Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 28	June 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Potosí[edit]

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

Very short article with only one sentence and a single source. AKK700 11:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bolivia. Shellwood (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many links in the Spanish article, most look to be sourced directly from the newspaper. Can someone comment on the reliability of the other sources? Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has provided no valid reason for deletion. Until that is done how can we have a deletion discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 17 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!} 22:29, 22 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, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non notable news paper, doesn't meet GNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:46, 6 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 Draftify. Unclear whether six months will help, but no harm in giving Wil540 art the time to work on it. Star Mississippi 01:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Reid (skateboarder)[edit]

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

Single source in article, tagged for notability since April 2022. The defining line in the article for me is, "His photojournalism career started at The Fader and has led him to document some very important moments in history." - this is not notability and there's none on display here. Fails WP:GNG, we don't even get to WP:ARTIST or WP:FILMMAKER. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/revert to draft Hello. I agree in its current condition, the article does not demonstrate notability. I have researched the subject and found enough sources to pass WP:GNG. I plan to work on it in the next week or so. --Wil540 art (talk) 19:00, 17 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!} 22:33, 22 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, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Photography. Netherzone (talk) 18:10, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Waida[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have no sourcing that shows an actual passing of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 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. No objection to a re-nomination for more input if a potential merger can't be sorted editorially. Star Mississippi 01:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Salt Lake County Council election[edit]

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

Municipal election, routine event with routine local coverage. WP is not Ballotpedia and is not a database of all elections. MB 00:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Utah. MB 00:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For now, and try to find a way to merge and condense all the information on these elections. Not worth a standalone article, but deletion is not the best answer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into what? Kevin McE (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If you think these are a violation of what Wikipedia is not, perhaps we need a discussion or RFC regarding all the articles in all the subcategories of Category:Local elections in the United States by state or territory, Category:English local elections by year, and any other similar categories applicable to other countries. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely what Wikipedia is not. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:25, 22 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!} 22:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last week to see if consensus can emerge here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 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 12:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shady Othman[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. – Ploni (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Syria, Russia, and Ukraine. Ploni (talk) 22:11, 22 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!} 22:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication if those roles were major. desmay (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no news/magazines/TC coverage or major roles in big movies. --IgorTurzh (talk) 10:39, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Haider Zhobal[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC nor WP:NWRITER. – Ploni (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, and Afghanistan. Ploni (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found one source about his writing and added it in. It doesn't establish notability, just a brief mention. But I don't think there is a high chance of finding stuff about a Afghan writer who wrote in the 1950s in English sources, so I hope someone with relevant language skills can take a look. CT55555 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few sources that help prove notability. As CT55555 mentioned it is difficult to find sources because of when the subject published plus his works not being published in English.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:09, 26 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!} 22:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards keep (but I do not know) -- The fact that some one has written an article referring to his contribution suggests to me that he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep (see reply comment): if anyone is inclined to do more digging, here are the LOC BIBFRAME entries for his two books: [1], [2]. I do not believe that the sources presently in the article establish notability. I have updated the titles to give the transliterated titles and the LOC's translation, and removed the other two entries, since I am not sure they actually exist; one duplicated a title of an earlier book, and the other the publication year, which makes me suspicious. (Additionally, it is extremely suspicious for someone to publish in the 1950s and 60s, and then... 2004.) I would normally assume that any historian with two or more books is notable and, like previous commenters, urge caution against quick delete !votes because of language barrier issues. But in this case I am much more concerned that the language barrier may well have led to an article simply being factually untrue for a decade. For example: can anyone find any information that this BLP is, in fact, a BLP? The most recent evidence we have of his life is the publication of that second book, which may have been as early as 1960. The DNB gives his biographical data as 1925/26-1959/60. (I wouldn't lean too heavily on that data, but it does not inspire confidence.) -- asilvering (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The AFD version of your computer working as soon as you call someone over to look at it: a full, English-language source. And yes, he's quite dead. Source: [3]. -- asilvering (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I previously commented, but did not !vote until now). Keep due to being notable, as per the new sources found by Asilvering CT55555 (talk) 12:57, 5 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 redirect to In a Dream (EP). ✗plicit 13:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rager Teenager![edit]

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

Had a quick search of news sources and although there is some limited coverage of the song's existence, it doesn't pass WP:NSONGS. Seems like the release largely slipped under the Radar. Viable search term but not a standalone article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I feel there may be enough to keep the article based off of sources. (Table based off of this revision).TheCartoonEditor_{(he/him/they)} (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete still. Not enough information or established notability to warrant standalone article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 23:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Ref name	Url	Subject?	Non-trivial?	Independent?	Can be used as a NSONGS/GNG source?
Rolling Stone	1	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
The Line of Best Fit	2	? Maybe	Yes	Yes	? Maybe/ Yes
Billboard single release	3	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Midiorama	4	Yes	? Maybe	? Maybe	? Maybe
Billboard album review	5	No	Yes	Yes	No
Youtube link to music video	6	Yes	No	No	No
Pressparty	7	Yes	? Maybe	No	No

