Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 14	January 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan)[edit]

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

The party has not got any election success. It fails WP:NORG as the sources do not discuss the org in detail, only coverage is for the launch of the party. They have used the same name as a notable political party in India but that is not enough to make this org notable. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I recommended keeping this article when it was nominated in 2015, but it's no longer clear to me that this article should be kept. Little information has been added to the article over the last seven years. There is no indication here of any elections this party has ever contested, and they are not listed in 2018 Pakistani general election as having contested that election. Nor does the Election Commission of Pakistan list them as registered here. There is a party listed as "Aam Admi Tehreek Pakistan", but it's not clear whether this is the same entity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a new article has just been created about a new party, Pakistan Aam Admi Movement (PAAM). What its relationship is with the topic here I don’t know. Mccapra (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even I dont know, but going by the name, it is not the same as the article on AfD. Venkat TL (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it must be different. Aam aadmi is the transliteration of the Hindi and Urdu words for "common man", so apparently it's a popular term for use in political party names and slogans. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90. I've seen plently of articles of parties with no election success getting deleted. If there is no political success, then it can't be considered notable. - SUN EYE 1 15:57, 22 January 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 23:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Daser[edit]

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

BLP of the Director General of the Plateau State Information And Communication Technology Development Agency. This isn’t a role that carries a presumption of notability and there’s no other basis for our hosting an article about him. Mccapra (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least it was not too promotional, but Wikipedia is not a resume site. Perhaps a mention could be made in the Plateau State Information And Communication Technology Development Agency, although not clear that would survive a notability challenge either. W Nowicki (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I agree with W Nowicki. Couldn't find anything notable on the subject. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 00:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:16, 22 January 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 23:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lenovo OneLink[edit]

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

Does not appear notable enough for a separate article. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC) See also Lenovo OneLink+. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability present or found via BEFORE. Should have remained in draftspace but there was some weird edits around that with creator describing himself/his objection in the third person. Not mentioned at Lenovo, so a redirect wouldn't help the reader. Star Mississippi 22:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Creator is entitled to refuse move to draft and this should be respected but must then expect AfD; and I see no evidence of notability presented and if creator forces back a stub into mainspace, arguably dsiruptively, in this state the're unlilkely to gather volunteer resource support in deep searches. It is unfortunate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenovo OneLink+ was not bundled at the same time but very easy for the nominator not to spot it. I'm willing to change me !vote if something significant appears. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:42, 16 January 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. Consensus is that Srivastava is not notable by academic standards. Rohagr I'm willing to draftify this if you'd like more time to find offline/non-English sources to work on the article. Just let me know. Star Mississippi 21:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushal Srivastava[edit]

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

I don't think he meets either WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR to the best of my ability to determine, although there may be sources in other languages I'm not finding. Most of the links on the page establish his existence, but not his notability. PianoDan (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Hi there, and thanks for willing to discuss the deletion of this page. I have found a few more sources that I believe prove his notability as a professor, I will reference them here ^[1] ^[2]. Both of these sources outline that Professor Srivastava led the university's theoretical and research physics department, with an emphasis on research of theoretical solid-state physics. While in this role, Professor Srivastava developed novel theories regarding spin lattice relaxation in magnetic ion-pairs 9 diners, vibronic coupling in paramagnetic systems, and super paramagnetic relaxation 9 magnetism in nano-particles. These theories are still cited to this day.

This source ^[3] outlines that Professor Srivastava was the first to use a particular quantum mechanic model in order to determine a particle's suitability for recording. Professor Srivastava was invited to the Symposium on Condensed Matter Physics in 2004 to speak about his findings, and to discuss the ramifications of such a discovery. This source ^[4] is a book published in 1989 and distributed throughout India, the USA, and Canada outlining major advances in material physics. Research undertaken by Professor Srivastava is included and discussed in this book, namely his work on orbit lattice interaction for iron ions within insulators. The Australian Institute of Physics, in conjunction with ANU explored several pieces of groundbreaking work at their inaugural Congress, and research by Professor Srivastava was recognised at a national level for its novel discoveries ^[5] (to view, source will need to be downloaded).

These sources above are not cited on the Wikipedia page, although I will add them if that's best. Further sources are available, but the ones that I have mentioned here are just a selection of what's available online. As Professor Srivastava did much of his work 20+ years ago in India, many sources aren't available in English on the internet, but in print. Most sources will be online, but there may be certain printed sources in Hindi that aren't accessible at the moment. I am happy to do further research to find these sources. From the sources I have compiled while drafting the Wikipedia page (as well as the sources that I have outlined above) I believe that Professor Srivastava meets several of the notability guidelines.

I appreciate being able to discuss this page with you all. And sorry if I haven't formatted this correctly, this is my first time going through the AfD process!

References

^ "University Department of Physics Overview". Tilka Majhi University.
^ "Tilka Majhi Department of Physics". IndCareer.
^ "Magnetic Relaxation in nanoparticles of iron oxides: magnetic recording applications". Symposium on Condensed Matter Physics.
^ Advances in Physics of Materials. Scholarly Publications. ISBN 817019346X.
^ "Physics for the nation" (PDF).

Rohagr (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Rohagr[reply]

The quickest way to establish notability is to cite a source that expressly shows that he has met one of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC, and say which criteria you're pointing to. For example "Source X shows that he holds the rank of 'Distinguished Professor' at notable university Y". The sources you've posted here establish that he 1. & 2. is indeed a physics professor, 3. has published a paper, 4. has written a book, 5. presented a paper at a conference. However, none of those are sufficient to establish notability. Ideally, you'd like to see some coverage in secondary sources outside of strictly conference papers and academic journals, but that's not mandatory if you can establish sufficient importance to the field.

Alternately, you could look for a source that meets one of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR, establishing his notability as a poet. In that case, you would almost certainly needed to find signficant coverage in secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thanks for these tips! Just for the sake of clarity - Professor Srivastava didn't write the book that is cited as source 4. His research was discussed at length in the book by authors that are entirely independent of Professor Srivastava, and was categorised as being a significant advance in modern physics. Just so I know I'm looking for the right things, what are the guidelines for establishing sufficient importance to the field? It seems like a fairly subjective criterion, so I was wondering whether there are a set of pointers or rules to help establish this.

