Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22 June 24 >

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 keep. Sandstein 13:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Negro Sailor[edit]

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NFILM, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. IMDb is not an acceptable or reliable source. Dan arndt (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Henry Levin (film director). Keep I found multiple mentions, but not significant coverage:
    • Founder of the Interracial Film & Radio Guild praised the Columbia Studios executives for including him in discussions in developing The Negro Sailor. "IFRG Member in Opinion on the "Negro Sailor"". California Eagle (Los Angeles). June 28, 1945. p. 12.
    • Brief announcement of release, "It has yet to be decided whether it will be shown for public consumption or confined to service audiences." "'Negro Sailor' To Be Released". The Pittsburgh Courier. July 21, 1945. p. 13.
    • The book Black Film as Genre (p.45): "The war years' liberalism eventually inspired a minor cycle of government films; among them The Negro College in Wartime (ca. 1944), The Negro Sailor (ca. 1944), and Henry Brown, Farmer (1943) are noteworthy for black contributions to them."
    • The book African Americans and the Pacific War, 1941-1945 (p.9): "Therefore, while government-sponsored documentaries such as The Negro Soldier (1944) and The Negro Sailor (1945) acknowledged African Americans' contributions to America's military history, by overlooking the persistence of racial segregation in the armed forces, they implied that the black struggle for civil rights was completed."
    • But then The Negro Handbook 1946-1947 says The other film, The Negro Sailor, directed by Henry Levin (white) for the Navy Department, was made in the summer of 1945 but has never been released". (bold mine) Schazjmd (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as noted in the sources above this is a noteworthy film. Spencer Williams Jr., Joel Fluellen, and Leigh Whipper feature in it. The extant film includes footage of a Navy football game, Navy personnel training, documents various jobs in the Navy, includes footage of the Hampton training facility, includes footage of recruiting, training, and battlefield scenes, notes award winning African Americans in the Navy, captures Navy propaganda about recruiting and diversity. This film is far more notable than the vast majority of films we cover. In addition to the sources noted above there are also sources in books such as Larry Rivers book on African American films that has an entry for this film. And the film has been released as a supplement for two different DVD collections. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I agree that the film doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines I'm not comfortable removing an article that highlights the service of African Americans during WW2. I believe that it's an important historical record of which there is significantly less coverage of compared to that of white Americans at the time. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 08:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just went through the article and expanded it and I think that should fix the notability issues. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 10:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The above sources don't demonstrate significant coverage as needed, and the sources Dr_vulpes added likewise don't solve the core issue—this is notable insofar as the subject of other black war films like it, not on its own. Absent that target, redirecting to the director seems the best option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes criteria 4 of WP:NFO per its inclusion in the National Archives by the National Archives and Records Administration (see [1]). Further, I think the much improved sourcing in the article by Dr_vulpe has demonstrated it passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a notable educational film. one of only five films documenting the war time activities of African Americans in a positive light before 1950. This belongs in an encyclopedia. Dream Focus 23:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Diller (1948 film)[edit]

Killer Diller (1948 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the requirements of WP:NFILM, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. IMDb is not an acceptable or reliable source. Dan arndt (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Clarityfiend's improvements. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. A simple google books search reveals numerous academic books on African American films, comediennes, and comedy which address this film "directly and in detail". In addition to the ones added to the article by Clarityfield, I also added a few sources. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not followed.4meter4 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 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. Sandstein 10:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fund for UFO Research[edit]

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

A 2009 N/C but nothing then or now that meets WP:ORG level of coverage. Has been defunct for a decade, so no indication this will change. Star Mississippi 15:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found something similar to that, likely an excerpt, but I unfortunately couldn't find evidence that the hearings ever took place. I'm not 100% sold on my government database research so might have missed it. Star Mississippi 17:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this explains what the OMNI thing is about. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep This is an organization so WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I can confirm that the link found by CT55555 is the entire article and is from the May 1992 issue of OMNI magazine and in my opinion although it lacks in-depth details, it could be argued either way on whether it meets NCORP criteria. I've searched also for "FUFOR". While the organization was well-known in certain circles, it is still a niche area and it is difficult to find good sources. The org published a lot themselves and are referenced in other books and magazines (and even in Air Force Research report regarding the Roswell Incident) but usually only as a mention-in-passing and no in-depth information. There is another small paragraph in UFO FAQ by David J Hogan. There another paragraph at the end of this book? and similarly in this one. In my opinion and having regard to the topic and the age of the organization, I think it squeaks past NCORP although I would be happier with one more really good reference. HighKing++ 16:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per High King and per more sources establishing WP:NCORP. I found some coverage in national papers and entries in two specialist encyclopedias by reputable publishers. However, there are some inaccuracies in the article. For example, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post and the encyclopedias all say the organization was based in Mount Rainier, Maryland not Alexandria, Virginia. Also, a 1996 Chicago Tribune article says Don Berliner was the Director of FUFOR (he was covered as he was in an episode of The X-Files broadcast in the 1996-1997 season) and our wiki article says he wasn't director until 1998 (so clearly our dates for directors are wrong; although the 2012 encyclopedia has the same dates so maybe the Chicago Tribune was mistaken on his role). See source publication info below.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 1 July 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) 12:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Nicholson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF. – Ploni (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Australia. Ploni (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a hard name to disambiguate, but it looks like she's quit academia. I'm not finding evidence that she wrote a second book, so no WP:NAUTHOR, and certainly not WP:NPROF. Here's an archived version of her website [2], and here's her google scholar ID [3] for anyone inclined to do more looking. If anyone finds anything, do ping me. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article as written focuses on academics, but she appears to have left academia before reaching the impact needed for WP:PROF, and no other form of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF or WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:44, 28 June 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 23:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Tallman[edit]

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

Most voice acting roles were not significant. No reliable sourcing found. Previous AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation after two relists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from ANN article about him passing away, I can't find anything to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If the singe article regarding his death from Anime News Network is the only coverage we can find from reliable sources then he doesn’t meet WP:N. I will reconsider if more sources are found.--70.24.251.91 (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per above, not enough evidence of notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cock tease[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't see a possible way to expand this into an encyclopedia article. Some of the "Use in media" section could be used as examples on Wiktionary. Apocheir (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is also not the Urban Dictionary, and standards have changed since 2006 when the article was first created. (Quick search of sources surfaces a 2008 adult film by that name, and articles that use the term in passing. Trying to build an article on the basis of the coverage available is by definition OR.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:06, 29 June 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 Latin legal terms#I. Star Mississippi 03:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In haec verba[edit]

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

Legal definition doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTDICTIONARY, lacks detailed coverage in multiple sources. Perhaps Wiktionary would be a more suitable location for this term? MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Latin legal terms#I, where it's listed. This is an article about "a phrase", so WP:NOTDICT does apply. Although this phrase certainly is in common usage and is frequently defined in dictionaries, I haven't been able to find sources that discuss the phrase as such in depth, as would be required for notability under WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The best I could find was pgs. 54–55 of [4], which is really more an overview of pleading practices than a specific discussion of the concept. In this case, a redirect to the list is a fine alternative to deletion: it takes readers to the information they're likely looking for (the term's translation and definition) without resulting in the loss of encyclopedic content. (Redirection to a list or relevant article would also be appropriate for some of the other articles in Category:Latin legal terminology, although many others – Habeas corpus, In loco parentis, Ex post facto law, etc. – merit stand-alone articles because they're about notable concepts, not merely non-notable terms. Articles in this category should be discussed individually, as we're doing now, so that we can search for sources and propose relevant ATDs case by case.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 23 June 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) 12:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Ogunro[edit]

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

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Ploni (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Nigeria. Ploni (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the award here is not one that gives its winners notability, and we really have nothing else. Not every journalist is notable, in fact the vast majority are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is insufficient notability here. There are the awards, but they are not ones that confer notability, and I see a tiny number of citations in Google Scholar. The rest of the search hits are him writing rather than people writing about him. It's not enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per DanielRigal, the references cited are not enough to satisfy notability. Ei'eke (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non-notable journalist. RB Talk to the Beans? 08:44, 29 June 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 Architecture in Helsinki as a viable AtD. Mentioned there Star Mississippi 03:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That Beep[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a song, not reliably sourcing any strong claim to passing WP:NSONGS. The only notability claim here is that it peaked #75 on a singles chart, which is not a high enough chart position to give it an automatic notability freebie in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy sourcing about the song, and it's been flagged for lacking sources since 2011 without ever having any sources added since. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 23 June 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) 12:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Nassar[edit]

