're pulling the quoted greentext from. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom's thorough source analysis: absolute failure of WP:BASIC. SN54129 14:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. ManaliJain (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Karas[edit]

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

Stats entry on a subject that only marginally scrapes an WP:NFOOTBALL pass with two professional games in 2013, after which he disappeared from the professional game. Cup games in 2014 don't count as he was playing in the semi-pro 2013–14 Cypriot Second Division.

A Google News search yielded nothing at all while this Greek language search failed to find any WP:SIGCOV. All I could find was EPSM24 announcing his release - this article tells us nothing that we don't already know from reading his Soccerway page. Sports Up also has an article mentioning him but this also contains no detailed coverage of Karas. Clear consensus from Loizos Papasavva, Sotiris Fiakas and others that such footballers don't meet the requirements for an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we really need to go to at least a 3 game minimum for passing of football notability. I also think we need to seriously question why we have such an insanely long list of leagues that give default notability. The current set up is flooding Wikipedia with articles on footballers. These articles are almost always very low quality. Something fundamentally has to change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three is just an arbitrary number, a number of people who've played three games also woefully fail WP:GNG. The current setup of "if they've played at least one game, they're usually notable, but if not, we can delete them" is fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources present, fails GNG. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Staugaard[edit]

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

Staugaard was a non-medlalist at the Olympics, she seems to have come in 18th in the one competition she was in. I could not find any indepth source about her. The swimming database says just her name and that she was in this Olympics. A newspaper source turned up some mentions of another person with this name in Indiana in the 1970s who was somehow connected with fashion, no sourcing on this person. The sourcing on the other person suggests this is not even the primary likely target of searches for this name and that there is no merit in having this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing can be found on her then redirect to Swimming at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metre freestyle relay, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Except there is at least one other person with this same name who actually gets marginally more coverage, so no reason to assume this would be the primary search topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't have an article on WP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My searches also found no SIGCOV. Redirect is not a good outcome if, as nom asserts, there is another person of potential notability with the same name. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is the first AfD I was able to search on newspapers.com since I was granted access!! And like the nominator said, all I found was someone related to fashion (hopefully I searched right.) but yes, delete. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 19:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Don't redirect, given the existence of more notable Lilian Staugaard's. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - only one person of this name on Wikipedia. WP:R#HARMFUL urges against deleting a longstanding article without replacing it by a redirect. Redirects to list items are fine; there is a redirect template especially for it. The suggestion that the name should be reserved for some person from Indiana of apparently marginal notability who has no article is very odd. Unlike above editors, I don't feel justified in accepting that the "other" LS is meaningfully more notable just on someone's say-so. Ingratis (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- However there is nothing about this person that is notable, and no reason to preserve the listing of the person as a redirect unless we have compelling reason to think that they are notable. Your proposal seems to treat Wikipedia longevity as a sign of anything worth noting. The reality is Wikipedia longevity is a result of Wikipedia having been flooded with junk when it was created, and we have still not sorted all that junk out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See below on the significance of longevity. Ingratis (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also R#HARMFUL concerns "redirects" that have been "redirects" for a long time. It has no application here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:R#HARMFUL says: "deletion of redirects is harmful... if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time)" (my bolding). Exactly its application here. Ingratis (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smartguide[edit]

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

Not finding evidence of notability. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage and source search so far has not indicated a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Already moved to draft once and recreated. ASUKITE 17:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 17:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 17:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 17:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made to align more with notability criteria. Used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qloo as reference when creating SmartGuide article. Will look for more external references. First time creating an article. Keen to be part of the community. Still learning. Advice appreciated. Angal26 (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything except poor pr sources. Aoyoigian (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage, as noted. Elbatli (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it shall be. Will try to do better in next articles. Thanks for the feedback and review. Angal26 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Jones (American football coach)[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement and a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale, Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:GRIDIRON or WP:COLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Alabama. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only sourcing is to the bio put out by his employer. Not every coach who works with a college football program is notable, and nothing else about him amounts to passing our overly inclusive notability guidelines for players of gridiron football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Positional coaches are rarely notable even at the biggest programs. This guy just began his coaching career, and is at a very minor D1 program. Could find no independent coverage. (malformed XFD voting tool vote) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, simply non-notable. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON (arena doesn't count), WP:NCOLLATH (only head coaches qualify), and WP:GNG (lack of SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources). Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources present, lacks notability. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; no indication of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
confusion I'm having trouble sorting out searches between this person nad Josh Jones (safety). [8], [9].--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried Josh Jones South Alabama etc among other things. Nothing of note came up, perhaps owing to the fact that he played D2 in college. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and neither his playing nor coaching career pass an SNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Z Parekh[edit]

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

non-notable business person, sources are passing mentions or quotes - nothing substantial about Parekh. CUPIDICAE💕 16:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability requiredment. Perhaps a sentence on a AMSYS page. Gusfriend (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mazzoni Center. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mazzoni[edit]

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

Our "article" on Peter Mazzoni was created on 24 January 2011 by User:Mazzonicenter, as one of their two substantive contributions. (The other was Mazzoni Center.) I suspect the possibility of a conflict of interest.

Above I place the word "article" in scare-quotes because in fact this is not an article. It is, in my view, no more than a set of notes from which an article might possibly be developed in future. I think it's better to describe this as "content".

Anyway, almost immediately after creation, this content was tagged as lacking sources, and shortly thereafter, User:Wtshymanski wisely proposed that it should be deleted. The PROD was declined next day by User:Graeme Bartlett. I think Mr Bartlett's grounds for declining the deletion are that Mazzoni might potentially be notable.

And there the matter rested. For the subsequent eleven years, nobody has added a source, or developed it into text. In fact, I believe that I have put more effort into this deletion nomination than anyone has ever put into writing an article on Peter Mazzoni.