Rohagr (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Rohagr[reply]

Sure - if you look down the page at WP:NACADEMIC, there's detailed discussions of each criterion. PianoDan (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am really not seeing the citation profile to support NPROF C1 on Scopus, which shows him with just 327 citations and h-index of 9. Being invited to speak at general symposia and conferences doesn't count towards notability. His research was discussed at length in the book by authors that are entirely independent of Professor Srivastava The only place I'm seeing his research discussed at length in this book (or rather, these proceedings of a workshop) is in the chapter he wrote, which is not by independent authors. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber Internet Center[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The page and the sources cited all read like an advertisement. No notability established. Multi7001 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lack of independent and reliable references. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a mere 2 gnews hits. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Super Vadimka[edit]

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

PROD was removed with zero comment by article author. Even beyond the obvious issues with the article content itself (WP:GAMECRUFT, poor English, literal fake sources, etc.), the subject is an entirely non-notable freeware game with absolutely no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS'es, failing to come even close to meeting WP:GNG or any other threshold for inclusion. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom covers it all. -- ferret (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I will note that the author has been engaged about their preferred contribution field (ROM hacks and fan games), all of which have been deleted, to no response. If this continues, WP:NOTHERE might be in the cards... Axem Titanium (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 21:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if sources are found, it would almost need a WP:TNT. When I tried to clean it up earlier, I gave up because a lot of the prose was incomprehensible... Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It simply isn't notable. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And there are serious WP:IDHT issues with the article creator._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG Juggyevil (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know where to start with this article. Aside from the creators WP:LISTEN issues, the article would need to be blown up if kept, as noted already above. Spf121188 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; non-notable stuff. Mann Mann (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:18, 22 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruger (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable singer fails WP:GNG, WP:NSINGER DMySon (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Ruger is notable enough to meet NSINGER. Having released 2 EP's under 2 major labels (Columbia Records/Jonzing World). Debuted on TurnTable chart, with "Bounce", and "Dior". Got Nominated twice at 2021 AFRIMA and the 7th edition of the AEAUSA Awards. Notability guideline passes.--Afí-afeti (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreeing with Afí-afeti here. U683708 (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- In what term? U683708, cause the subject itself fails WP:GNG. Ruger would have been classified WP:Toosoon, meeting this guideline NSINGER; pass it. Making it eligible but not an assurance to be on Wikipedia main space, till reliable source is established. --Afí-afeti (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Guardian - Is not independent of the subject, but we can consider. Vanguardngr - Not in neutral tone/not independent of the subject fails WP:NEUTRAL. Pulseng1, Pulseng2, Pulseng3 - Many Paid articles written about the subject by the same editor MOTOLANI ALAKE, WP:NPOV. [Officialcharts] - Can consider this. Panafricanmusic - no significant coverage. Okayafrica - Not independent of the subject. Bellanaija - WP:NPOV. DMySon (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi DMySon, I wouldn’t say it a paid editorial work, cause MOTOLANI ALAKE is one of the popular entertainment contributors on Pulse Nigeria. He is one of the author who is active on the platform when it comes to reviews on albums and eps. Check most of the Wikipedia Nigeria album projects. Also Mavins is big enough to have the media, watching them closely. Jonzing World is a subsidiary of Mavin, I believe same thing applies to Jonzing, knowing fully well Ruger, and Rema record “Bounce” did some numbers in 2021.--Afí-afeti (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong but the GNG does not comment on the neutrality of sources. It says in WP:BIASED that Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Therefore, the above sources cannot be discounted.

Princess of Ara 10:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to further discuss the sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per my comment above and sources identified above. Princess of Ara 18:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added and the AFRIMA (?) award, but the article needs a rewrite. He started singing at a tender age? Please use a more neutral, formal tone of writing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:38, 19 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vulture capitalist[edit]

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

Dicdef; no reason all of this can't be in Venture capitalist, since it's just a pejorative term for a particular sort of VC. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was completely rewritten just before this nomination by an IP whose other edits are ... not promising. It is probably worth considering both versions of the article when addressing its potential. --JBL (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That rewrite by the, now blocked, IP was a complete joke. I've reverted that so that we can discuss the actual article. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that all versions of the article should be considered. Bwrs (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say weak keep. I didn't like the inclusion of individuals in the "See also" section so I've removed those. We can include those people in the body of the article, if they really are relevant. I also don't like that quite a lot of this is referenced to a single, short YouTube video that is not from an RS source. Looking in Google Books, News and Scholar there do seem to be a number of decent sources out there so I think it should be possible to fix that. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But in what way is it not just a pejorative for certain venture capitalists? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The qualitative difference seems to lie in their focus on already distressed companies which can be picked over, restructured and refocused on their potentially valuable parts rather than on companies that are just starting up and which might be seen to offer a good value proposition with their current structure. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Practically no indication of notability. The only reliable source, which is Investopedia, cannot be used alone to establish notability. More reliable, independent sources should be added. Multi7001 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG, based on the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

References

^ Arnold S. Goldstein (2002). Starting on a Shoestring; Building a Business Without a Bankroll. Wiley. pp. 149–151. ISBN 9780471444916.
^ Michael Szycher Ph.D (2018). The Guide to Entrepreneurship; How to Create Wealth for Your Company and Stakeholders. CRC Press. p. 269. ISBN 9781482209082.
^ David Shelters (2013). Start-Up Guide for the Technopreneur, + Website; Financial Planning, Decision Making, and Negotiating from Incubation to Exit. Wiley. pp. 32–34. ISBN 9781118518472.
^ Kevin D. Williamson (24 October 2018). "Spare a Thought for the Vulture Capitalists". National Review. Retrieved 15 January 2022.
^ Antony Loewenstein (2014). Profits of Doom; How Vulture Capitalism is Swallowing the World. Melbourne University Publishing. ISBN 9780522867237.
^ Daniel A. Offiong (2013). Globalisation and Africa; Reverse Robin Hoodism. Apex Books. pp. 247–250. ISBN 9789789222070.
^ Balleisen, E. (1996). "Vulture Capitalism in Antebellum America: The 1841 Federal Bankruptcy Act and the Exploitation of Financial Distress. Business History Review". 70 (4): 473–516. doi:10.2307/3117313. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's real and significant, and though it's in the same general are as Vulture Fund, it's a little different. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 17 January 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June Preston[edit]

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

I started editing this article with the view that the subject was, just, WP:NOTABLE. I tried, along with some other editors, to help knock it into shape by trimming unsubstantiated claims, information from unreliable sources, etc. However, the more I (and others) have sought to address these issues, the more I (and others) have been met with attacks (on the talk page) from an editor who states she is the subject’s daughter, and supporters of the latter. Through posts which the daughter is putting up on Pinterest, these supporters continue to add material which is trivial in itself and in any case not reliable. Having looked through the sources and related material in more depth, I am now of the opinion that the subject is not notable and I therefore move this AfD.