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

Being the second Keralite to climb Mount Everest is not enough to meet WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Bogart[edit]

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

Lacks notability; Google search came up empty. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Wells[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Easily the first time I've seen RateMyProfessors.com used as a reference. – Ploni (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychology, and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article strikes me as being basically built on original research and primary sources. We really should not be using a universities own publication list of disserations to source when someone received their disseration. Nothing here indicates the subject is notable as either a writer or as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regin Igloria[edit]

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

Likely fails WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Philippines, and Illinois. Ploni (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not finding enough to substantiate notability of this artist. He sounds like a great person however it's WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia article; maybe in a few years. The sourcing in the article is mostly press releases, and non-independent coverage like a list of works from his gallery, or primary such as the interview. A BEFORE search did not reveal enough to meet WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST nor WP:NACADEMIC - what is needed are reviews in notable journals, magazines or newspapers, or works in notable museum collections. If SIGCOV sources can be found, I am open to changing my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kourtney Penner[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Non-notable. The template seems to suggest several councillers for a relatively small city. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 23:16, 23 June 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) 12:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Lindsay[edit]

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

Minor WP:1E news coverage, but unlikely notable enough as a poet to meet WP:AUTHOR. – Ploni (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Poetry, Sexuality and gender, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Ploni (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing amounts to one event coverage of a person who is not really a public figure. I do not think a biographical article is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I managed to add a reference from a news source but I still do not think this biography meets notability criteria. Also the mumsnet reference is surely not reliable... Coldupnorth (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I looked for sources from 2012–2021 to capture the time just before her BBC competition win through to just before the recent controversy. Lots of "she's performing in this" or brief quotes from her on other bits of art or political movements. Nothing in-depth. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there's one or two bits of sig cov out there, which is all is needed to overcome the 1E arguments. Ping me if anyone can actually find them (I used Google News and Newspapers.com). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:22, 29 June 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) 12:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi de Ruiter[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NPROF. – Ploni (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per @Asilvering and nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not at least at this time meet any of our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass WP:NPROF, but is a chance could meet WP:NAUTHOR if some significant independant reviews are found of the book. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imen Nouel[edit]

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

Appears to have had no significant appearances in notable films TV shows. – Ploni (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An internet search reveals little non-trivial information, so it fails to have significant coverage. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D-Jay[edit]

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

No coverage significant enough to meet WP:NMUSICIAN (or WP:GNG). – Ploni (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. Ploni (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Limit your search in google to .na sites, and you get ample hits in the Namibian newspaper and others confirming his notability. not sure why we need 7 citations to confirm he's a hip-hop artists from Namibia (I guess if you didn't believe the first six?). Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the citations are badly formatted and some are dead links (this can be fixed), they seem numerous and reliable enough. Two of them are from New Era (Namibia) and one from the Namibian Sun, which seem to be legitimate news sources. He has also been covered in The Namibian several times: [5][6][7]. --DannyC55 (Talk) 15:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giulia Villoresi[edit]

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

No significant coverage or reviews. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. – Ploni (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vahe Yan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Wikipedia is not IMDb. – Ploni (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Armenia. Ploni (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only is Wikipedia not supposed to be IMDb, we are not supposed to use IMDb as a source. Yet the only other source here is the subject's own website. Not everyone who has ever had a credited role in a commercial production is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sims[edit]

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

So very promotional. Fails WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Alabama. Ploni (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly an attempted promotion and likely copied verbatim from his own promo websites. He has a few accomplishments, such as a local concert review (currently footnote #3) and a few other local interviews, and one song that was played on TV. Unfortunately these few tidbits do not add up to the "significant" and "major" requirements necessary at the notability rules for musicians. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wim den Herder[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. – Ploni (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Netherlands. Ploni (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP with passing mentions in the press, no WP:SIGCOV. As he or people who know him may later read this: this is by no means a value judgement. Den Herder is probably a fine musician who brings joy to listeners and students alike. Just not well covered in WP:RS. Not even sure that the father, who studied and taught at a fine school and published at Donemus, is notable. Both have articles at Nlwiki. It should all start with significant coverage in reliable sources. gidonb (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Yamano[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Only sources provided are to the talent agencies that represent her. – Ploni (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yifeng Sun[edit]

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

Not particularly notable Starcraft player. Fails WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 22:00, 23 June 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) 12:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ozii Obiyo[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 21:58, 23 June 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) 12:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Selvakumar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC. Definitely too soon. – Ploni (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ploni (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too soon is right. Still a graduate student, so WP:NPROF is pretty hopeless. I don't see a GNG pass either. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of lasting notability from his high school science contest days, or of anything more recent that would add to his notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think being interviewed at the White House counts for notability. A Ted Talk isn't as notable as it used to be, I find no sources either that help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SNOWBALL at this point, but definitely a TOOSOON case for an academic. If they do ever reach a level of notability, the article could be easily rewritten then. KoA (talk) 21:39, 28 June 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. Bigdelete has been requested at Meta. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of children's television series by country[edit]

List of children's television series by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We already have Category:Children's television series by country and I can't think of any advantages of the list in its current form except as a collector of cruft and as a magnet for vandals. It was spun out in 2006 from Children's television series after this AFD. Concerns about red links and off-topic info have previously been expressed in this section of the talk page. I've encountered this list twice recently while fighting a particularly long-term and prolific vandal and I think it's time to put it out of its misery. Note that, if this AFD is successful, a steward will have to do the deletion because the page has more than 5,000 revisions. Graham87 20:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That's just taking the vandalism problem and spreading it across 150+ different articles, which is far from optimum. The category system fulfills this purpose and the worst the kidvid crufters can do then is add/remove categories. This isn't getting into the multi-national productions either where nationality isn't easily ascertained. Nate • (chatter) 23:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LaundryPizza03 and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This list has too broad of a scope in my opinion and is just a simple listing of TV shows without any demonstration of notability. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the category system handles this much better and this needs to go. We also should consider doing the same for everything in Template:Lists of television programs by genre, as many of these articles are zero-sourced, completely subjective calls as to a genre the show is in, or sourced to outright network PR which is unacceptable; this one has three (minus one sourced to fr.wiki), and two of those are just PR and a BFI list. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIR Dronebogus (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook case of a list that is better handled by the category system. I wondered if eliminating this list would generate a lot of orphans, and a spot check suggests that is not the case at all. Thanks in advance to the closer who has to clean up. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:10, 29 June 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. The "keep" side offers no evidence (i.e. substantial coverage in reliable sources) for the notability of this person. They complain about the renomination after a previous AfD was withdrawn, but it is not clear why this renomination would constitute a procedural defect, and these complaints do not address the reason for which deletion is requested. Sandstein 13:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Forbes (cricketer)[edit]

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

Per recent nomination: "Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSPERSON, "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG (general notability guideline)." No significant coverage presented, search only uncovers listings."