I put it to the community that we can't host totally unsourced content forever, and that this content is not an encyclopaedia article, and that if someone does in due course want to develop it into an encyclopaedia article, then this is not a particularly helpful starting point. Let's delete it. —S Marshall T/C 15:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 15:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 15:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 15:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Mazzoni Center. WP:NOTMEMORIAL — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing easily shows this person was a notable medical doctor. Wikipedia is meant to have articles, not whatever this is. I know we could try to clean it up, but with no clear indication this person is actually notable we should just delete the mess we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I deprodded because the Mazzoni Center was named after this person. But, this Peter Mazzoni page could be redirected to Mazzoni Center, with a mention of the person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one hit in an article about Ray Liota in Urkainian (?) in news, random hits in GNewspapers and one potential hit in GScholar, the Peter Mazzoni Humanitarian award. I think the last one might be the hit, but it would need a deep dive into other scholarly articles. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mazzoni Center, which does appear to be notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5D DVD[edit]

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

it's been 13 years and this article still doesn't have enough reliable sources for verification. this looks like a hoax to me. please discuss. Tommy has a great username (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tommy has a great username (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a hoax probably, but was never anything more than academic research that had a few science news stories based on a single Nature paper, then it disappeared - never a commercial product or standard. Also the name "5D DVD" there are other similar named, it's difficult to untangle what is this technology vs other technologies, thus good quality sources are important, the article is mostly unsourced. -- GreenC 19:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 gnews hit, fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it was supposed to be commercially-ready in 2019, but we have bluray now. Delete as it never went anywhere. Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Gusfriend (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Lacks reliable independent sources.Mommmyy (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations Global Network[edit]

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

I fail to see how this is notable (again). As with the prior AFD, the sources are almost entirely funding announcements, press releases, their own website, listings and the NYT piece is a basic announcement of leadership roles - so not specifically coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 14:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page should not be deleted because the article has reliable sources, such as The New York Times (see here and here), the State of Delaware, and three books (see here, here and here). Besides, the content is not the same as the previous version that was deleted and the editor @Bbb23: declined the speedy elimination "because the current article has many more sources". Chronus (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The two NYT sources are webdenda's, which means they aren't the same standard that most of NYT's publications are - it lacks a byline too. It isn't coverage. As far as Delaware - a state isn't in the business of journalistic publications. It's nothing more than a business listing of which there are millions. None of the books are about the company in any capacity - they are fleeting, passing mentions and single name drops and nothing of substance. CUPIDICAE💕 16:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one more bibliographic source and a US State Department source. Chronus (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources used aren't reliable, mostly minimal coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page has reliable sources, such as The New York Times (see here and here), the State of Delaware, and three books (see here, here and here). Chronus (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, again that's their webdendum, it's nothing more than a basic business announcement and I've read the articles numerous times. The NYT does not have any indepth coverage of this company. CUPIDICAE💕 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one more bibliographic source and a US State Department source. Chronus (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating this makes no difference. Government listings are worthless and a brief passing mention in a book that doesn't even cover it in a full page is equally as useless. CUPIDICAE💕 19:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This source, and several others, proves that PRGN is relevant a global network of advertising agencies. Chronus (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Non-notable sources with trivial, minimal mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are press releases just saying some country was added to the network. I did not see any in-depth coverage in independent RS. MB 16:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. ✗plicit 14:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Ashton[edit]

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

Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 14:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements. Relevant content can be merged from the page history (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capybara Walking[edit]

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

I neither wish this gets deleted, nor that it doesn't; just want to run it by the community. The current sources are non-RS (IMDb and a YouTube clip), hence more and better would be needed to consolidate notability. My question is, should this have a standalone article in the first place, even if better sources could be found? According to this Wellcome Collection catalogue entry it's one of a set of 781 (!) collotypes from Muybridge's 1887 Animal locomotion publication, and it doesn't seem sensible to me to have an article on each individual one; the only one I've found so far is The Horse in Motion, others are covered in the main article on Eadweard Muybridge. In other words, essentially a question of WP:PAGEDECIDE, I guess. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In addition to it being in the Wellcome Collection, London,[10] it is in the collection of the National Gallery of Canada [11], the University of Southern California [12], the Eadweard Muybridge archives of the University of Pennsylvania [13]. Netherzone (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Eadweard Muybridge~~ Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements. ~~It's unfortunate that we don't have an article on Animal locomotion: An electro-photographic investigation of consecutive phases of animal movements~~. This is just one of its more than 700 plates. The article itself is problematic. It's not "one of the first films ever produced". It's not 30 seconds long. In fact, the cited sources say very little about this individual plate. To my knowledge, no significant coverage of the Capybara plate exists. Vexations (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Too unfamiliar with potential sourcing to make an informed !vote, but I would think for a film - any film - for it to be notable we need something beyond the fact that it exists, and that is all we get from archive and library catalog entries and IMDB (and of course YouTube adds nothing). Has anyone writing about the history of film or the biology of the capybara or mammalian locomotion made mention of this film in a significant way? Without that it is hard to even justify mentioning it on any page, let alone having a page all its own. Agricolae (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that @Netherzone: has added a few sources, and that is great; however, even if the notability criteria are eventually met, it would still be useful to reach some consensus on whether this article should exist, in addition to could. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a separable (or answerable) question. If it has the sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG, then there is no particular reason it shouldn't have a separate page, ala The Horse in Motion, except WP:PAGEDECIDE, but that guideline depends in each individual instance on what the GNG-satisfying page looks like compared to how the same content might be integrated into another specific page. As such, 'should' can't even be addressed until 'could' is resolved so we know what an acceptable page looks like and how that specific content may look integrated elsewhere. Agricolae (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricolae: where does it say that 'could' automatically and inevitably must lead to 'should'? Genuine question, I wasn't aware of that policy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it did. The established benchmark for an independent page is NOTABILITY (GNG, as demonstrated by sourcing - i.e. 'could'). I can think of two guidelines whereby a topic qualifying might be deemed better addressed without a stand-alone page ('should'). One is PAGEDECIDE, basically just 'sometimes it works better to cover two closely-related things together', and as I said, that is addressed on a case-by-case basis (and pretty much requires 'could' to already be satisfied or we won't know what we are talking about merging versus keeping separate, what proportion would be unique and what must be duplicated to have separate pages). The other, though not expressed as such, is really just a specific case of the phenomenon PAGEDECIDE covers, OVEEVENT, where if someone's entire notability is inextricably linked to a single event, then they should be addressed on the page covering that event rather than separately (unless it would make the parent page overlong), but that doesn't apply here. Other than these, the only basis for 'should' that comes to mind is the entirely subjective and invalid IDONTLIKEIT/ILIKEIT. Agricolae (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WRT to "should": The larger set that this image is a part of is very notable, and lots of very high quality sources exist. We should have an article on Animal locomotion : An electro-photographic investigation of consecutive phases of animal movements, but not on an individual plate contained in it. Since, unfortunately, no such article exists yet, anything from that Capybara Walking article that is salvageable, which is almost nothing, can be merged into the article on Eadweard Muybridge or into The Horse in Motion. Vexations (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added sources, as probably the first film about a rodent (Walt Disney, eat your heart out), and a member of a notable series of pioneering films which are not as yet adequately covered on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know it's not a film, right? Vexations (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is The Horse in Motion but the same pioneering technique which later becomes a film when, well, filmed. Worth keeping as another example. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Horse in Motion correctly says that it is "is a series of cabinet cards" and does not claim it as the "the first film about" anything. The argument that it should be kept as "the first of " something doesn't work if it isn't that at all. Vexations (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a fanboy of historic firsts, whatever Capybara Walking is it predates most other significant rodent media by decades. Muybridge's series is important, and since there is no central article, keeping another example doesn't seem far-fetched or undue. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But we can't base conclusions about significance on a single editor's personal say-so. We need a source that makes the observation. As to your second argument, the better way to address not having a central article about this collection is to have a central article about the collection. Agricolae (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...yes, but until Wikipedia has one this page and Horse present the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Eadweard Muybridge~~ Edit in light of subsequent creation: Animal Locomotion. The sources added, several archive/library catalog entries, do not indicate WP:NOTABILITY - the bar is higher than simply proving something exists, which is all these do. Neither IMDB nor YouTube are WP:RS so they carry no weight whatsoever. That leaves the article with a grand total of zero instances of reliable sources providing significant coverage, a total fail of WP:GNG. (And there is no guideline that states that 'probably the first film about foo can be presumed to be notable', even if we had a reliable source saying this is what this is, which we don't. Agricolae (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not a single source is actually coverage about this clip in particular. It's one of over 700 which merely exist, with no sources specifically describing the importance of the capybara clip, just its catalog entry. Reywas92^Talk 19:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(weak) Redirect to Eadweard Muybridge. ~~BTW there is an excellent article on Muybridge's The Horse in Motion.~~ Comparing The Horse in Motion with Capybara Walking makes me lean towards redirect. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have begun an article on Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements which could also serve as a possible alternate redirect (or merge) target. It seemed like we needed an article on this important historical photographic series. It can be improved over time, as there are many sources out there. Netherzone (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements, central article on the animal motion studies collection by Muybridge. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The newly created article on Animal Locomotion is a brilliant solution IMO. I see that it includes a link to Capybara Walking, so are we leaning towards keep? WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No implication about this discussion should be read into the new page linking to a target that currently exists. We generally don't adjust pages to reflect how we predict a discussion is going to turn out, we reflect the current situation, however short-lived that may be. Agricolae (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements per Netherzone's suggestion and WP:HEY-adjacent work. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements. I could see this as a section there, and possibly a short section on The Horse in Motion that gives the separate article as a main treatment. This would then serve as a framework for any other studies by Muybridge or others using this technique. Lamona (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Animal Locomotion: An Electro-photographic Investigation of Consecutive Phases of Animal Movements: No need for an individual page. Can be nicely presented on combined page. Gusfriend (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Hemant[edit]