My rationale is as follows, and is based on WP:GNG, the elements of WP Notability.

1) “"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. “ That cannot be held to be the case in this article. The subject is presented as a film actress and a singer, but there is no coverage of her in either of these roles other than trivial mentions in sources which do not qualify as reliable 2) “"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.” . Much of the material in citations is journalistic recycling of publicity materials. Other citations support trivial issues (e.g. that she sung Gilbert and Sullivan at high school). The above considerations also affect the other elements of notability: “"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.”; “"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases…..”. One of the article's defenders has kindly listed the sources used - editors can judge for themselves whether they think these sources are significant or reliable. WP:GNG mentions that “significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article”. In this case there is clearly no significant coverage in relevant reliable sources.

As regards the detailed guidelines for notability for people WP:BIO – “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” This subject does not meet this criterion.

For Entertainers WP:ENT the criteria are: 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or 2. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The subject fails these criteria.

For singers WP:SINGER there are 12 criteria, none of which are met by the subject – I’m not going to set them all out here, anyone can go look. The subject also fails the criteria for concert tours WP:NTOUR.

Conclusion: delete. Smerus (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails WP:NSINGER and WP:ENT all coverage is merely listings or passing mentions nothing significant or in-depth. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep per Silver seren ~~they are only mentioned in passing in the newspaper clippings and never had a major film role.~~ Wgullyn (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You already know she meets the GNG with significant coverage from around the world from her concerts. You've been trying to remove sources and reduce the actual representation of notability in the article for over a week (with this article being practically the only thing you've edited on Wikipedia as a whole in that length of time). Not to mention you've been repeatedly insulting the article subject and her daughter's account on the talk page during that length of time. I don't know why you have a personal agenda against the article subject, but it's pretty obvious that you can't properly determine notability in this case. Anyways, for everyone else, here's examples of significant coverage of June Preston from around the world, as helpfully collected by her daughter due to 1950's non-English papers not being digitized:

Van Hessen, Ro (24 October 1964). "June Preston: verrassend !". Haagsche Courant (in Dutch).
"La Expresiva Soprano Norteamericana June Preston, Presentada Por La Asociacion De Cultura Musical" [Expressive American Soprano June Preston, Presented By The Music Culture Association]. El Noticiero Universal (in Spanish). December 1, 1962.
"La celebre soprano June Preston en el Instituto Musical" [Celebrated soprano June Preston at the Musical Institute]. Diari de Tarragona (in Spanish). December 5, 1962.
St. Clair, Tim (June 7, 1989). "Fete honors architect, admiral, singer". West Seattle Herald. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
Morales Vélez, Alejandro (2012). Zarzuela, opereta y ópera en Medellín, 1864-2009. Compañías, obras, teatros y artistas (in Spanish). Medellín. p. 466-467. ISBN 9789587201307.
L. G. M. (December 3, 1962). "La Boheme En El Liceo, Con Dos Repartos Diferentes" [La Boheme At The Liceo, With Two Different Cast]. Hoja del Lunes (in Spanish). p. 36.
Barnes, Eleanor (May 25, 1935). "Actress Shakes 'Curse'". Los Angeles Daily News.

And that's all just a partial example from the coverage that's currently in the article. There's plenty more that hasn't been added as of yet, such as this, this, this, this, and this. She was very much more famous from her later in life opera career on the international stage than she ever was from her child film career in the US. So it's in the former where her notability lies and where all the significant coverage is. But, as you would expect, it's difficult to track down coverage from, say, 1950's Haiti, as an example. Their main newspapers aren't digitized properly at all. Regardless though, we clearly have more than enough coverage shown already to meet the WP:GNG. Silver seren^C 19:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the very least, meets criterion 4 of WP:SINGER "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Wikipedia, in general, does a poor job of using non-digitized resources. I understand why, but people must recognize there's a large blind spot in searching for notability of older people. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish one of the archival database efforts would include older non-English newspapers. We have Newspapers.com, Newspaperarchive.com, and the British Newspaper Archive. But that's all almost exclusively for English language papers, even if they do go back several centuries. The best we've got is some non-English archival stuff digitized by the Internet Archive, but that's pretty much it. And sure, other databases exist, but they're not all that readily available, are only on very specific newspapers and nothing else and/or are difficult to search through, lacking the digitized text search function of the aforementioned archives. It's really aggravating. But I guess we're getting there, slowly. Silver seren^C 22:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is more than borderline notable, passing WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 23:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally agree with User:Silver seren. This should be kept. PreppyElephant (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Deletion is not the answer to the main concerns raised by the nominator. Any issues with original research, source quality, and conflict of interest are all solvable through talk page discussions and editing the article. Many of those problems have been solved already, or are in the process of being resolved.4meter4 (talk) 06:38, 22 January 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 12:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aboli[edit]

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

Non notable. Couldn't find any good sources. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete in accordance with WP:A7. There is no credible assertion of notability here. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a nationally broadcast television series, so it has a clear potential claim to notability by meeting WP:NTV. matt91486 (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't clear at all that any show broadcast nationally is automatically notable, and NTV doesn't say so either. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was automatically notable. I didn't even respond keep/delete at this point. However, it offers a clear claim to notability that would negate a speedy criteria. matt91486 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A7 requires a credible claim, and a broadcast show isn't a claim of notability, it's just a claim of existence. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that's just a different matter of interpretation between us. I believe nationally broadcast programs generally by default have credible claims to notability and should be resolved through the AfD process. A local TV series, I wouldn't have the same baseline credible claim in mind. I think this is especially true for series broadcast outside the US and UK, where reporting on TV series is considerably worse and there are real systemic bias concerns for what is covered in easily accessible online sources. matt91486 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Day Hull[edit]