The previous AfD was withdrawn based on meeting WP:NCRIC. However, NCRIC simply tells us that sources are likely to exist, and this article fails WP:SPORTBASIC which states "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Without evidence of significant coverage, there is no basis to keep this article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we keep an article that fails our basic notability requirements for sportspeople? How does meeting NCRIC demonstrate notability if no significant coverage has actually been found? –dlthewave ☎ 19:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of that is that it refers to pages about, in this case, other cricketers named Sarah Forbes, not that there are multiple possible targets. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per the previous AfD, at worse the redirect should be restored. Or alternatively, moved to draft space. Neutral courtesy ping (per WP:APPNOTE) to those who commented at that discussion - @Alexandermcnabb, AssociateAffiliate, Mpk662, Bobo192, Rugbyfan22, and Spiderone:. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and procedural speedy keep - A new deletion discussion two days after one was already closed is, at best, disruption. If you don't believe the final decision/discussion (which was essentially unanimous) was handled correctly, there are other courses of action. AfD is not deletion review. Where were the original delete !voters last time around and why didn't they want their voices heard? Bobo. 18:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where were the original delete !voters last time around and why didn't they want their voices heard? - I don't appreciate the insinuation that my vote is motivated by anything other than the quality of the encyclopedia, especially not when it comes from an admin. I didn't vote in the original discussion because I don't check AfD every day. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 19:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is a bad faith nomination, only 2 days after the previous speedy keep/withdrawn nomination. An international cricketer who meets the revised WP:NCRIC guidelines. StickyWicket (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous nomination was withdrawn after a day; if additional information is available, as it is here, it is not disruptive or bad faith to create a new discussion soon after. However, what is disruptive is !votes to keep that rely solely on NCRIC, and ignore the broader requirements of NSPORT. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can't nominate an article just two days after nom. Follows the revised WP:NCRIC guidelines either way. Cheers!!! --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 01:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Closing admins should keep in mind that AfD closes should be policy-based - In this case, WP:NCRIC does not assume notability. The guideline that's being cited by Keep voters here simply says Significant coverage is likely to exist. This is not the same thing as a presumption of notability, which relies on the subject of an article actually being "the subject of significant coverage." Votes that misrepresent the notability guidelines here are either bad-faith or disrespect policy - either way, they don't count towards WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 07:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admins know how to judge consensus. They don't need to be told this. Bobo. 08:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the blatant misrepresentations of policy in this discussion, I feel it's important to clearly note. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 08:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just imagining every international sportsperson who "has not won a significant honor" as an international sportsperson - having done so. I feel sorry for the England footy team! Bobo. 08:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "deletion review" is not the same as sending an article for AfD for a second time. Deletion review is for judging for consensus in the original discussions. Since nobody thought to !vote delete that time around, deletion review would have been a pointless process - although it would have probably stopped this from happening... or would it? Bobo. 08:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NCRIC works under the interpretation that sourcing GNG 'likely' exists for a player/person passing the criteria that is set out in it. In the first discussion, many rightly voted that the player passed WP:NCRIC (because she does) and so that sourcing would likely exist. The nominator then chose to withdraw his nomination. A second AfD less than 24 hours later offers no time for any cricket editor to find sourcing on the subject, which may well exist in more local or cricket related media that isn't easily accessible in a simple search, and add it to the article. Personally I feel it's a nomination in bad faith who instead of a second AfD should have discussed the article with the Cricket WikiProject who may well have been able to improve the article and had to save the second AfD from happening. On a slightly different note, I don't believe there's currently a suitable redirect here given there's a few different lists she could be redirected to, but some time for our Women's cricket editors to do some digging would be helpful. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators need to be informed that there are channels by which they can require extra eyes on an article before sending to AfD, especially when they will most likely be unaware they can do so. It is clear that there is a bucketful of research which needs to be done in women's cricket given the number of names which are unclear/unavailable. Bobo. 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving aside the extremely unusual way in which this article has been nominated for deletion, it's clearly an interesting case to consider the nuances of the various deletion guidelines that might apply.
Forbes is young and hasn't played a large amount of higher level domestic cricket, and plays in a part of the world where coverage of women's cricket is likely to be difficult to find in the major media sources we have easily available to us using the internets. It's difficult to judge if there would be more likely to be sources off line or in obscure media - I'd say it's possible, but not certain. So, she clearly passes NCRIC which suggests coverage would be likely. But she also fails WP:SPORTBASIC as she hasn't "achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level". Although my reading of that is that neither has Darren Stevens for example, so I'm not actually convinced that it's a particularly useful thing to measure any article against. It also seems to be introducing barriers beyond those which are placed by WP:GNG which, for example, doesn't specify multiple sources in the same way or success at an international level. Does the article meet GNG then? I don't think so at present, although there are plenty of passing mentions.
So, what to do? If this were a male cricketer playing at international level for a team like this, we'd almost certainly be able to find sources - and if we couldn't then we should do something about the article. If she were older and we still couldn't find sources I'd be concerned. But she's not older and she's not male. So, do we reinforce the biases within the media and determine that this person is not notable at all? Or do we say, you know what, she's not likely, in the circumstances, to have gotten that much coverage yet so let's decide to leave this article on an international cricketer in place for now and see what happens. Let's revisit it in, say, three years and see what's occurred. Is that a reasonable compromise approach to take?
In many people's eyes, almost certainly not, because it's a compromise and Wikipedia doesn't do compromise very well at all.
What shouldn't happen here is that the article be deleted. There are really clear ATD that can be used for all the common reasons: it's more efficient, it allows the article history to retained along with the attribution, it ensures sources which may go offline are retained for future use and it provides a basis to re-create the article at a later date if suitable sourcing can be found. The redirect would go to List of Ireland women ODI cricketers for now - it's a tricky one to redirect I suppose, but the precedence of ODI cricket over T20I cricket means this is the best choice given her career to data.
So, this is either a partial merge with redirect as outlined above or a very weak keep on the basis that the article can be returned to in the future to determine notability at that stage and that this ensures that the basic tenant of WP:NOTPAPER is applied and that WP:5P1 and WP:5P5 are considered in the spirit of aiming to broaden the scope of encyclopaedic coverage and not reinforce in built biases. I don't mind which it is, but it's not a delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Am I missing something here? Did NSPORT get rewritten to abolish the requirement for GNG? Did we decided to start ignoring WP:CRYSTAL? Have we overturned WP:NEXIST in favor of WP:NMAYBEWILLEXISTONEDAY? I guess we're now a platform to right the great wrong of...the media not giving individualized significant coverage to each Irish WODI cricketer?? No one here is even claiming they sincerely believe GNG coverage exists! And what info could possibly be useful and DUE to merge elsewhere--is the proposed redirect target or her current team really supposed to contain all the former youth squads and caps for each person? The fact that many keep !voters deliberately misrepresented the applicability of NCRIC in the first AfD, effectively bullying the nom into withdrawing, just makes it even clearer that it was appropriate to renominate. It's also telling that some of those same !voters are now advocating keep based on this being a speedy renom rather than actually arguing why the subject merits a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I dislike replies to arguments at AfD, I should clarify what I mean by merge. We could merge something along the lines of Forbes was born in 2002 at Dublin and made her international debut against South Africa in 2022. With refs. We can provide a very short pen portrait of a current player in this way, and we retain the original sourcing and attribution from the article as we're redirecting rather than deleting it. This seems to me to be entirely within the bounds of the policy WP:ATD. If you'd like me to expand on any of my other points, please ping me as I don't have this page watchlisted. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear fail of WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV. Those arguing keep under NCRIC are doing so under a now deprecated argument after this RfC from January–March 2022. That RFC established that sources with independent significant coverage actually be produced in evidence at AFD in order for athlete articles to be kept. We no longer make assumptions of notability. We need to see the evidence.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, I might as well slam the last nail in... the original AfD was mine and I withdrew after a howl of rage at my 'absolute nonsense' nomination, which just goes to show you should have the courage of your convictions. That this and other sports related nominations should be so controversial speaks, I think, to the fact that guidelines have not been updated with the clear outcomes of recent consensus, particularly with regard to the requirement that sportspeople (football included, a game that remains to be addressed properly and clearly in the WP:NSPORT guideline which is a wee bit mad if you ask me) pass WP:GNG regardless of appearances. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 1 July 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) 12:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Ann Musangi[edit]

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

Her only actual significance is that she started an apparently non notable restauratn. That a person sits of company boards is not notability ; the personal life section is about as absurd as I've ever seen on WP. The references are promotional interviews or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most (if not all) of the coverage I can find for Musangi talks about her in the context of her being a billionaire's daughter, which as per WP:INVALIDBIO does not confer notability. ItsMackie ( Talk ) 19:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what INVALIDBIO says. If there's coverage about her, regardless of context, she's notable. pburka (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the coverage I've found only covers Musangi tangentially or is routine coverage (like "Musangi announced a new boss at this company"). ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 21:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bulyerali[edit]

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

This is at best a promotional CV for a non-notable businessperson. Manager of communications at a bank" is very ulikely to have source sfor notability DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 23 June 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DTDC[edit]

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

Tthe article does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Bigneeerman (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dukes India[edit]

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

Tthe article does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Bigneeerman (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hitoshi Yamada[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Tehrani[edit]

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

Appears to not meet WP:GNG, and promotional. Ploni (talk) 17:01, 23 June 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 Canadian Travel Show. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Sturik[edit]