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

The only role close to being significant is the Zombie Reddy one so he doesn't have the multiple roles needed for WP:NACTOR. The only article that I can find that gives him more than a trivial mention is this car accident report but I would argue that that's not enough for WP:GNG at all. I can't find any significant coverage of his radio career either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hemant's filmography is longer than what is listed here but none of they may meet the requirements of NACTOR. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Web banner. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hero image[edit]

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

This is a WP:DICDEF that should just be a one-line description in web banner. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Web banner. Doesn't appear to have the coverage from reliable sources required to meet GNG, but the term is widespread enough to warrant a redirect to the notable related topic. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hero image is covered in Web banner and doesn't seem important enough even for a redirect. Lamona (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Web banner: Definitely WP:DICDEF. It's best to be briefly discussed in the target article. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 06:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and smerge as appropriately suggested. Pure Dicdef. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sumanti Ekka[edit]

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

Non-elected politician fails WP:NPOL. As per available References also fails WP:GNG. Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 07:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsuccessful political candidate who is not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the nominator did any WP:BEFORE searches, they were poor. India is not my field, but I quickly found SIGCOV at https://www.thestatesman.com/india/tea-worker-turns-poll-candidate-talks-plight-1502956292.html --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being a council member of a student organization nor being a non-winning candidate in an election pass WP:NPOL, the article is based on primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability at all, and one piece of coverage of her non-winning candidacy is not enough coverage to get her over WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable role. Every last manjack or womanjack candidate in every election everywhere can always show at least one hit of media coverage in that context — so the test for making candidates notable as candidates isn't just "a hit of coverage can be found", it's "such an unusual volume and depth of coverage can be found that she has a credible claim to being significantly more notable than most other non-winning candidates", which isn't what that one hit shows. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that interpretation of GNG was applied to footballers, we'd cull a huge proportion of them for only getting the routine coverage given to players in matches.

One item of SIGOV is not enough to meet GNG, which is why I didn't vote to keep. But this application of a GNG+ test is a form of systemic bias. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qalam-e-Mowla[edit]

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

This article does not have the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (books) Sunfyre (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Google search was unclear on more info. There might be more information on the Arabic Wikipedia, but unclear if that's there. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Ali is one of the central figures in Islam, so this book of his sayings is wikinotable, invoking (a slightly adjusted:) point 5 of WP:NBOOK ie. "The book's author is so historically significant that a book of the person's sayings may be considered notable." Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a major collection of hadiths by Imam Ali it’s pretty certainly notable though there may not be a great deal of RIS in English and tbh I haven’t been able to find much myself so far. Mccapra (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is not actually a book of hadiths, as Mccapra says above, but a poetic collection attributed to Ali by a certain set of Shia's (as the article claims). It has been translated to several languages including Gujarati, Hindi and Sindhi (I was able to locate some passing mentions) but I don't feel this credits it something to pass WP:NOTABILITY. We need to have something that verifies its relation with Ali first. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing hurdle for books is pretty low-- just two reviews would do it-- but so far no one has turned up even a single source (even an unreliable one) about this book. I tried some searches with my best-guess transliteration "قلم-ي-مولة" and a few variations with no luck. Maybe sources exist in other languages, but without even the original spelling of the title, I don't see how they can be found. Right now there doesn't seem to be any evidence that an encyclopedia article even can be written about this book.~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satsang TV[edit]

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

The article does not cite any sources, and it doesn't seen to be notable. It only has one paragraph and one infobox. No significant coverage I can find in reliable sources. GoldenHayato (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Hinduism, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 11:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No coverage other than the parent site. Venkat TL (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Flag of Myanmar. Target can be altered by discussion and consensus Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese Tricolour[edit]

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

Proposed blank and redirect; using AfD process per a community consensus in 2021.