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

Non notable local event, reported on by local press and nothing else. Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The event is quite colorful, but it is notable only at the local level. TH1980 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This event, which looks fun, is one of hundreds of thousands of local events that happen around the world all the time. This one is not of encyclopedic value, and is non-notable - does not meet WP criteria for events WP:NEVENT. Netherzone (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only option I can see other than to delete this would be to WP:MERGE or WP:REDIRECT it to Preston Likely. That article, however, is also currently being discussed at AFD. So, perhaps what happens here depends on what happens there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a great little event. But its not notable. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:40, 21 January 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 Nigeria Twenty20 International cricketers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olayinka Olaleye[edit]

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

While the individual has played in some Twenty20 International matches, they were not part of a World Cup Qualifer, so he fails WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - unless someone wants to start a List of Nigerian Twenty20 International cricketers which would be a redirect target. There are passing references to him, and one potentially quite helpful ICC match report from 2018, but there's not really anything at GNG level. Given the level he's playing his cricket at - there were 15 year olds playing in the match the ICC reported on - I don't see enough notability here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that List of Nigeria Twenty20 International cricketers article was created 2 years earlier. Human (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, clearly Redirect then. Thanks - didn't think anyone would have created such a list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nigeria Twenty20 International cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nigeria Twenty20 International cricketers. Human (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nigeria Twenty20 International cricketers Fails the updated WP:NCRIC guidelines as his T20I appearances weren't in notable enough matches, and I'm not seeing enough for a GNG pass. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:20, 15 January 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) 05:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Connolly[edit]

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

Individual does not meet WP:NCRIC (playing in a FC/LA/T20 match), has only played at U19 level. Was previously deleted in this earlier group nom for the same reason. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there are some sources that deal with him in a little detail. The problem is that he hasn't really done anything properly notable yet. I'm sure he will, but it's too soon for an article on him. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Let's not start introducing age-group sportspeople without senior appearances. StickyWicket (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. He won't be playing Big Bash anyways because of the U19 wc. Human (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC currently as no notable matches played currently. There's a few passing mentions and news of him being named in the Perth Scorchers squad and for Australia U19 but at this stage I don't really think there's enough for a WP:GNG pass. Not currently seeing a suitable WP:ATD here as he's not played any matches, plus this may prevent recreation in the future if he plays some notable matches. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 16 January 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 23:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dove Air[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:SIGCOV. Some results from Google but it's difficult to verify the quality of the industry coverage. BriefEdits (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for this company brings up only passing mentions. FalconK (talk) 10:49, 16 January 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) 16:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salma de Nora[edit]

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

Fails GNG & ENT. Might have passed PORNBiO but now awards no longer count this no longer meets inclusion standards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 18 January 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) 05:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Baby[edit]

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

Fails GNG and ENT. Porn performer who would barely have passed PORNBIO Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Comment Fails WP:GNG What is the obsession here with creating pages for pornographic actors/actresses MaskedSinger (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The standards were abysmally low in Wikipedia’s ye bad olde days. You got a single nomination for best boobs at some purely promotional award show? YOU DESERVE AN ARTICLE! Dronebogus (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comes up short on WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. The article stub has no reliable sources, but an independent search yields some coverage in Spanish media. Minor celebrity who appeared in a Big Brother-type reality show. Non-zero but still not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 18 January 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. Star Mississippi 21:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Likely[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST known for one barely notable local event only. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an artist with a a professional career, a body of work and works in museum collections who has received sustained coverage in scholarly journals by qualified professionals. Vexations (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the newspapers references are either local tabloid (Oxford Mail), free (Oxford Journal), or street (The Big Issue). These would be acceptable in moderation if there were also a few solid references to pass WP:GNG, but I'm not seeing it. Curiocurio (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've thought about this article and its associated AfD in depth over the past week, and my assessment is that it is WP:TOOSOON for this artist. From what I can ascertain from the sourcing and several WP:BEFORE searches is that this artist needs more time to develop their career before they might be notable enough for a WP article. Their work has been covered as "human interest" stories in several local news feeds, which is great, but it is not enough to meet the WP criteria for WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. Their projects sound interesting, quirky and fun, however they do not have, as presented above by Theroadislong, Vexations and Curiocurio a professional career as an artist, meaning exhibitions curated by independent professionals at museums or notable galleries; work included in the collections of notable museums; in-depth articles/essays by art historians or theoreticians in art magazines, art historical or academic journals or books; nor have they developed a new technique, process or procedure for making art (artists have been doing pop-up shows, organizing events, and making installations for many decades, and there needs to be secondary sources stating how and why his work breaks new ground). It seems like his events are a load of fun and are appreciated by the Hull community; however the artist needs more time to develop before they are ready for an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 22:10, 22 January 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) 05:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Green Foulke[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two of the sources are obituaries, and one is a surname archive. A quick search did not find any reliable sources. Wgullyn (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of independent and reliable references about him. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not have enough substantial sources to show a passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 18 January 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HotNewHipHop.com[edit]

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

Sources in the article are questionable and doesn't seem reliable. Keep in mind that the last article based on this website was deleted back in 2019. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:20, 15 January 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 January 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE as a reliable source. The prior deletion should have no bearing as there several new citations since then, which seem reliable and in-depth such as [1], [2] and [3]. They are also on BET nominated platform for one of the best HipHop sites.Chelokabob (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and a few independent reliable sources exist such as what the above editor Chelokabob provided. VincentGod11 (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep First of all, as a hip hop enthusiast, I'm really surprised by this nomination. This site has been mentioned literally hundreds of times on Wikipedia. This is no doubt a pretty well-known site in the world of hip hop. I would strongly suggest people who know more about hip hop take a closer look at this. It's an unfortunate fact that hip hop articles on Wikipedia tend to be frequently nominated for deletion by people who don't really know that much about this genre.

Plus it's been mentioned on CNN, ABC, BET and many other top sources too.