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

No significant roles or contributions, as per WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Canada. Ploni (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - happy to change my stance if someone turned up some decent sources but on Proquest there's very little, mainly just mentions of her hosting things. NYT has zero hits. Nothing really on google or googlenews. Mujinga (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing even close to showing significant coverage that passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Canadian Travel Show, for which she hosted - which is what most of the coverage for her is, that I can find. Nfitz (talk) 17:47, 29 June 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 03:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry's Funhouse on TBS[edit]

Tom and Jerry's Funhouse on TBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current sources in article are two unreliable looking fansites and a newsgroup post. I got zero hits on ProQuest or Google Books for "Tom and Jerry's Funhouse on TBS". Was deprodded with rationale of it airing on TBS meaning it was likely notable, but it's definitely failing the source test. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. Avilich (talk) 03:17, 29 June 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 13:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Clan[edit]

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

Article about a hip hop collective that somewhat straddles the line between a "band" and an "organization", not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for either musical groups or organizations. This is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources, namely a fansite, a social networking post, a directory entry and a Q&A interview in which a member of the organization is talking about his own work in the first person, with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about them in real reliable sources shown at all.
As I'm not able to retrieve or read Russian-language sourcing, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Russian can find better GNG-worthy sourcing to support the article -- but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hart Donoghue[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jolee Blon'[edit]

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

Does not appear to have had any significant roles or contributions, as per WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Hale[edit]

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

No significant roles or contributions, as per WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Graff[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All three of her books have been reviewed by Publishers Weekly, and she was a cast member in the original Broadway production of Grease (Broadway World, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I checked the WP Library and found the audiobook and print version of The Shiksa Syndrome were reviewed by Library Journal (Gordon, Ilka. In: Library Journal. 2008, Vol. 133, Issue 20, Database: Business Insights Global; Miskewitch, Anne M.. In: Library Journal. 2008, Vol. 133, Issue 13, Database: Business Insights Global), she has an extensive and in-depth profile in Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors that covers her acting and writing career, You Have to Kiss a Lot of Frogs was reviewed by Faktorovich, Anna. Pennsylvania Literary Journal (2151-3066). Spring2013, Vol. 5 Issue 1, p30-31. 2p. , Database: Academic Search Complete, Scenes from a Holiday (a novella) was reviewed by Huntley, Kristine. Booklist. 11/15/2005, Vol. 102 Issue 6, p31. 2p. , Database: MasterFILE Complete, as was The Shiksa Syndrome (Engelmann, Patty. Booklist. 8/1/2008, Vol. 104 Issue 22, p39. 1p. , Database: MasterFILE Complete) and Looking for Mr. Goodfrog (Huntley, Kristine. Booklist. 4/1/2006, Vol. 102 Issue 15, p26. 1p. , Database: MasterFILE Complete). WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR notability appears supported, and the article can be expanded with sources identified in this discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that the reviews Beccaynr provided prove notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Beccaynr, meets WP:NAUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melina Paez[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Stoeke[edit]

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

No indication that WP:NACTOR is met. Autobiographical. – Ploni (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Dill[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 16:03, 23 June 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. ✗plicit 23:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Tabibzadeh[edit]

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

Iranian linguist whose claim to notability is based on having won the Farabi International Award and being editor-in-chief of the journal Language and Linguistics. As shown in what follows, neither is sufficient to satisfy any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC:

1/ "...significant impact...": Scopus lists two of his articles (the others apparently published in sources that are not indexed by Scopus) that have been cited once. Google Scholar lists 35 entries that have been cited 36 times (max scores 16-10-2) giving him an h-index of 2. Insofar it is possible to prove a negative, this clearly indicates that Tabibzadeh's academic impact is negligible.

2/ "... received a highly prestigious academic award or honor...": Our article on this award does not list any independent sources and I haven't been able to find anything significant either. From the sources given it appears that quite a few awards are given each year, so this doesn't seem to be the kind of prestigious award needed to satisfy criterion 2.

3/ "...an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association...": dos not seem to be the case.

4/ "...significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions...": no evidence that this is the case.

5/ "...held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon...": No evidence for this either.

6/ "...held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society...": Nope.

7/ "...substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity...": no evidence for this.

8/ "...has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal...": Language and Linguistics is apparently not indexed by any significant database, so this clearly is not a "major" publication.

Finally, the article list several references, some in Farsi. At this point, the first four are dead links. References 5 and 6 are directory listings, reference 7 goes to a blank page, while reference 8 is the only substantial one, but it is an interview and does not contribute to notability.

In sum, I cannot find any evidence that this biographical article meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: None of these awards seems to reach the level required by WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randykitty Our article on Iran's Book of the Year Award calls it the most prestigious book award in Iran. What level beyond this are you expecting? -- asilvering (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Meets at least GNG, probably not Academic. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My guess was right: different mentalities (: Ali Pirhayati (talk) 18:15, 23 June 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) 12:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Senkewicz[edit]

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

No significant roles or contributions, as per WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It should be noted that Bob is also inherently a family man and is very grateful of his family for supporting him to live his passion of acting in films. –Ploni (talk) 15:27, 24 June 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) 12:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RSC Group[edit]

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

I've declined a WP:A7 request on this—"leading Russian supercomputer vendor" is clearly a credible claim of significance—but I don't feel this is remotely viable as a Wikipedia article and nobody in seven years has shown any interest in improving it.  ‑ Iridescent 14:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete notability is not present here. Reliable sources and the other basic stuff is missing here. --Молдовський винний погріб (talk) 11:27, 24 June 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) 12:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PaoLUL[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in article or online, just one mention in GNews[15], very few mentions of him in general[16]. Fram (talk) 14:08, 23 June 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) 12:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Ki Awaaz[edit]

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

Relies on a single reliable source (Wired) which itself doesn't have deep coverage; the rest of the references are press releases. Prod was disupted by account with no other edits. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vilayout Sayyabounsou[edit]

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

There aren't enough sources to indicate notability for this subject. He gets some passing mentions in reports on Laos games and in local papers. But I can find nothing substantial. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:08, 23 June 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) Kj cheetham (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Knowlton[edit]