This article's creator, နေနီဝန်း, asserts that the term "Burmese Tricolour" only refers to the flags used by the Dobama Asiayone and never to the current flag of Myanmar. The content of this article also reflects this claim, but none of the sources given do.

Two of the sources were written before 2010, when the current flag of Myanmar was adopted. Obviously, they would not make any references to the current flag, nor claim that the term "Burmese Tricolour" only refers to the flags used by the Dobama Asiayone. Thus, two of the sources cannot be used to verify this claim.

The Union flag law source given only stipulates the regulations surrounding how to display the flag and does not even verify the sentence "The current flag of Myanmar (since 2010) uses the tricolour background to indicate the magnificence of the Tricolour flag.", nor the aforementioned assertion about the term "Burmese Tricolour".

The Lost Footsteps is not the best source as it is self-published, but the first sentence reads, "The current tricolour was first adopted in the 1930s by Dobama Asiayone (the ultra-nationalist "We Burmans" association)." This is true in the sense that "tricolour" refers to the colour combination, as that is what the word "tricolour" means in English (and all other languages unless there is some nuance I am not aware of in Burmese); it never means a specific flag.

It is also worth noting that the Myanmar Wikipedia's equivalent article is about a song, and does not make the claim that "Burmese Tricolour" only refers to the flags used by the Dobama Asiayone.

This article should be changed to a redirect to Flag of Myanmar#Inspiration. List of Burmese flags can also be used to list details about the Dobama Asiayone's flags, as it has not been proven that this article's topic and content are notable enough to warrant its own article. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The flags used during 1935-1945 was commonly known and referred to the Tricolour but current national flag is not.

The English version of the Union Flag Law in article 4 states that "The yellow, green and red colours included as background colours indicate the three-coloured flag which was applied magnificently in the period of struggle for the independence of Myanmar." It's Burmese version is "နိုင်ငံတော်အလံတွင် အဝါရောင် အစိမ်းရောင်နှင့် အနီရောင်တို့ အောက်ခံအဖြစ်ပါရှိခြင်းမှာ မြန်မာနိုင်ငံ လွတ်လပ်ရေး ကြိုးပမ်းမှုကာလက ထည်ဝါစွာ အသုံးပြုခဲ့သော သုံးရောင်ခြယ်အလံကို အလေးအမြတ်ပြု ဖော်ညွှန်း ခြင်းဖြစ်သည်။" which may be translated as "In the State flag, the inclusion of yellow, green and red as background is honouring and indicating the Tricolour used during the period of struggling for independence of Myanmar".

The referenced Lost Footsteps is not mine.

The news of the case in 2015 in which somebody flied the Tricolur (သုံးရောင်ခြယ်အလံ) on the flag pole of High Court of Yangon Region.

Case opening

https://burma.irrawaddy.com/news/2015/01/02/69302.html

Investigation

https://burma.irrawaddy.com/news/2015/01/09/69585.html

နေနီဝန်း (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The symbolizations of the colours are also different between the Tricolour and the National Flag of Myanmar, despite having the same colours.

In Dobama Tricolour;

the yellow symbolizes "religion (Buddhism) Sasana and education" [ဘာသာ သာသနာ ပညာ];
the green symbolizes "paddy, rice and water (staple grains and crops), and gold, silver, jewelry (precious mineral resources)" [စပါးဆန်ရေ၊ ရွှေငွေရတနာ];
the red symbolizes bravery or courage [ရဲစိတ်ရဲမာန်]
but there was no defination of white and other colours. Reference: သုံးရောင်ခြယ် https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=amN0RW1n4gk

While in the National Flag of Myanmar ;

the yellow symbolizes unity, conformity, huge wisdom, happiness and unity of all national races amicably [စည်းလုံးခြင်း၊ ညီညွတ်ခြင်း၊ ဉာဏ်ပညာကြီးမားခြင်း၊ ပျော်ရွှင်ခြင်းနှင့် တိုင်းရင်းသား အားလုံး ချစ်ခင်ရင်း နှီးစွာ စည်းလုံးညီညွတ်မှုရှိခြင်];
the green symbolizes of fertility, conformity, fairness and being a peaceful, pleasant, and greening nation [မြေဆီဩဇာကြွယ်ဝခြင်း၊ ညီညွှတ်မျှတခြင်းနှင့် အေးချမ်းသာယာ၍ စိမ်းလန်းစိုပြည်သည့် နိုင်ငံဖြစ်ခြင်း];
the red symbolizes bravery and decisiveness [ရဲရင့်ခြင်းနှင့် ပြတ်သားခြင်း];
the white colour of the star symbolizes purity, honesty, fullness of compassion and power [သန့်ရှင်းစင်ကြယ်ခြင်း ဖြောင့်မတ်မှန်ကန်ခြင်း၊ ကရုဏာတရား ပြည့်ဝခြင်းနှင့် စွမ်းအင်နှင့် ပြည့်စုံခြင်]. Reference: Union Flag Law [နိုင်ငံတော်အလံဥပဒေ]
English: https://www.mlis.gov.mm/mLsView.do;jsessionid=940B4DECB83CA22C4FB3213CCC92AE53?lawordSn=7351
Burmese: https://www.mlis.gov.mm/mLsView.do;jsessionid=D0281D9E4F1C2468CE0F47A6AC1E4501?lawordSn=914

နေနီဝန်း (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of main contentions is that the distinction does not exist in English, but I recognise that that argument might be counterintuitive given that most viewers of an article (on the English Wikipedia) as niche as historical Burmese flags would likely be Burmese English language speakers. If the consensus is to keep this article, I would argue that it is better to just add {{For}} (i.e. This article is about the first tricolour (etc.) ... for the current flag of Myanmar, see Flag of Myanmar) to the top of Burmese tricolour (I do not think the capitalisation is justified) and to delete Myanmar tricolour (Disambiguation).