MaghrebiFalafel (talk) 15:32, 21 January 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 , speedily deleted as WP:G3, blatant hoax, per Special:Diff/1065865178 and delete request from the page creator on the talk-page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Isaac 2021[edit]

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

Consensus was previously established to merge the subject of the article into the season article. Notability is not established, and the $500,000 damage toll provided is unsourced and not supported by the NHC's TCR; page title is also invalid. Akber mamps 08:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User has done this with many storms and even with Isaac in the past (see history of Hurricane Isaac 2018). The year is wrong (storm took place in 2018 as per the other page title) and they have recreated this article multiple times with it being redirected every time. They have also done this with Tropical Storm Ana 2021. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I have tagged the article for speedy deletion as a hoax. The article is titled 2021, but it describes the hurricane of 2018. Several of the sources refer to the hurricane of 2012. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 15 January 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) 05:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar University Department of History and Archaeology[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. BEFORE search turned up nothing usable. Sourced entirely to a book written by the university's founder. Also reads very advert-y. No use as a redirect, no usable content to merge either. Mako001 (C) (T) 07:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 07:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 07:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't appear to be a notable university department, and per nom. Chumpih ^t 08:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, someone must have paid a lot for all these non-notable articles. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is necessary to point out that Kevo327 is sort of the co-nominator for this as well. Mako001 (C) (T) 10:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources cited. There were only passing mentions by sources when I searched for any. Multi7001 (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: looks like a promotion to me — Toghrul R (t) 07:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 19 January 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) 05:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Knudsen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Leader of an extremely small local party. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, his party should also have its page removed, but a merge to the municipality would probably be the best solution. Geschichte (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He leads a party that exists in a municipality of less than 5,000 people. This is ludricrously far from even being close to being remotely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 21 January 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 Impact100. this target did not exist at the time of nomination, but Beccaynr has since begun it. While !merge was not an explicit consensus, it is implied in DGG's "delete" and appears a valid ATD close. Star Mississippi 21:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impact100 Sonoma[edit]

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

I wrote this Wikipedia article when I first moved to the Sonoma area. Now, I think it might fail WP:NORG because it's only featured in localized press coverage.

Thoughts? Missvain (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRANCH suggests this article could be merged into an article about the parent organization, but there appears to only be an article for founder Wendy Steele. From my initial research, it looks like Impact100 could be supported as a standalone article due to its national scope and impact, e.g. Impact100 celebrates 20 years of empowering women (Wichita Falls Times Record News, 2021), Giving circles, where people pool their money for charity, have quadrupled, especially among women (Philadelphia Inquirer, 2019), Impact100 brings women together to create philanthropic power (Detroit Free Press, 2018), Ann Pierson gives back with Impact100 (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 2017), Impact 100 founder named Jefferson Award winner (Cincinnati Enquirer, 2014). As an alternative to deletion, I suggest developing an Impact100 article and then a selective merge. Beccaynr (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have since started the Impact100 article, which is currently under construction. Beccaynr (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local branch of a nartional society is notgenerally notable , because all the coveage is likely to be notices and advocacy. No prejudice against a general article on the main organization. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've developed the Impact100 article, I've been selective with local and regional coverage about local chapters, by keeping a focus on more in-depth reporting about the history and development of the organization; there appears to be similar coverage available about Impact100 Sonoma that could be merged, e.g. Impact100 proves the power in numbers (Press Democrat, 2012), Group awards $325k to impact Sonoma Valley nonprofits (Sonoma Valley Sun, 2019). Beccaynr (talk) 19:57, 19 January 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, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ritch Esra[edit]

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

No coverage. Refs are profiles and passing mentions. Fails sigcov and blpprimary. scope_creep^Talk 16:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An editor in good standing is updating the article, so it is worth looking at the references. This is the first 16 references:

Ref 1. Newspaper article.

Ref 2. Academic article. States of Esra Ritch Esra, former A&R director at Arista Records. Passing mention.

Ref 3. Gavin Report. It is an event listing page and is non-RS.

Ref 4. Billboard page. It states: Inside A&R: The Heartbeat of the Record Company, Ritch Esra, artist consultant, author. Passing mention.

Ref 5. Ritch Esra This is a profile, likely written by himself, as seems to be the case now.

Ref 6. Man who discovered Kiss It is a link to an interview on youtube at [4] and has been watched by 1636 people. Primary references.

Ref 7. Music Connection's April 2013 Issue by Music Connection - Issuu . It stated “We want MUBUTV to be the trusted source to help break the next generation of artists,” says Ritch Esra, one of the co-founders of MUBUTV. Passing mention.

Ref 8 A&R Think Tank: New Realities of Finding New Recording Artists Press-release.

There is not a single reference here, apart from the first one that I can't view, that constitutes a real secondary sources. They are passing mentions, profiles, non-rs links, press-releases. The next block is more of the same so I'm not doing it. It fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. The guy is simply non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article is currently in a WP:REFBOMBed state. Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The dude has a job. When part of your job is to publicize things, it's inevitable that you will be passingly mentioned in a bunch of places, but this does not amount to substantial coverage in secondary sources. Nothing on this page is any different from anyone else who has the job, and wikipedia isn't one's resume. FalconK (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and discussion above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 19 January 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) 05:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Dhull[edit]

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

Going with the logic of AssociateAffiliate - "We don't have articles on under-19 cricketers. For a cricketer to have an article they must meet WP:NCRIC which states a player has to have played a first-class/List A/Twenty20 match to be included. Dhull doesn't meet this criteria. PS: Why was this article accepted at AfC without checking the relevant project criteria?". - Hatchens (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Devonian Wombat, your opinion is crucial here because you have accepted this article at AfC. Feel free to put your views. -Hatchens (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the fact that this guy fails WP:NCRIC is completely irrelevant, as he passes WP:GNG with coverage in the Hindustan Times here, The Hindu here and The Indian Express here. Any specific SNG such as NCRIC cannot override a GNG pass, they can only supplement it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devonian Wombat - Aren't the first and thirds of those interviews? Not independent coverage unfortunately, since the information in them comes form the interviewee. One more non-interview source and I'd happily vote keep. FOARP (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, those articles are pretty clearly not interviews as they are not formatted as one, with the journalist asking questions and the person responding. This is an example of an interview, the act of including a quote in an article does not make it an interview. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why was the PROD removed to start an AfD? Totally unnecessary. Firstly, WP:NCRIC is not completely irrelevant, we have project inclusion criteria for a reason. Secondly, the coverage is from interviews, so coverage is not independent and lacks anything beyond routine coverage. Under-19 cricket is not played to a substantial enough level where the ICC even affords the matches any level of status, so we must stick rigidly to what the ICC define as important matches, and thus people playing in these matches must mirror that criteria. StickyWicket (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And where is the consistency? This stub is little different to the stubs Lugnuts was creating, for players who actually have played at a senior level, yet they were deemed 'sub-standard'. StickyWicket (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there are sources - and quite good ones; the problem is that he hasn't done anything particularly notable yet. It's close, but I don't think this is a suitable subject for a standalone article - certainly not in it's current form anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Agree with BST on this one. There's sources on this guy and a couple of articles which could potentially pass him for GNG in the article and in a search, however they tend to relate to him being named as India U19 captain, which is a bit WP:ONEEVENT at this stage. The guy may well on to play notably in FC/LA/T20 cricket or even internationally, however at this stage I don't think he's ready for an article unless more GNG passing sources turn up. Not seeing a suitable WP:ATD here either, and that may also prevent article creation in the future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was some sentiment for creating a redirect, but no consensus on where it should point. Editors are welcome to continue that discussion outside of AfD. RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Stealers[edit]