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

For sports people we require substantial coverage to justify an article. All I was able to find on this individual was sports tables. The table I did find indicates he had a multi-year career in the minor leagues after his very short appearance in the major league, but I was not able to find any substantial coverage and do not think having an article on him is needed. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How much WP:BEFORE did you do? If you're only looking in Google searches for someone who played a century ago, I agree you won't find much. If you look to contemporary news reports, you'll find GNG is met.[17][18][19][20][21] He became a police officer after his baseball career.[22] – Muboshgu (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the clippings for the newspaper articles Muboshgu is listing (for those who do not have access to Newspapers.com): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is same as 3, and 6. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep
There is on paragraph about him here (page 220): Lee, B. (2015). The Baseball Necrology: The Post-Baseball Lives and Deaths of More Than 7,600 Major League Players and Others. United States: McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers.
2 photos (with captions) about him on page 44 of here: Hunsinger, L. E., Quigel, J. P. (1999). Williamsport's Baseball Heritage. United States: Arcadia.
I think individually this adds up to significant coverage, I think that's open to debate, which is why I say "weak". CT55555 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are plenty of sources on him, as there are for virtually every Major Leaguer who played at least one game since at least 1890 or so. Which is why it was ridiculous to eliminate the SNG criteria for players with at least one Major League game - we are going to have to waste time with nominations like this, where sources aren't always easy to find but we have found out over years of experience that they are virtually always there. Here's another one from newspapers.com (which only carries a small portion of the newspapers that actually existed at the time) to add to Muboshgu's: [23]. I am sure if I went to the library to hunt microfiche I would find more (there is actually a lot more on newspapers.com, but generally game summaries), but we have enough on line to indicate that, like all Major Leaguers, he meets our notability criteria. Rlendog (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Besides the sources above, I found twoarticles about his major league appearance, and there are many more articles (as Rlendog noted) about his minor league career, including these four: [24][25][26][27], so SIGCOV for Knowlton exists and he meets the GNG. Hatman31 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Muboshgu and Hatman, the sources provided easily solve any issues. Wizardman 22:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Played only one game in MLB -- 5 innings in a losing effort for MLB's worst team in 1920. Does not get an automatic pass since the repeal of NBASEBALL. Also, I'm not finding much in the way of depth of WP:SIGCOV. Plus the article was a one-sentence sub-stub (here) with no encyclopedic value at the time of its nomination. All that being said, I've added a bit from his obituary and on his minor league career and ultimately conclude it scrapes by, albeit barely. Cbl62 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all above. Meets WP:NBASE and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 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 sourcing isn't sufficient Star Mississippi 02:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LETA Capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Most of the cited sources are passing mentions in articles about companies the firm has an invested in. The only one with remotely significant coverage[28] is an interview with one of its founders, so not secondary. Searching for additional sources in English and Russian just turns up more of the same: either passing mentions or primary interviews, press releases, advertorials, etc. Also almost certainly created by an undisclosed paid editor and since edited exclusively by other paid editors. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Joe! Thank you for your comments! I wanted to elaborate a bit more on your comments about the article. First of all, I disclosed a conflict of interests, I openly claimed, that I work for LETA Capital, and that is exactly why I am fully aware of its deals, exits and fund activities. Secondly, I have provided all the links for respectable media sources, where it is clearly stated in what companies and when LETA Capital has invested, interviews with partners, opinions, comments, etc. Thirdly, I could have asked a third party editor to make those changes and nobody would ever find out any connections between the editor and LETA Capital investment firm, but I decided to be open, transparent and with absolute integrity add valuable information about a well known and publicly awarded VC firm. That is why I strongly insist to accept all the changes made by me, and in confirmation of my words I list 20 links, performing a significant coverage of LETA Capital and its Partners Alexander Chachava and Sergey Toporov in well known media and databases.
  1. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/leta-capital
  2. https://angel.co/company/leta-capital
  3. https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/23/100-million-leta-capital-wants-to-be-a-friend-to-russia-speaking-founders-everywhere/
  4. https://techcrunch.com/author/alexander-chachava/
  5. https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/alexander-chachava
  6. https://www.theinformation.com/articles/startups-question-russian-vc-investment-after-attack-on-ukraine
  7. https://www.venturecapitaljournal.com/leta-capital-unveils-third-fund-at-100m/
  8. https://www.forbes.ru/person/274193-chachava-aleksandr - 14 articles in Forbes
  9. https://www.businessinsider.com/pitch-deck-example-prodly-10-million-no-code-devops-2021-10
  10. https://venturebeat.com/2022/04/05/gaviti-raises-9m-for-saas-collections-automation/
  11. https://venturebeat.com/2021/04/07/synthesis-ai-emerges-from-stealth-with-4-5m-to-create-synthetic-face-datasets/
  12. https://vc.ru/finance/106237-aleksandr-chachava-leta-capital-russkoyazychnye-startapy-nedoocenivayut-a-zarabotat-na-nih-mozhno-deystvitelno-mnogo
  13. https://www.forbes.ru/svoi-biznes/443667-leta-capital-s-partnerami-vlozili-10-mln-v-platformu-dla-sozdania-prilozenij-prodly
  14. https://www.forbes.ru/forbeslife/397875-mne-nravitsya-oshchushchat-sebya-prostym-chelovekom-pravila-potrebleniya
  15. https://rb.ru/investor/view/leta-group/
  16. https://rb.ru/longread/chachava-leta/
  17. https://rb.ru/longread/leta-interview/
  18. https://www.forbes.ru/tehnologii/414153-vletet-v-stenu-na-polnom-hodu-kak-venchurnye-investicii-mogut-navredit-vashemu
  19. https://vc.ru/tribuna/6897-robo-startups
  20. https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/02/novakids-investors-bet-35m-that-it-can-teach-kids-english/
Moreover, in order not to disseminate the false information I am absolutely open to provide even more links, articles, interviews, etc. to support my position. Hope that this massage clarified a lot and we will not have any misunderstanding in the future! Gegamova (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those links provides significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject? – Joe (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all my respect, all of them are absolutely independent and reliable, as well as the link you proposed in your first comment: https://secretmag.ru/trends/players/aleksandr-chachava-leta-capital-my-podhodim-k-investiciyam-kak-predprinimateli.htm.
They meet all the four criteria.
  1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. — does the whole interview for TechCrunch qualify? Absolutely.
  2. Be completely independent of the article subject. — is Mike Butcher, editor-at-large at TC, an independent journalist? Absolutely.
  3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source. — TechCrunch has more than 11M monthly visitors, according to SimilarWeb, can it be reviewed as reliable? Absolutely.
  4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability. — Did an interviewer provide his own own thinking based on primary sources? Absolutely
While editing this article I took as a reference other articles about venture firms. All my edits are based upon relevant and accurate information, they are independent and do not provide any promo. Please, look through the edits and the sources again, there are no violations of Wikipedia rules. Gegamova (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then, with respect, I don't think you know what those words mean in a Wikipedia context. Your list includes entries in databases (obviously not significant), self-written author bios (obviously not independent), publications explicitly deprecated and removed from the article before (obvious not reliable), and interviews (obviously not secondary). Please read those guidelines and get back to us. Also do note that a source has to be all four (significant, independent, reliable, secondary) to count towards notability, and there needs to be multiple such sources. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God, have you opened the link? https://techcrunch.com/2021/06/23/100-million-leta-capital-wants-to-be-a-friend-to-russia-speaking-founders-everywhere/ Or you just see the word "Russian" and start cancelling the whole source/author/person being interviewed? Does it work like that? Tell me, please, why this text is not secondary? It has author's opinion, impartial and respectable. Again and again, I could have asked dozens of people, who do not say loudly, that they have a COI, to edit the article about LETA Capital, which was not created by me, by the way (sic!), I've just added a couple of adjustments to provide audience with the relevant information. OK, so let's just remove ALL the Wikipedia articles about venture capital firms, do you agree on that? All of them are based on such sources like I've quoted. Do you have an example of the article that is based on something else? Gegamova (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the TechCrunch article wasn't secondary? It's probably the best source out of the bunch, but it's from a dubious source, doesn't say much of substance, and is only one. We're only talking about LETA Capital right now, but if you've found other articles on venture capital firms with this level of sourcing, by all means nominate them for deletion too. – Joe (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Joe, I eternally respect your work in the field of archaeology, your articles about scientists and professors, but I don't think that you are correct in this case. The article about LETA Capital has been a part of the encyclopedia for 4 years already, this article was not created by me and I was just contributing minor edits about the deals, exits and the firm's strategic focus, as far as I am familiar with those facts and I have provided the article with the relevant sources. I have never hidden the fact, that I am connected to LETA Capital, and that is because my edits had no promo aims, they were absolutely impartial, they contained no personal attitude, they were just pure facts, as that is required for the purposes of the encyclopedia. Moreover, I added the links to the databases and to the firm's Partners' pages in the major media outlets in order to show that this information has already been reviewed by multiple commissions, editorial boards and that this information is reliable. I've added those links in order to prove that LETA Capital has been a part of the venture capital, tech and entrepreneurial discourse for the past 10 years and that the article about LETA Capital is worthy of being in Wikipedia. Gegamova (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh, joy, another WP:COI-plagued article. Those are fun. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 18:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respsct, no they aren't fun. I wish we could just ban COI, period. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is more of WP:LIST than an article. It's not even worth keeping as list. Venture capital firm that does just that, provide venture capital. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm normally the biggest business article defender here, but this one is lacking. Most of the sources are paywalled or in Russian, hurting my efforts to review them. I translated part of [[29]] and see that it's mostly an interview of the founder, but don't know if the publication is reliable or not. I have to leave that to people more familiar with Russian media. @Gegamova: - can you select the 2-3 best Russian sources from the article and the list above? The Techcrunch source [[30]] is a decent start, but there's not much more, besides funding activity. And their funding activity doesn't seem to be that big relative to other VCs and private equity firms we see on Wikipedia. I thought about suggesting doing an article on the parent Leta Group, with a section for the Leta Capital division, but English sources for the parent are limited as well. A Russian speaker could also help here to see if that makes sense with the Russian sources. Otherwise, fails WP:GNG and I'll be changing my comment to a delete.. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Tim! Thank you for the comment! I will be happy to navigate you through all the sources. I understand, that is looks like a COI, but I never tried to deny the fact, that I have connections to LETA Capital and my edits were truly impartial. And once again I wanted to mention, that the article about LETA Capital had not been created by me and I was just contributing minor edits about the activities of the firm. Gegamova (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCORP per the cogent source analysis by Joe.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! What if I produce more sources? Will it be a relevant argument to recover the page? Gegamova (talk) 11:48, 4 July 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) Kj cheetham (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomi Tuominen[edit]