However, another issue I see is that the article topic itself is not very notable. It's a stub article about the flag of an organisation that became a popular anti-colonialist symbol, but I don't see why such a topic couldn't be covered in Flag of Myanmar or even in one of the tables in List of Burmese flags. CentreLeftRight ✉ 09:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to this article (semi-randomly from the Lithuanian Flag), I found the title and content confusing and poorly written. I think this information should be included in Flag of Myanmar. A separate article is not worth it for seven sentences. —⚜ Moilleadóir ☎ 02:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Burmese wiki article is about for a national song Thone Yaung Chel. The song is about of the flag. So pls rewrite the article focus to the song. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1996–97 Dumbarton F.C. season[edit]

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

Under-referenced and non-notable article for lower division, part-time football club Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this does end up going then I'm concerned that others of a similar level like 1996–97 Livingston F.C. season may need looking at further Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Livi had some full-time players in 1997 "Jim Leishman has 14 full-time players and 10 part-time and the club leads the Second Division." Albeit not in a 'fully professional' league. I doubt if Dumbarton have ever had a single full-time player. You will remember that there is a very high bar of coverage required for these season articles per NSEASONS: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the precedent set in that discussion, I dare say a good hundred or so more season articles could probably be deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a shame as Dumbarton have, I think, a full set of season articles with a lot of time and effort clearly having gone into their creation. But they are sourced almost entirely from one book and one club stats site, and for the majority of their history they have played in the lower divisions, so I just don't see these as having SIGCOV or meeting NSEASONS (there are a few periods of top-tier play which I understand would be valid for retention). What I would suggest is that the significant events and couple of lines from the overview of this and each invalid year could be grouped together under something like Dumbarton F.C. 1990s seasons, which I understand is an acceptable alternative to a set of individual articles. Crowsus (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good possibility. Alternatively, we could have a prose article like History of Dumbarton F.C. which could be split into articles if it gets too big, like we do with History of Liverpool F.C. (1985–present), History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–1985) etc. I think the community prefers this to just random season stats articles, which often drift into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory if we're not careful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs improving(sources wise), not deleting. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the author I have a vested interest in keeping. I have invested months of research into Dumbarton and just because I do not list every source does not mean that it is limited to a couple of books/archives. I thoroughly research every addition and usually detail the most relevant/detailed source. User:aitkegs (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give one or two more examples, User:aitkegs, of good sources? That would quickly end this debate. Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes do not adequately address the nom's concern.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards keep There are enough sources in the article and out there to technically pass GNG. Part of the nomination for deletion states the club is "part-time football club". I really don't understand that statement, there is no such thing as a part-time football club. The club file their accounts with companies house state the club run under "small companies regime" and have opted to not file their statement of income. [14], In the report it is indicated that the total number of employees is 23 for the year 2020. I can't see this being all the footballers, so it seems that the club is operating in a semi-professional format. So the season would fail under WP:NSEASONS. But that doesn't supersede GNG which can probably be sorted out. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Govvy, "part-time football club" is a fairly standard way in British English to refer to a team which has only semi-pro players..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ChrisTheDude: That's rather archaic terminology if you ask me. Even in the off season a club still has to be run. File it's accounts every year; year after year... Govvy (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Govvy: you are almost certainly right, but I was just pointing out that the expression is definitely used eg in this BBC article, which states Tickets and travel have had to be sorted, media engagements fulfilled, training venues secured and sponsors contacted, which is a heavy demand on a part-time club. Anyhoo, this is getting a bit off-topic now..... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've followed this debate for 2 weeks and I'm not convinced that the sourcing required to pass WP:GNG actually exists here. I believe that this should be deleted with no prejudice to being restored if someone does come forward with significant coverage of this season in reliable sources that are independent of Dumbarton F.C. itself. I really do believe that an article like History of Dumbarton F.C. would be more appropriate than having stand-alone articles for every single season which, in my view, borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We set the standards very high at this AfD for season articles and this was upheld at this DRV. It would be silly to keep this article on a season with much, much less in terms of evidence of notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As said by ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk), the article need to be improved, not deleted. Rillington (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced, plus unlike many EPL teams, actually has prose. And per Govvy. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seasoned Players[edit]

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

An unremarkable film series that fails WP:NFILM. Sufficient RS coverage not found. Industry awards do not count towards notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Sexuality and gender, and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent coverage. Dream Focus 08:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage to distinguish subject from run-of-the-mill. Nothing to support WP:NFILM notability. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really didn't remember having created this cruft a lifetime ago. Burn with fire. Cavarrone 19:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent sources to establish notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources found, lacks notability. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Gunness[edit]

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

I listed this for proposed deletion as "no actual notability -- merely being the last surviving veteran of a military expedition is not notability" ; the prod was removed by Necrothesp , with the comment "deprod; we have usually found the last surviving veteran from a particular country of a particular war to be notable"; simultaneously the original and only contributor to the article,L'Origine du monde commented: "I'm fine with deletion - I couldn't find any reliable sources for him."

I would accordingly have speedy deleted it as A6, but I think it is fairer to bring it here for a decision. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Minnesota, and Oregon. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC and there is no other relevant notability rule or policy that he satisfies. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I said, we (and the world in general) have generally considered the last surviving veteran from a particular country of a particular war to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand, notability is generally determined by independent coverage in the media by reliable sources. Maybe if you could find other articles on Wikipedia that seem to be considered notable for the same reason, it might help your case. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV fails WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 12:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not aware of any policy/guideline that would state that [we] have generally considered the last surviving veteran from a particular country of a particular war to be notable, so I'm judging this by WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO standards. For the latter, none of the criteria appear to apply. For WP:SIGCOV purposes, I found a short obituary online, but it appeared to be non-independent (no byline, etc.). There are also passing mention in the books Russian Sideshow: America's Undeclared War and Quartered in Hell: The Story of the American North Russia Expeditionary Force, 1918-1919 according to Google Books, but these appear to both be far from sufficient to count for WP:GNG purposes. Happy to change my !vote to keep if better sources are found, tho. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG in my view. Intothat darkness 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't actually create the article, but moved it from a misspelling of the surname. There is currently no reliable source for this article. I have been unable to find any sources for this article other than obituaries that do not seem to have been written by a reliable source. Perhaps those who are in favour of keeping the article could do some research. I would be in favour of keeping the article if it was reliably sourced.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "last surviving vereran from any particular war" is notable guideline would be insane? Are we ready to make articles on every person who is the last surviving veteran of every country in World War II? World War I? Would we do this for countries that were not indepdent at the time, so the last surviving verteran from Mali in World War I, even though at the time Malians fought in the French Army and Mali was part of French West Africa? What about for microonations? In this case it is also the US deployment of troops into Russia, so where does this lead? Articles on the last surviving verteran on both sides of every conflict between the US and Native Americans groups? The last surviving veteran of every US deployment of troops into Latin American countries? The last surviving veterna of both El Salvador and Honduras to fight in the football war? This could be taken to extremes. It is a horrible starting point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this subject meets notability requirements; the subject wouldn't even meet the deprecated WP:SOLDIER. I think the argument made by Johnpacklambert makes a lot of sense as well. Where would such a precedent lead? The fact of the matter is there's nothing here that's of interest other than what's already covered in the American Expeditionary Force, North Russia article. --Kbabej (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hodge (runner)[edit]