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

The subject does not seem to be notable. A google search only turns up this Wikipedia article. I also feel the article could be a hoax as it says sources are anonymous. 747pilot (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pittsburgh Steelers. That was what it was created as, until the Pittsburgh stealers stuff got added. I'd like @Squamate: to comment here, since they created this article in the form it is now in. If you made this as a hoax over 9 years ago, please say so now, it'll save a lot of time, and will likely save you a lot of greif. Mako001 (C) (T) 07:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now leaning toward Disambiguate, as we now have, if I'm keeping track of this correctly, three different possible targets for someone putting in "Pittbsburgh Stealers".

Firstly, they're aiming for Pittsburgh Steelers but either made a typo, or good ol' autocorrect "fixed" it for them.

Second, the real-but-of-questionable-notability prison team, if it's determined to be notable, which would require some coverage outside of a couple of months in 1982.

Third, this song mentioned by Metropolitan90.

If the prison team is not determined to be notable, then my redirect !vote stands, due to the very real occurrence of autocorrect helpfully changing Steelers to Stealers. I had to override autocorrect the first few times I typed Pittsburgh Steelers. Then possibly hatnote the Steelers article with to reference the song that Metropolitan90 referred to below. Mako001 (C) (T) 02:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, whether it's a hoax or not, there is no evidence of notability and the references are suspicious. I don't particularly think a redirect would serve a purpose seeing as "steal" and "steel" do mean two entirely different things. We don't commonly have redirects for other articles using the alternate meaning and "steal" has connotations that aren't relevant to the NFL club. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, @747pilot: @Mako001: @Bungle: definitely not a hoax, and may actually be notable. See [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping BeanieFan11. The newspaper articles definitely seem to confirm this isn't a hoax, though they're all dated around the same time (Sep/Oct 1982) and for notability we need to demonstrate there is continued significant coverage beyond a single event or date. Articles from around the same date tend to indicate that they're all reporting about the same single event. It does seem like there could be something there though, so i'll also do some more digging too. Would help if there is anything from a different period in time to demonstrate sustained coverage and i'd happily withdraw. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the sources @BeanieFan11:. I would agree now that this isn't a hoax, but I still think that the team may not be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. 747pilot (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am neutral on whether or not it should be kept. But if the consensus is in favor of deletion, I think a redirect to Pittsburgh Steelers would make sense, as "Pittsburgh Stealers" has been viewed over a thousand times in the past year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is a good idea. Stealers is a common misspelling too. I am now leaning more to redirect the page in the event it is indeed deleted by consensus. 747pilot (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by BeanieFan11. There's definitely notability from these papers to be honest and I think that the combination of the paper clippings and the other citations, there's likely a bit to write about this team. I am a bit shocked that a semi-pro football team has the level of coverage it does, but this seems like a keep to me. TartarTorte 16:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally (with some exceptions) we find that semi-pro football teams do not even approach notability standards. This one does not appear to be an exception. Perhaps enthusiastic editors could try another wiki such as an online sports almanac.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note that I've found a decent amount of coverage for many semi-pro teams from the 1910s through 1960s, and believe a lot are notable from that period (for example, my longest creation was of a semi-pro league). So I wouldn't agree with saying that "generally" they fail to meet it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't argue that there are none--Pittsburgh Colts, Orlando Panthers, Racine Raiders, and Newton Nite Hawks are examples.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW the Orlando Panthers were professional, not semi-pro. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't look like the newspaper articles provide much information, and they are all from the same two-month period. Wgullyn (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Kendalls#Singles, in reference to the country song of the same name (which is spelled like this). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can appreciate BeanieFan11's article search, but as noted, above, this was in 1982 in a few months period, and there doesn't seem to be continuing, sustained coverage. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect, but I'm not 100% sure about that either. Spf121188 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 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 05:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Faille[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Being a contributor to Forbes' online blogs (which themselves aren't considered reliable sources) doesn't make one notable. Article is largely promotional, even after trimming the fluff. ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Chumpih ^t 08:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails NBIO. Incorrectly listed at Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been around since 2012 and there still are no sources about him other than his bio at the Forbes blog. A newspaper search on his name came up with all of one letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. Lamona (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough sources to show notability. The scary thing though is how many articles that I have seen that had a no sources tag placed on them before Jan. 1, 2010 and still have not had the issue resolved. 2012 seems not that long when you have seen so many articles tagged over 2 years more than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. RL0919 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Kung Minkoff[edit]

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

Reality show performer. Not enough in-depth coverage outside of the show to show they have any notability outside the production. Should probably be a redirect, but was reverted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. When I read things like this: According to Bravo, Crystal and Rob live in Bel Air and Crystal has formal culinary training, and she has a passion for cooking and throwing extravagant parties. She is an enjoys skier and loves to play tennis. in the encyclopedia it is often signal that there is either promotional editing going on or there is not enough info out there to substantiate notability for a stand alone article. This too: Kung is a 76th-generation descendant of is filler. Fails WP:NACTOR Netherzone (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you can assess secondary coverage and not the quality of the current text, which can be changed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Another Believer hello! just seeing your note now. When I did a BEFORE search, all I came up with was social media, something called "Facebook Wedding Style", and primary sources like interviews without editorial content. I also found low-quality sources similar to what is in the article. I found things that looked like native advertising - that appears to be an article but with the byline "produced by digital editors" or no byline, which makes me think it's PR placement, and not real reporting or journalism. Please improve the article if you can find independent secondary SIGCOV in reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by Netherzone , for the reasons given there. There's no encyclopedic information. I'm not sure it's promotional , but its not a basis for an encyclopedia article DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 19 January 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. When disregarding socks, consensus is clear that he's notable. Star Mississippi 21:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Micah McLaurin[edit]