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

Sourced to a single database entry, one line stub makes no claim of notability - Championships 0; Rally wins 0; Podiums 0 sort of sums it up. The Finnish page is in its way worse - sourced to a 403, a 404, an image bank and an IMDb entry for an actor of the same name. Spectacularly fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - Needs someone who can read Finnish to go through Finnish-language results in a WP:BEFORE search to see how many actual constitute WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources. Would delete based upon English-language results that appear in a WP:BEFORE search as they all seem to be incidental mentions or WP:ROUTINE coverage of rally results. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Chap, if you read the nomination, I DID go through the Finnish sources and, as I note, they are a 403 error, a 404 error, an image bank with some rally car images and an IMDb entry. What more did you want to know about the Finnish sources? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Performing a WP:BEFORE search on Google News bought up some Finnish-language articles which may have been suitable sources covering this article's subject, but given I can't read Finnish I wasn't able to work out much about how much they'd contribute towards meeting the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. While looking at the native language wiki (fi.wiki, in this case) is a good start, sources need to be looked for outside of Wikipedia as well. As for Google News, note that it works rather poorly for non-English news. See my !vote below for sources identified with about five minutes in Google using the search term Tomi Tuominen ralli where ralli is Finnish for "rally". Ljleppan (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Available Finnish language sourcing based on 3 minute in Google:
He seems to have a rather complex career that extends far beyond co-driving into F1 commentation on TV for YLE, and into being a generic "famous person" who goes around in all kinds of TV shows. Also something about a singing career, but I have no clue whether that went anywhere. Given that these were the sources I could find in less than five minutes in Google, I'd expect there to be plenty more available if someone had the inclination to dig further. There seems to be plenty more tabloid stories, for one. Ljleppan (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Update from prior comments, subject seems to pass WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but they're all interviews. The first two are in fact the same interview. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two are in fact the same interview While the video at the top of the page is the same, they are two different texts. The first discusses his life in general (how he's acting in theatre, childhood, how he was approached for the commentator gig, musical career, etc.) and the second one is about his rally career. Ljleppan (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As for they're all interviews, even the ones listed as "interviews" are biographical or news texts combined with interview materiel published in the largest Finnish newspapers and media outlets by recognized journalists. They span both a large amount of time and many aspects of his varied career. Furthermore, not all of them indeed are interviews, see e.g. coverage of his divorce and later engagement [40], [41], [42], [43]. Again, these are from literally a minute or two in Google and ignore any potential offline sources. Ljleppan (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As demonstrated above, Tuominen meets WP:BASIC, and he also meets WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria 2 for participating in a full manufacturer season of 2008 World Rally Championship. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:53, 24 June 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. North America1000 12:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Fashion Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; sourcing is not independent or in-depth but blogs, local media pieces. Institute does not grant degrees and is not inherently notable. It's a lovely idea, but it's not a notable institution. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Education. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Portland and Oregon media seems a bit substantial to dismiss as “local”. Artw (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily meets GNG. The Oregonian is a regional paper, second in circulation only to the Seattle Times, but it doesn't matter, since non-profits are not required to meet WP:NORG or WP:AUD. Here's the WP:GNG description of the notability requirement for significant coverage: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Yes, one of the Portland Mercury sources is a blog; however, there are multiple other sources about this certificate-granting non-profit institution that fulfill GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has significant coverage in Portland press. Pikavoom Talk 06:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ORION Space[edit]

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

Small-sat company, single platform, single launch. No independent coverage presented, no sustained track record; no notability. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But they have made first made in Nepal pico satelite. This could be also among notability know. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 11:23, 23 June 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 12:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yaron Gottlieb (rabbi)[edit]

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

No indication that WP:BIO is met. The references cited are either written by the subject, brief mentions in obscure sources (The Australian Jewish News) or brief quotes. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Judaism. SmartSE (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails BIO and there's some additional controversy going on about this atm --Firestar464 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just couldn't find anything in the article that satisfied a claim to notability. What has he done that 100,ooo other people don't do all the time? He sort of reminds me of my non-notable greatuncle, just 50 years later. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:13, 29 June 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 12:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bishnupur Shiksha Sangha[edit]

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

WP:NSCHOOL states "must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both". This school satisfies neither. No independent in-depth coverage, no claim for notability presented. Also, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist" Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can not find a Bengali language name, so I am unable to seach on that. I can also no find the school website. What I do find are listings, social media and Wikipedia-clones. The article itself is sourced with listings and 2 sources about the first principal. No in-depth, reliable, independent sources. The Banner talk 10:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Try searching for: বিষ্ণুপুর শিক্ষা সংঘ Jacona (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Don't expect local coverage to be significant. Lorstaking 11:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be a lot when searching in Bengali for বিষ্ণুপুর শিক্ষা সংঘ. Translating all this is overwhelming, but it puts doubt in my mind about the significance of local coverage. Jacona (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:33, 28 June 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. ✗plicit 12:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mattie Lubchansky[edit]

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

Tagged to death since Jan 2022, article is personal in tone and as the tags infer, it's badly sourced, presents no independent in-depth coverage and generally fails WP:GNG. Note the Herblock award does not contribute to WP:ARTIS. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete -Changing !vote per WP:HEY improvements by Artw, and two verifiable independent reviews (Village Voice, Publishers Weekly). See note below in comments. The current sourcing and what was found in a BEFORE search is not enough to meet GNG nor but does not meet NARTIST. Perhaps in a few years after some major reviews, or a few notable awards (not as a finalist) or notable collections materialize. If sources can be found that are independent SIGCOV, I am willing to change my !vote, but at this time, there just is not enough to support an article. Netherzone (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Comics and animation. Netherzone (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep found a pretty hefty interview at TCJ and added that, only to find it was in there already, so that's good. Added another from The Beat, will look out for more but am confident in a keep vote. Artw (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bunch more and did some tidy up. Removed several templates. Artw (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will have a look at the improvements, however, unless our guidelines have changed, I thought that interviews are considered primary sources, and therefore do not contribute to notability. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are citations to the Herb Block Foundation and the Washington Post as well as a documented publication history. I think that puts them into notable territory. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WomenArtistUpdates thank you, I saw the WaPo article and the TIME article, both of which looked OK. But the Herb Block Foundation is not independent, nor did the artist receive the award but was a finalist only, so it does not contribute to notability. The HB Found describes Mattie as an: "up-and-coming artist", which is pretty much aligned with my analysis at this time, that there is borderline notability, but TOOSOON. I'm not familiar with several sources and an unclear if they are blogs or online magazines, but will continue to look into it. Netherzone (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Netherzone! yes, I saw the "up-and-coming" reference too, but reading through the Washington Post article about the lack of diversity in political cartooning made me re-evaluate that designation. Oh, and their invention of a typeface :) But you may be right that it is too soon. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that interviews CAN count towards notability depending on reliability of publication and degree of secondary involvement - in the case of the TCJ interview we should be on very solid ground. Artw (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(if there is anything more substantial on this than WP:interviews I would like to be pointed at it.) Artw (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Artw, there have been many discussions on the talk page of WP:N - see here:[44] Netherzone (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly the case, yes. Artw (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See above change of !vote based on two verifiable reviews - Village Voice (thank you for this Artw and other improvements). I updated the link to Publishers Weekly which is now verifiable. Meets GNG now. Netherzone (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 12:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karikala Kannan[edit]

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

Sourced entirely to a google groups doc, almost entirely lacking in content/context and that one source refers to him as 'possible' and that his existence may be 'inferred'. Not the stuff of WP:GNG IMHO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Kerala. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article makes absolutely no notability claim beyond the fact that the person existed, and cites no reliable sources. Creator may need to be investigated for basic competence, because they've created a good many of these poorly referenced "Subject was a person who existed, the end" biographies — many of which have further had to be moved back into draftspace as not ready for prime time, and edit protected because they persistently revert-warred to move them back into mainspace without improving them. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nominator Onmyway22 talk 06:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly instead of deleting Merge to his father Aditya Chola II. Certainly he is not indepsnedently notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Service (Mickey Mouse)[edit]

No Service (Mickey Mouse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single source, no improvement since tagged in Jan 2022. There's a list of episodes with plot summaries (which is pretty much all that's here) already and this is the only one with its own article - for good reason, as it's not notable and should be deleted. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Mumtaz Malik[edit]

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

Not notable film actor/director - yet to make his directorial debut and coverage purely interview/incidental. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:00, 23 June 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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals, as per point 4 of WP:Speedy keep (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaan Shetty[edit]

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

Ahaan is not independently notable. For now he does not meet WP:NACTOR. BrutBrother (talk) 08:36, 23 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abellio, Ellesmere Port[edit]

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

Completely unverifiable. Sourced only to maps, where I can't find it anyway, and looking for info from actual sources only gives me a company called Abellio in Ellesmere, not a neighborhood. There is e.g. not a single source linking Abellio and Banbury Green[45], but then again there is no source for a Banbury Green in Ellesmere Port as well[46].