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

Runner of unclear notability. He has won some minor races. Unclear if his victories in the navbox for the USA National Championships confer notability. Natg 19 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one of the sources even mentions him in more than a list of race winners. I couldn't find any SIGCOV elsewhere either. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 12:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing is even remotely close to showing notability. Knowing someone does not make someone notable for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability as per GNG. Timetraveller80 (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Whether they pass WP:NATH is not relevant, as NSPORT requires GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There appears to be this story/interview, but I've never heard of this publication and he seems to have engaged in a lot of media promotion, so it could be paid for for all I know. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability requirements. Gusfriend (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 05:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Shapiro[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation that doesn't actually lead to any articles.

Neither of the people here appear to be notable and neither of them appear to have any significant level of coverage. Transcendence (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Internet, and Disambiguations. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just listed this as a candidate for speedy deletion G14 (no extant pages). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Florida. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: someone has done the work to distinguish these two people (easily confused: American media types), each of whom might have reasonably had a redirect pointing to the article where they are mentioned, and the dab page not only does the work of both those redirects but helps avoid future editors incorrectly conflating the two into one person. Not eligible for CSD under my reading of the very tight criteria of G14. PamD 10:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in each case they aren't just mentioned as existing as a sister, but have article content: the one was trolled as being Ben's sister, the other has recorded as the Shapiro Sisters. So each certainly would merit a redirect if the other didn't exist: as they both do exist, we need a dab page. PamD 10:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD. MB 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD and MOS:DABMENTION. feminist (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 18:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not need disambiguation for non-articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We do though. Yes, we do. – Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD. I think it's beneficial to have it. Zeddedm (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly pointless, even when there are actual articles for people it is discouraged to have a disambiguation for only two items.★Trekker (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the case. Unless one of the two topics is primary, then the base title must be disambiguated: WP:TWODABS. – Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD: both topics pass the threshold of meaningful content at which we start to provide navigation via redirects or dab pages. No argument has been made that there is a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Svarupa Dasa[edit]

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

All ISKCON preachers are not notable. There is no major work or post held. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Sources are dependent and connected with ISKCON. Gita Nagari Press is owned by ISKCON. In last AfD, ISKCON published books were used by one participant to vote keep. (This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna Dharma) Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lots of non-ISKCON sources on Google Books and Scholar (and even more when you use the "Das" spelling). Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WP:LOTSOFGOOGLEHITS Venkat TL (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That policy refers to the main search engine. I'm talking about Google Scholar and Books. I don't see how you can say all the sources are dependent on or connected to ISKCON. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Intelligent Information Management[edit]

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

There has been significant conversation as to this association's notability on the article talk for years, but consensus was never clear. Especially with changing notability guidelines since this article was created, it's time for a conversation. While i can find them mentioned in articles "according to..." and their research is occasionally cited, it isn't cited frequently enough to meet any guidelines there, and sourcing is well short of CORPDEPTH significance to meet the GNG. It exists and serves an industry, but doesn't appear to be independently notable. Star Mississippi 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the article nor my own search showed the significant independent coverage I believe is required for WP notability. Passing mentions, corporate listings, and databases are not sufficient. Papaursa (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NCORP was not met. Reliably sourced content may be added to Citigroup if desired. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You Scod18[edit]

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

2 sources for acquisition of this company. Only one reuters source also for the acquisition. Search on google news brings the same stuff no notable article. Maybe merge with citigroup Greatder (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - not notable. RemotelyInterested (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Citigroup without redirect. Fails WP:NORG, there could be a line about its acquisition in the Citigroup article, but other than that I couldn't find anything else. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion on whether there is any content that's worthwhile to merge would be helpful in ascertaining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One small set of articles about a WP:ROUTINE business transaction is not remotely enough to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Lectonar. ✗plicit 13:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puteri Muslimah Nusantara 2021[edit]

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

not a notable beauty pageant. no sources. written in Indonesian Stvbastian (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!)} ^(contribs) 13:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and in Indonesian. If someone were motivated enough this could possibly be moved to the appropriate wiki with sources. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 19:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This article was copied from the Indonesian Wikipedia: id:Puteri Muslimah Indonesia 2021. It would need to be redone from scratch to work on the English Wikipedia. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 07:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need more unsourced, partially translated articles. If refunded it should be finished in draft space. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have A2 speedy deleted; as correctly pointed out by Matthewrb there is an article on Indonesian Wikipedia. Lectonar (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Further details and article improvements, possibly renaming and/or merging the article, etc. can be discussed on the article talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bullfrog, Utah[edit]