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

The article does not meet the requirement of notability. The entire page reads like a personal resume and is filled with puffery. There is no reason this article should be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandlestickLane910 (talk • contribs) 17:02, January 15, 2022 (UTC)

~~He is young so this may change, but for now the article should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EveryFlowerandMe (talk • contribs) 00:50, January 15, 2022 (UTC)~~
Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article at this time. @CandlestickLane910: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are unreliable (it even links their Amazon and store pages). Other than winning the "Young Artist Award" it does not seem like they have done anything notable. Wgullyn (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 03:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 03:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator and EveryFlowerandMe have been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan57Joyceefyt. Striking the comment of the latter. --Finngall ^talk 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but there are a number of references to inappropriate sources (e.g. Spotify) that need to be removed. There are some better references such as [10], [11]. That was just with a very quick search, but there could be others. Lamona (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Most of the sources unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DashDyeTod1 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Finngall ^talk 06:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The Sources are reliable and the entire article passes per WP:V Chip3004 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are reliable and there's quite a few of them. I agree with Chip that it passes WP:V. Lamona found some better sources with a simple, quick search and I'm sure that there's others. At the very least it passes the basic requirements. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 15:05, 23 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin James Bartlett[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability standard of Wikipedia. Page reads like personal resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EveryFlowerandMe (talk • contribs) 01:03, January 15, 2022 (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion of my own on the article at this time. @EveryFlowerandMe: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has several reliable sources and the subject has won a major music contest. Wgullyn (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple references meet NMUSIC. Has notability and SIGCOV. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnathan57Joyceefyt. --Finngall ^talk 20:06, 16 January 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 05:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tofig Abbasguliyev[edit]

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

Originally PRODDED by Kevo327 with the rationale: Fails GNG, the only sources are one primary source (CV at the university which he worked at, said university probably did a paided editing campaign and has a lot of unnotable articles) and self published unreachable source. unnotable university professor who fail relevant notability criteria.

I then moved it here, not because I disagreed with Kevo327s PROD, but since it is quite easy to get a prodded article back, and that isn't going to need to happen, since he will almost certainly never become any more notable. He fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG and all the other relevant standards. The article for the department he worked for has been AfD'd by myself due to non-notability. Also of no use as a redirect. Minimally linked to, and even by the articles from the university itself. Mako001 (C) (T) 02:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 02:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 02:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless some sources can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I could not find any reliable sources and they do not appear to be notable. Wgullyn (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the person fails GNG and NBIO; however, I don't love taking this to AfD to remove an easy WP:REFUND unless there is a concern that would occur. I understand that might be borne out of the paid editing, bt it seems like that actively has largely ceased. TartarTorte 03:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input on that. Whilst it has largely ceased, there is still some activity, though relatively minor maintenance stuff. I was concerned that they might suddenly notice that all their promo was going down the gurgler, and jump into action. However they probably aren't getting paid enough at the moment or something, because I am yet to see any action whatsoever. Mako001 (C) (T) 12:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous prod and nom. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Without any solid reference. fails all notability guidelines. ZanciD (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all notability guidelines Davidoooo123 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep due to the nominator's withdrawal with a unanimous keep consensus, per WP:SKCRIT#1. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet 04:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Daniel (science fiction writer)[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet GNG or NCREATIVE~~ Withdrawn, see below. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in a SF reference work: [12]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, is being anthologized a sign of NAUTHOR? See [13], for instance. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are Publishers Weekly and Kirkus reviews for Metaplanetary[14][15] and Warpath[16][17], for example, satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's been nominated for Hugo and won a Asimov’s Reader’s Poll Award which I don't know what that is but sounds fancy. He's written some Star Trek TOS novels which Star Trek is a big deal and he has to have been officially selected for that. He's also written some nonfiction. He's an editor at Baen Books. He's written a couple movie scripts, B movies. He's a reasonaboy prolific reviewer too (at The Federalist, why they review SciFi I don't know but they do.) Novelist, book editor, non-fiction writer, review, screenwriter -- sounds like a man of letters to me, appropriate for an article.

Bottom line is that there's clearly enough sources to write an OK article, proven because there is an OK article. It's an OK article, it's an ornament to the project on net, he's clearly a somebody, as a man of letters he's an encyclopedic subject for sure, people ware going to want to read the article, either after/before reading his stuff or other reasons, so why worry about this GNG or that GNG. Don't get hung up on acronyms. Herostratus (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does meet WP:NAUTHOR, as it says he appeared in The Year's Best Science Fiction numerous times. Also, as per above, there are some reliable sources. -Cupper52^Discuss! 10:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of proof that this author meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are multiple sources from well-known websites and they have been nominated for/won multiple awards. Wgullyn (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn With apologies, I withdraw this AfD. I should have checked "What links here," e.g. Best of the Best: 20 Years of the Year's Best Science Fiction. It will be great if RS citations for the notability claims mentioned above can be added to the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:01, 15 January 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. I could have rev-del'ed the G12 material, however there remains a consensus to delete. No objection to a redirect should the library be added to the main article. Currently it is not, and therefore a redirect would not help the reader. Star Mississippi 22:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar University Library Information Center[edit]

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

University library. Fails WP:GNG. BEFORE search turned up no independent sources. Delete entirely, no use as a redirect, and it would create circular links anyway. Also has copyright violations. [18]Mako001 (C) (T) 01:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC) added details on partial copyvio 06:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 01:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, entirely needless article. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Khazar University as reasonably plausible search term. Neutrality^talk 16:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't khazar university come up first when searching though? So a redirect wouldn't be needed? It would be a suitable outcome, but I'd request TNTing it first. Mako001 (C) (T) 10:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 19 January 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 Hugh Shields. I think there's a stronger consensus for Hugh Shields above the other suggested targets. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Folk Music Society of Ireland[edit]