Given that the same author also was responsible for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Urigull, it may be time to think about sanctions if my misgivings about this Abellio turn out to be true. I don't t think it is a case of trolling or vandalism, just a WP:CIR issue (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Comunal Documents of Santa Margherita Ligure and the article behind it). Fram (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this settlement at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Kingdom_locations:_Aa-Ak#Ab#Abe. It was part of a list on this site therefore I assumed the place existed but the only sources I could find were from Geohack. I've just been trying my best to make articles for some of the settlements and I've been using that page as reference for where to make a new article. I couldn't find any sources but I assumed what the list posted would be sources in themeselves as I could not find anything else. So if anything I'm certainly not causing vandalism on purpose, I only fell for somebody else's vandalism in the form of whoever wrote that down on the list. And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loch Urigull was no different, it was misspelled therefore I couldn't find anything on it therefore it was useless. And I apologise for Loch Urigull because that was simply stupid however Abellio was part of list I thought had some kind of protection and officiality and there was a listed source when I clicked on the grid reference. My sources were found under the column in that article which stated:
(links to map & photo sources) So I assumed it was sources. N1TH Music (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the above makes the delete argument nicely enough, but here's a vote anyway. It's a railway company based in Ellesmere, not a place. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Ellesmere Port. Its not an OS settlement and it isn't in the Domesday Book or Vision of Britain and I can't find any sources for it, most Google results appear to be related to Greater Anglia train company. Although at List of United Kingdom locations: Aa-Ak#Abe the grid reference given doesn't show anything and it was added to the list in 2012 and the article uses the Geohack for "List of United Kingdom locations: Aa-Ak" as a source so it seems like this is WP:CIRCULAR. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't merge as it doesn't exist as a settlement. The fact that Abellio (transport company) run Merseyrail, the rail network which runs through the area, cannot be coincidental - the GeoHack is probably an error generated by a railway depot or similar. Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as noted above. Going back to the original edits that caused the confusion, 78.150.226.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who added this to the list of places (back in 2012!) also added a number of other areas of Ellesmere - I've removed redlinks to "Canal Village" (Template talk:Ellesmere Port suggests it was a housing development?), "Cyprus", "Santa Monica", and "Pacific Heights"; but kept Westminster, Ellesmere Port which has an article and seems to be a legitimate area (it's a council ward). Lastly there is Hope Farm, Ellesmere Port, which seems to have been redirected to a wider area but is not mentioned in that article. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll check all the places added by that IP after this discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - the appearance of "Westminster" makes me think the IP was just very confused rather than actually trying to vandalise, but who knows. It's not a part of the country I know well enough to be sure either way. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope Farm is one of those places that exists in the sense that people will say "I'm going up Hope Farm way" but I think you'd struggle to source it as an actual named settlement - it's more a suburb or housing estate in Great Sutton, which is itself a suburb of Ellesmere Port. There are a number of businesses called "Hope Farm (whatever)" but that's because they stand on Hope Farm Road. Hope Farm Church is the same, but is a contemporary building so there's no history there. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or it'll be little streets next. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. SNOWing in June Star Mississippi 02:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wang (ThunderCore CEO)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Only a single source. Searches reveal very many hits but all appear to be social media, YouTube, blogs etc. There may be non-English sources available. Author moved Draft directly to mainspace immediately following a failed review. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   07:45, 23 June 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. No strong "Keep" arguments have been brought forward of how this artist overcomes GNG requirements that caused two earlier AFDs to end with Delete decisions. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Metaphor[edit]

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

Black Metaphor

Music producer who does not satisfy general notability or musical notability. Two previous articles have already been deleted; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Metaphor (2nd nomination). The edit summary states "Republishing formerly removed page", which is likely to qualify for G4. In any event, there is nothing in this article that is more recent than the date of the deletion discussion. Neither of the "most notable works" provide a basis for musical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original article was removed by the poster and was not deleted. There have been several major placements since this deletion and I will add those now. Jimfrickebigred (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a major placement on a major album, and this placement was the title track of the album. This is more than enough "most notable works" to be listed and satisfy musical notability. Jimfrickebigred (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The comment "The original article was removed by the poster and was not deleted" is not true. Evidence shows the first article was a speedy delete. The second was deleted after a fair discussion. I'm not sure what is meant by "major placement," but the new works added to the article are just more examples of attempted NOTABILITY CONFERRED, as this producer is just one of a dozen or so on the work but lacks RS recognition. Yes, sources are provided but the discussions of the merits of these sources from the second AfD nomination still stand. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A "major placement" is a production credit on an album funded by a major label. If you're going to delete music pages you should learn the terms used in the music industry. Having the title track on an album that charted in the Top 10 on Billboard is plenty of recognition to be notated on wikipedia, as the other producers from this project are. Jimfrickebigred (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    https://tidal.com/magazine/article/bhm-the-producers/1-70743 Jimfrickebigred (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parking Reform Network[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are mostly not-independent (Strong Towns is a "partner", Ref-2 is self-published - the org's website), or lack in-depth coverage. MB 05:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While some of the sources provided do mention the group, most appear to be scattered mentions and do not meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement. --Kinu t/c 06:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reprise Digital[edit]

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

Reprise Digital

Non-notable marketing agency that does not satisfy general notability or corporate notability. The body of the article says nothing about significant coverage by third parties. The one reference is a press release about its management and so is not an independent source. The agency is a subsidiary of a subsidiary of The Interpublic Group of Companies, and a redirect to the parent company is a sufficient alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal McCann and Initiative (agency) are also subsidiaries of a subsidiary of The Interpublic Group of Companies and so that shouldn't be a justification for deletion. Raghavkvp (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable and created by a sockpuppet account
Lindsey40186 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom, non notable company. My search didn't find anything that clearly satisfies WP:GNG. BrutBrother (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find anything notable; this is just marketing. FalconK (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maryjane Chikukwa[edit]

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

Her management roles are not inherently notable. Little to no third party coverage as far as I can tell. KH-1 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Zimbabwe. KH-1 (talk) 01:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – my search did not identify any significant coverage of Chikukwa in independent reliable sources, nor was I able to find any information about the book (Cape to Cairo: Africa's Urban Transport Transformation) that the article says she co–wrote. Not notable under the GNG or any relevant SNG, as best I can tell; possibly too soon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Park, Indiana[edit]

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

Another lakeside camp/resort which has no significant notability. Searching was a bear as the name is ridiculously common, but I did come upon this book in the Arcadia Press style which has some info and pictures. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 23 June 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 wrong venue. First, Talk:Mike Varshavski#Requested move 19 June 2022 is still open and should be for seven days per WP:RMCI. Second, if closed as moved, closer of the RM can request speedy deletion under criterion G6 (Template:Db-move) or submit a technical move request at WP:RM/TR. Sidenote: controversial deletion of redirects go to WP:RFD instead of here. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 12:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Mike (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Making way for a supported series of page moves. L33tm4n (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nivaldo José de Andrade[edit]

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

Bio stub about a mayor of a city of 90,000 people. Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Gondolabúrguer (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree fails WP:NPOL, also WP:GNG. "Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors" No notability here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tree testing[edit]