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

This is a campground and marina, which is what it said on the topos before someone left out the "Marina" and hand wrote in the "campground". Before Lake Powell, it was nothing at all. So "Bullfrog" seems to be a fiction born out of bad map editing and reading. What's particularly, well, something is that the article was created both calling it a "small community" and saying that it was a campground/marina. At any rate, there's no way this passes notability. Mangoe (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Utah. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point out that this wasn't a GNIS-sourced item in its earliest revisions, but in fact it was an indirect GNIS-sourced one, sourced to a "hometownlocator". The GNIS records referenced aren't in the current WWW interface which has had all non-ppl and "(historic)" records excluded. The several "Bullfrog" records in the unabridged database were three "locales" (i.e. places that weren't even populated), a "bay" named Bullfrog Bay, and an "airport" named Bullfrog Basin Airport. (Bullfrog Creek is actually somewhere else.) This is suggestive of a possible refactoring into geography.
Researching, I find that it is both a campground and a marina. It's a USNPS resort on Lake Powell in the NRA. The Scott&Scott guidebook to National Park Lodges published by Rowman & Littlefield notes that the lodge was "constructed in the early 1980s", which is after GNIS phase 1, and the hand annotations to the maps would have been part of GNIS phase 2. There's an iUniverse book by a "retired businessman" and a "Lake Powell veteran" whose credentials to research history I do not trust.
But after encountering some 1960s sources I finally find ISBN 9780816518876 which is a University of Arizona Press book that documents Bullfrog Basin, which has been a redirect here since 2008. So it looks like renaming over that redirect and refactoring with sources like that in hand is the answer.
Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum, ISBN 9781607813118, a University of Utah Press book, is another such source, which has a bit about the 1960s expansion of the marina on page 47. Uncle G (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to question a mid 1960s expansion of the area, because the lake only started filling in 1963. Be that as it may, we are still left with a routine recreational facility of no especial note, and I see that of the other facilities mentioned in the Lake Powell article, the only two that have their own articles are one place that for some unfathomable reason is graced with a CDP, and another which WLs to a supposed drowned town, not to the facility. It would actually make sense to expand the section on the facilities in the main Lake Powell article, and redirect Bullfrog Basin to that, but Bullfrog itself remains a complete fiction. Mangoe (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - A fiction with fairly convincing big concrete signs. It's just not an "unincorporated community". It's a campground, marina, airport, and ferry terminus. And people were doing stuff on the river before it became a lake. Uncle G (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - this picture is credited as "NPS photo" as is this picture and might be free content. Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is a sign for (as it says) a visitor center, not a community. I'm still have trouble with where you are going with this. It's not a community; it's a complex of recreational facilities run for the NPS by a contractor. Is it notable as such? So far, I'm not convinced. It seems to have the same sort of coverage that any such facility gets. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Well I'm definitely not going down your "Bullfrog doesn't exist." route, given that that would put me into direct conflict with a photographer for NPR who has apparently been there. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Uncle G's information. Although it could be moved/renamed as a separate matter, not requiring AFD attention. --Doncram (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As per above, there is no "Bullfrog, Utah". Mangoe (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename perhaps either to Bullfrog Basin or Bullfrog Marina. I think this is a notable area with a variety of services in the National Recreation Area that has enough coverage to warrant an article. Thanks to Uncle G for solid improvements. However I would still suggest a merge to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, but that article is astonishingly poor and this would be undue there. I guess most of the content is at Lake Powell, so reorganization may be warranted, with a merge to a subarticle or subsection focusing on the several marinas on the lake. If someone wanted to work on that it'd be nice. Reywas92^Talk 03:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Bullfrog Marina already existed in a poor state: I have redirected it here. Reywas92^Talk 03:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bullfrog Basin Airport might be mergeable, too. Our article doesn't mention the mooted plan of some years ago to shut it down. Or night landing in 1978. There's not much to support the airport standalone, but, as I said above, it is part of Bullfrog Basin.
    Bullfrog Basin was, despite what GNIS records may say, the USNPS's full official name for this place in actual documentation, such as for example the 1977 environmental review of where the USNPS was going to route electrical power. I haven't even put in what that says. I went for the university press books over the government sources.
    5.6 Bullfrog Basin, Glenn Canyon Recreational Area, Utah
    […]
    2) Bullfrog Basin is in the middle of the Glen Canyon Recreational Area in Utah. It enjoys sun almost daily year round, with occasional winter fog conditions.
    […]
    5) About 120,000 people visit the area annually. Accessibility is from a service road on the west side of the lake. A landing strip is also at the site.
    […]
    9) The site is occupied by several permanent personnel and their families.
    — MIT/Lincoln Laboratory Lexington (1977). "Photovoltaic applications in the Southwest for the National Park Service". In United States National Park Service (ed.). Natural Bridges National Monument (N.M.), Proposed Photovoltaic Electrical System B1; Statement for Management (1978) B2; Public Workshops for Development of Management Objectives: Environmental Impact Statement. p. 29.
    This in fact tells us that the GNIS compilers were wrong to classify this as "locale" rather than "ppl". GNIS phase 1 looked at dots on maps. GNIS phase 2 was supposed to improve on that, but has botched the job. Actual history sources and documentation turn up the thing by its full name, as well as what it is.
    Uncle G (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Memphis Wood Fire Grills. ✗plicit 12:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dalsin Industries[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Prod was removed in October 2021, but it was oddly placed by the creator. SL93 (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Memphis Wood Fire Grills: The article's creator previously proposed deletion on the basis that it "lacks sources which mention the subject more than tangentially", which seems a reasonable summary as the available coverage is routine listings and occasional appointment announcements [15]. Fails WP:NCORP but Dalsin is mentioned in the article about the Grills product, so a redirect is feasible and would maintain text history. AllyD (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Memphis Wood Fire Grills while that topic still exists although for me, that would fail NCORP also. I'm unable to find any references that meet our criteria for establishing notability as per [[WP:NCORP]. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sources to confirm notability. Gusfriend (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Bell Publications[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this Neo-Nazi publisher. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and West Virginia. SL93 (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Judaism. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 00:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IcuTest[edit]

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

I have no doubt this would be a G12 with phrasing like IcuTest believes that the most effective place to test is within the unit test if the software were contemporary and we could find the souce since this is copypasta. However it's copypasta that survived both speedy and PROD over the last decace, so we're here. What we don't have is any in depth sourcing about IcuTest or what it does. There are a lot of false positives due to ICU tests, but adding GUI filters it some. There are some fora and a stack exchange post, but nothing in depth or significant. Star Mississippi 02:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 02:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I PRODed it 12 years ago and it has lived up to the lack of notability from then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search did not find any significant coverage either: only the same sort of inadequate sources that the nominator found. Unless there's something I'm missing, IcuTest does not pass the GNG or any other relevant notability guideline. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gusfriend (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RSR Rungta College of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Promotional concerns, private for-profit college, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Sumit Badakar (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GD Rungta College of Engineering & Technology[edit]

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

Promotional concerns, private for-profit college, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Sumit Badakar (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Poh[edit]