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

I found no reliable coverage. Weirdly enough for an organization founded in 1971, the article is only sourced to Wordpress. Hoax? SL93 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect (to Irish folk music/Irish traditional music, perhaps to the related "revival" section). A very quick WP:BEFORE search confirms that this is not a hoax. Unclear what, following the nom's own BEFORE, would prompt that suggestion. However, while reliable sources confirm that the subject does/did exist (including Irish Traditional Music Archive, Irish Times and related Archive/Library sources) I'm not seeing sufficient sources to establish independent notability. Recommend summarising (to that which can be supported by ideally non-primary sources), and merging to Irish folk music or Irish music collecting or similar. Guliolopez (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for clearer consensus on merge target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge target - Irish music collecting seems very suitable. Ingratis (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The only reliable source, the Irish Times, contains SIGCOV of its founder Hugh Shields and only has a passing mention of the subject. Merge to a section in Hugh Shields. Multi7001 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hugh Shields: as above. It seems the society fizzled out with Shields' death. It may be that offline sources have more to say about it, in which case it can be recreated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hugh Shields as more specific than Irish folk music (which could also work, mind you). This very much existed but indeed may have faded after its founder moved on. It actually probably would warrant an article but there's a reference sourcing problem, not uncommon for voluntary bodies in that period (even major organisations are often poorly covered, especially if sub-national or focused on a less talked-about topic). So a merge-with-potential if someone could find the right book or set of magazines, I'd hope. SeoR (talk) 07:51, 17 January 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. I am not relisting this a fourth time as I don't believe it would engender significantly more discussion. No objection to a speedy re-nom should the issues raised not be addressed. Star Mississippi 22:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Beloff[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Ploni (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ploni (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article itself could be written better so as not to sound like a résumé or advertisement, I believe that the amount of references in the article along with the results of a Google search show that the subject has received enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Zander251 (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The person is notable and article reflects that notability. Billshine (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specifics, please? Why does the topic not meet BIO? Which results from a Google search indicate notability? Bare assertions of notability hold little weight when weighing consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The SNG for WP:BIO that is most applicable to Evan Beloff is WP:CREATIVE. Per that he fails all four of the criteria. We can then fallback to WP:NBASIC to consider if he is notable per that. There are a number of sources mentioning Evan Beloff, but in almost all of them he is not the focus of the article and it is more of a passing mention where he is noted for being the director of a film and is thus WP:INHERITed notability. Interestingly, it does seem that his movie Just As I Am might be notable enough for its own page, which is why I am advising delete versus redirecting to Kosher Love. snood1205 18:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know I already left my rationale for delete above, but now that this has had a third relist, I would like to try to find consensus on this soon so it's not closed as no consensus. Do the other AfD particpants have sources or other guidelines I should consider? I am happy with my delete argument, but it's possible I am missing something. Tagging Billshine and Zander251 to get their input. TartarTorte 02:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Searching 20+ years of media coverage about his films, I wonder if No Consensus is indeed the right outcome. There's a lot of coverage of his projects in major Canadian media outlets, nation-wide, over the years. Enough that I'd argue some of those films themselves should have articles - but they don't. But not particularly a lot about him. I'm torn. Perhaps WP:Director is a better standard than WP:BIO. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 16 January 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stemgent[edit]

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

No references, no significance and company is defunct and was bought by another company. Akrasia25 (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with Akrasia25, no references in sections, and barely any linking to cities such as San Diego, California and Cambridge, Massachusetts. Additionally, there isn't even a talk page for the article. Severe storm 28 00:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither lack of wikilinks to cities nor lack of an article talk page are legitimate reasons to delete an article. 00:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Delete: Leaving aside irrelevant arguments, this looks like a promotional article from the get-go. The article creator was a SPA with no other edits, who filled the article with uncited claims, and the only references (that weren't broken links) were to press releases or the company's now-defunct site. I've found more press releases and some casual mentions online, but nothing approaching significant coverage. Ravenswing 03:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability or SIGCOV by reliable sources. Multi7001 (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as mentioned above, article is created by SPA. No indication of notability or SIGCOV from reliable sources. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No facts are sourced to any specific source. There is a list of references with no connections to any sentences in the article, but it consists of (a) a scientific article with no clear connection to the company; (b) a press release; (c) a broken link; (d) another broken link; and (e) an article behind a paywall. That article behind a paywall would have to be really impressive to get this article past WP:NCORP. I note that the article claims, "Stemgent ranked as one of the top 25 up and coming biotech companies", without saying who published that ranking or citing it to anywhere. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above voters and there's no assertion of notability here. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is zero indication of notability per the analysis of sources done by Metropolitan90. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "University Department of Physics Overview". Tilka Majhi University.

[2] "Tilka Majhi Department of Physics". IndCareer.

[3] "Magnetic Relaxation in nanoparticles of iron oxides: magnetic recording applications". Symposium on Condensed Matter Physics.

[4] Advances in Physics of Materials. Scholarly Publications. ISBN 817019346X.

[5] "Physics for the nation" (PDF).

[6] Arnold S. Goldstein (2002). Starting on a Shoestring; Building a Business Without a Bankroll. Wiley. pp. 149–151. ISBN 9780471444916.

[7] Michael Szycher Ph.D (2018). The Guide to Entrepreneurship; How to Create Wealth for Your Company and Stakeholders. CRC Press. p. 269. ISBN 9781482209082.

[8] David Shelters (2013). Start-Up Guide for the Technopreneur, + Website; Financial Planning, Decision Making, and Negotiating from Incubation to Exit. Wiley. pp. 32–34. ISBN 9781118518472.

[9] Kevin D. Williamson (24 October 2018). "Spare a Thought for the Vulture Capitalists". National Review. Retrieved 15 January 2022.

[10] Antony Loewenstein (2014). Profits of Doom; How Vulture Capitalism is Swallowing the World. Melbourne University Publishing. ISBN 9780522867237.

[11] Daniel A. Offiong (2013). Globalisation and Africa; Reverse Robin Hoodism. Apex Books. pp. 247–250. ISBN 9789789222070.

[12] Balleisen, E. (1996). "Vulture Capitalism in Antebellum America: The 1841 Federal Bankruptcy Act and the Exploitation of Financial Distress. Business History Review". 70 (4): 473–516. doi:10.2307/3117313. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]