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

Largely unsourced and the only sources and ELs provided are self-published blog posts (some of which don't even mention "tree testing". ZimZalaBim talk 02:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP. I have added some book citations. Other editors too welcomed to improved the article. It's just KEEP. Wrong AfD entry. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG based on significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Le, Thai; Chaudhuri, Shomir; Chung, Jane; Thompson, Hilaire J.; Demiris, George (2014). "Tree testing of hierarchical menu structures for health applications". Journal of biomedical informatics. 49: 198–205.
  2. ^ Tapia, Alejandro; Moquillaza, Arturo; Aguirre, Joel; Falconi, Fiorella; Lecaros, Adrian; Paz, Freddy (2022). A Process to Support the Remote Tree Testing Technique for Evaluating the Information Architecture of User Interfaces in Software Projects. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer. pp. 75–92.
  3. ^ Chida, Anjum; Zhang, Yan-Qing; Harrison, Robert (2012). "Enhanced Encoding with Improved Fuzzy Decision Tree Testing Using CASP Templates". IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine. 7 (4). IEEE: 55–60.
  4. ^ Samuel, Hamman W.; Zaïane, Osmar R.; Zaïane, Jane Robertson (2012). "Findability in health information websites" (PDF). Proceedings of 2012 IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics. IEEE: 709–712.
  5. ^ Scott Jamison; Susan Hanley; Chris Bortlik (2013). Essential SharePoint® 2013; Practical Guidance for Meaningful Business Results. Pearson Education. pp. 136–137. ISBN 9780133120691.
  6. ^ Bruce Hanington; Bella Martin (2019). Universal Methods of Design, Expanded and Revised. Rockport Publishers. pp. 232–233. ISBN 9781631597497.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:06, 23 June 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) 12:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mojix[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP; all of the current references are just announcements, mostly from the company's website. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The announcements that you are referring to are formal legal releases from the company. I was not aware they could not be used as references. I can remove them and use third-party sources in all of those cases. Jedonaldson (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references being used from our company website. Jedonaldson (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so you also have a conflict of interest then. You have to mention that and disclose if you've done paid editing. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a disclosure Jedonaldson (talk) 13:32, 27 June 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Loewy[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable individual that does not meet WP:NBASIC and WP:ANYBIO. As written, the article contains substantial evidence of WP:SPIP. A review of the sources reveals significant dead links and no feature coverage of any substance drawn from WP:RS. Multiple references to the subject’s own website. The prior AFD discussion to KEEP was supported by two editors who both have account blocks and were subject to WP:SOCK investigations. Further, a significant number of edits were made by an IP address 108.210.44.114 with a geolocation similar to the subject’s place of business. Recommend temporary block of IP address 108.210.44.114 along with investigation of article creator HGGore83 Volcom95 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and Texas. Volcom95 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local attorney that seems to handle high-dollar value cases. His intro sentence says he founded a law firm. That isn't enough on which to build an article. The rest describes the cases he's handled, which seem to be the high value cases America is famous for, large cash settlements. The socking involved in the prior AfD is also a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article about a non-notable attorney. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty unambiguous advertising. Agree with above, fails WP:GNG but I'd have gone G11 personally. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with previous statements, fails the GNG Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. News coverage about cases in which the attorney is representing one of the parties is not substantive coverage. Oaktree b's assertion that this is just another local attorney who handles high-dollar cases seems correct. --Kinu t/c 06:54, 26 June 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) 01:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Najih O. Salhab[edit]

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

Promotional, and no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. – Ploni (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Islam, and Palestine. Ploni (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched for his name in Arabic and English and found no sources. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite claims of his fame and importance, a search in Arabic yields almost nothing, and certainly nothing to indicate a solid record of scholarship. Mccapra (talk) 03:39, 23 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alapati A'asa[edit]

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

Unsourced and does not meet WP:NBOX. ––FormalDude talk 00:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Boxing. ––FormalDude talk 00:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability met per WP:SPORTBASIC. A'asa covered significantly here in well known NZ news outlet Stuff. Significant coverage in Samoan news site here. Highly reputable news source NZ Herald has significant coverage here. As such, the subject is notable due to being significantly covered by multiple secondary sources which are reliable and independent. As the basic criteria are met, specific criteria at NBOX is not required - those criteria are indicators only, they are neither a concrete guarantee of notability where significant coverage does not exist nor a barrier to notability where significant coverage does exist. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: have added the Herald and Samoan news source to the article. No longer unsourced. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article from Stuff cannot be used to demonstrate notability as it does not contain significant coverage, it is just a trivial fight summary. The article from Samoa News cannot be used to demonstrate notability either as it is not independent because it is an interview. That leaves one potentially notable source, which is not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSBASIC. ––FormalDude talk 03:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not an interview, the reporter has merely included comment from the subject. The independence is not affected as nothing in the article relied on to demonstrate a fact comes from the mouth of the subject. IE if there was some claim about being a world champion boxer, the subject stating this in an interview would not be independent and hence inappropriate source for that. However an otherwise independent piece with quotes from the subject is fine imo, like this, which only briefly cites the subject's commentary and instead focuses on other facts to which the subject never commented. The Stuff piece focuses on a fight by the subject, which to me is not trivial. I'm not trying to change your view btw, just putting in my input. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Delete: does not meet general notibility guidelines, does not meet NBOX. this boxer doesn't have significant coverage. 3 media articles isn't significant coverage. a guidelines in my opinion for significant coverage for a bare minimum is 30 different media articles with each article have a different topic about the boxer. on top of that the stuff article isn't even about the boxer, it is a results recap article.--Bennyaha (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC) UPDATE1: Has improved a lot however I still believe more references are needed.--Bennyaha (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quantity is not a written criteria for significant coverage, so there is scope for ones personal judgement. But 30? Technically given the guideline says the word multiple, more than one would be enough. 30 seems pretty unreasonable. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at the articles i created, Benjamin Kelleher, Floyd Masson, Andrei Mikhailovich, Hemi Ahio (this one i didn't create but i made majority of the edits). These I only made over the last couple months with majority of the edits done on the first day. Kelleher and Masson Wikipedia page were up for deletion at one point because 15 articles wasn't enough, so i edited it more with double the amount of articles. These are significant coverage that still active with multiple news sources and from different types of sources. These are perfect examples of what articles look like at the beginning when developing the article. yes it is tedious and take hours to do but this is how it is. You want the article to stay then you need to do better and add more before multiple people join into the conversation and put in their judgement. Bennyaha (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that a bare minimum is 30 different media articles with each article have a different topic about the boxer then you definitely need to re-read WP:NBIO. The notability criteria for biographies states People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. WP:SIGCOV states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So its multiple pieces (at least two) of in-depth coverage that are required for someone to be notable, not 30. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey I am just going off by my experience. I have had articles deleted with having a lot more references and a lot more content because it didn't reach a certain amount. Bennyaha (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I like the Somoa News article and think it can be used. However, for a non-notable boxer who never won any kind of championship and hasn't boxed for six years, I'd want to see more than one piece to satisfy GNG and justify having an article. The other hits I got in my BEFORE search were just passing mentions and routine fight coverage. – 2.O.Boxing 06:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - added more refs.--IdiotSavant (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful when making statements like "He fought Alex Leapai" as in the end the fight did not end up happening. In future please say he was scheduled the fight this people instead of saying he did. On top of that the the other reference stated he fought in 14 professional fights, however, after looking all over the place, i can not see where those other supposable 3 missing fights could be of happen. This could be lack of fact check of the source or lack even the source itself not being notable. The is no consistency which is what I am saying. Bennyaha (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies I have just found two of the missing fights that's are not recognized in the stats. [48], [49], [50] Bennyaha (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question He doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOX and I'm not seeing the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Will someone please show me the multiple sources that aren't routine sports coverage? Papaursa (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails to meet WP:NBOX and I'm not seeing the multiple sources of significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Fight results and reporting typical of any professional boxer are insufficient to show me that he has WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:23, 29 June 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) 01:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Psoinos[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. – Ploni (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Greece. Ploni (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: [51] Minimal citations and low h-index for someone who has been published since 2007, so fails WP:NPROF, and no indication that WP:GNG is met. Curbon7 (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON at best for WP:NPROF C1, and I see no sign of other NPROF criteria. It would be unusual to have NPROF met for an academic who appears to have only held adjunct and temporary positions. The subject works in a field where notability is frequently through WP:NAUTHOR, but I'm not seeing books for that guideline (there are some book chapters, but these are more on the level of journal articles). No other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:13, 23 June 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) 01:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Garfi[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in the article. – Ploni (talk) 00:15, 23 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_June_23&oldid=1095901960"