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

Does not appear to fulfil WP:ECONOMIST. The 'citations' are press release related, not peers. Fails WP:GNG. Was dratified and yanked back into the mainspace. – robertsky (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are not specifically about the subject.-KH-1 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ms. Poh is occasionally cited in the press, but single-sentence quotes do not establish notability. None of the myriad sources cited in the article provide her with genuinely significant coverage, and my searches in English and Chinese found only more of the same. Fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Ring characters#Shizuka and Yoko Asakawa. ✗plicit 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoichi Asakawa[edit]

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

Coverage is limited to WP:ROUTINE coverage of his inclusion on the roster of a Dead by Daylight expansion pack and plot descriptions of Ring and Ring 2, none of which can be considered significant. Redirect to Ring, as there is more information there than at Ring (franchise). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of Ring characters#Shizuka and Yoko Asakawa as a more precise target. The Dead of Daylight content could be merged if it could fit well, perhaps by splitting Yoichi into a new section in the listicle. Jumpytoo Talk 04:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ring characters#Shizuka and Yoko Asakawa. There's nothing really here to merge. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Ring characters - Not currently listed. Dark knight 2149 12:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment - no objection to the alternate proposed target, I had tried looking for List of characters in the Ring franchise when filing this nomination and somehow failed to come across List of Ring characters in the search results. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge into List of Ring characters, no indication of notability. Cakelot1 (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge, I can only echo Cakelot1 and like. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rungta High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school, fails WP:GNG. Sumit Badakar (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Shellwood (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rungta Group of Institutions[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Doesn't passes WP:NCORP. Sumit Badakar (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rungta College of Science & Technology[edit]

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

Promotional concerns, private for-profit college, clearly fails WP:GNG Sumit Badakar (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rungta College of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research[edit]

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

Promotional concerns, private for-profit college, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Sumit Badakar (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rungta College of Engineering and Technology, Bhilai[edit]

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

Promotional concerns, private for-profit college, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Sumit Badakar (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rungta College of Dental Sciences & Research[edit]

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

Promotional concerns, private for-profit college, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Sumit Badakar (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In a case like this the onus is on sources and none have emerged but I’d be delighted if somejone found sources and would consider restoring. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

László Károlyi[edit]

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

No evidence that they pass WP:GNG and a "before" finds nothing independent written about him with any detail. Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite possibly a person who has done good things, but I see neither a credible assertion of notability nor evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Hungarian Order of Merit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment All the references are in Hungarian and I'm not able to find anything on the subject in English which makes it really hard to determine WP:BIO. GoldMiner24 (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artem Avetisyan[edit]

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

From Talk:Artem Avetisyan#Deleting:

It's strange to see an article about Artyom Avetisyan on Wikipedia. The conflict with Calvey is the only reason why he is somehow visible. Before that story, no one was interested in him. And outside of that story, no one is interested in him either. As an investor he is unremarkable, and as an entrepreneur he has not created anything significant. --5.17.89.140 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(also copied from Talk:Artem Avetisyan#Deleting) I must admit I had doubts regarding notability. The media coverage isn't great either (and no personal achievements highlighted). I have no will to contest this. Rabbi Tkachov (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources all in Russian, no international coverage, article seems more promotional than anything else. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indication of notability, the sources (that I can google translate) don't seem to be talking about him specifically in any significant way. Alyo (chat·edits) 08:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no requirement for the sources used in the English version of Wikipedia to be in English. Searches in English are unlikely to turn up sources in Russian but those used in the article seem adequate. It is important to remember that editors are encouraged to translate articles from other language versions of Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine question--which ones? A few of them are explicitly tagged as a press release/advertisement, and the remainder are just combinations of name-drops and quotes from him. Not a single one appears to have more than one sentence about him. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian sources look really dodgy to me too. It's totally fine for sources to be in Russian, but I don't think we should assume these are adequate unless someone can specifically explain why we ought to. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just pointing out for anyone inclined to look for sources that his full name is "Artem Davidovich Avetisyan" if you need to disambiguate between him and someone else. I'm also only getting coverage related to Calvey, as mentioned in the nomination, but I haven't looked a) very hard or b) in Russian so I don't want to argue for deletion myself. (I was checking if there might be more coverage under alternate romanizations Artom/Artyom: doesn't look like it.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a Russian speaker, I confirm that sources are inadequate at best. A meaningful coverage of his person is lacking (as mentioned above). Myuno (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom, no need to keep this going. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Gay[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Some concern of it being an autobiography. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Washington. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google Scholar search is showing that Gay's work is cited very heavily: the top five results have 13889, 4295, 1394, 1087, and 940 citation respectively. That seems like a pretty straightforward pass of WP:NPROF crit. 1: she is "an author of highly cited academic work". (It's possible that she might pass WP:NAUTHOR or other NPROF criteria as well, although I haven't looked into it too carefully.) The promotional/COI editing is definitely a problem, but that can be dealt with through the usual processes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an extremely clear WP:NPROF pass (criteria 1, 2, 4, possibly 8), and almost certainly WP:NAUTHOR as well (my internet connection is having trouble so I've only dropped in a couple books and reviews, but there are more I haven't added, and surely more I didn't find before giving up). I don't know how this can possibly be called promotional either; it's about five sentences long and straightforwardly factual. The editor who tried to drop in 20k bytes of content recently openly admits to block-dodging; if that's what the nom means by "promotional", it's not in the article right now, and we can just block that editor again and move on. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's very rare to see five-digit citation counts in Google Scholar for a single work of a deletion nominee; that alone would make a strong case for WP:PROF#C1, and the high citations for many other works confirm it. There are also now enough book reviews listed to convince me of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems like a slam-dunk for notability under either WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. I don't see any obvious issues with tone either, it seems very dry and straightforward. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the citation counts in google scholar, it's hard to claim she fails WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Penang Mosque Application[edit]

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

I pRODed this an age back & came across it because I was trimming the gugg from my watchlist. Firstly I don't think that the sourcing is strong enough to establish notability. And really I would redirect it to the mosque in question but there is no indication of which of the mosques in Penang it is. Oh, the PROD was removed by the article creator without explanation. TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. The EL is for Yayasan Islam Pulau Pinang, which appears to be a govt agency in Malaysia, but this page only has an incidental mention of the software. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. I found this, but from the dates mentioned it appears to refer to a different Penang Mosque app (and I wouldn't rely on it anyway). CMD (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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