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:24, 22 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!} 22:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent EP, In a Dream. Useful content can be transcluded there.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to In a Dream (EP). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. Not enough coverage aside from the sources presented and analyzezd by TheCartoonEditor. A brief description about the song can do in the EP's article. SBKSPP (talk) 00:02, 2 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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 01:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fardad Fateri[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. The most notable thing I see is ", Fateri stated that 100% of the organization's grant of funds would be provided to the students." supported by ref #3 on the article, where the subject gets a minor mention. I do not see anything that meets "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published" WP:BASIC. The article has had a previous prod and a couple of contested speed's. I looked for but did not find any other significant references that might meet WP:BASIC Jeepday (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Jeepday (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Positions include president of a notable university and president/CEO of two notable educational companies. Page has been infested by COI editors (with attempted effect of unduly positive WP:NPOV), but it appears neutral to me (I and others did a lot of cleanup over the years). A previous version was speedied, but the current seems substantially different. The two speedy's I see both seem out-of-process because there was already an objected PROD:
- Cbryant23 {{db-author}}, is author, it's not clear why Jeepday objected that it is "not a G7 request", given that this appears to be the author, but it does fail G7 because it has had substantial substantial editing by others
- Jeepday {{db-person}}, User:BangJan1999 objected for content reasons

Pinging User:MrX, who filed the PROD in 2013 (others involved in article history were already pinged). DMacks (talk) 15:52, 23 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!} 22:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author I believe this meets G& for speedy Cbryant23 (talk) 20:51, 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. ✗plicit 13:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Koenigsberg[edit]

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

Appears to fail general notability guidelines. – Ploni (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Ploni (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 29 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!} 22:06, 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 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 13:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Shinewald[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; promotional with clear WP:COI issues. – Ploni (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 16:22, 22 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!} 22:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this thing into the sun. Getting interviewed by articles not about you as an expert of something doesn't establish notability. Plus, I think the COI says it all. User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 03:59, 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. ✗plicit 13:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason C. Stoner[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. – Ploni (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United States of America. Ploni (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 22 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!} 22:00, 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 11:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long Branch (film)[edit]

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

Article about a short film, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFO. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and instead must show some evidence of significance (notable film awards, critical analysis by professional film critics in real media, etc.) -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that the film exists, and the sourcing isn't getting it over WP:GNG: one footnote is the film's own distributor, one is a deadlinked Q&A interview with the filmmakers from an unreliable blog and one is a review in a minor film magazine, meaning that two of the three sources are not support for notability at all, and the third is a start but does not get to the finish line all by itself if it's the strongest source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this short film from having to have more than just one hit of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 22 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!} 21:59, 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. Consensus is clear that sourcing isn't sufficient for a company Star Mississippi 22:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otrium[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Routine startup coverage. scope_creep^Talk 10:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is very little more than a list of funding rounds. Zero notability and clearly fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User eyeballed the article instead of analyzing sources per WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what the user did. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the results ;-) gidonb (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and the results is a delete vote. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As part of WP:BEFORE, always check to make sure a large chunk of properly sourced info wasn't removed before the nomination was made. You may be voting on a weakened version intended to support the nomination. I restored the info about the business model, renamed simply as business. It's an entire section with nothing about funding. After rereading and trying to see things in the eyes of the nom, I rewrote the business section so nobody could claim it's a manual. Future participants and closer, please review with this new info in mind. The multiple independent sources that are there demonstrate that the organization has received significant independent media coverage, meeting the critical requirements of WP:NCORP. I'll point out that the media reports that the organization has 3 million customers, which clearly makes it notable. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP per [4][5][6][7][8]. Nomination is a WP:BEFORE failure. Removal of information was improper. gidonb (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to these five WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:SIGCOV sources, I will introduce a sixth [9]. All six articles were written by fine journalists. gidonb (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after reviewing the above citations provided by gidonb, I agree that there is good coverage on them and they are notable.Zeddedm (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is virtual SPA. scope_creep^Talk 20:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An overnight conspiracy with a virtual WP:SPA turning up, particularly since it doesn't meet NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 06:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the removed material and its citations don't really meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. It's just routine business stuff, not the impact I describe in WP:SERIESA. User:Technotalk's argument about the number of customers is irrelevant for notability; we need some kind of in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. And it's all like: won this award; raised that amount of money; profiled in Forbes again; is in business. FalconK (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a handsome article. I've not seen it before but I will need to start using it now. scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted comment - I went to your essay and there's a section about significant coverage that says it should "contextualize the impact the company had on the history of its field of industry, its community, or society". Wouldn't having 3 million subscribers suggest that there's an impact on society, just like you wrote you'd like to see? TechnoTalk (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. - Aoidh (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references:
Ref 1 Receives 750k funding Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Ref 2 120milllion raised Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Ref 3 Partnership Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business
Ref 4 Raises 102.3m raised Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Ref 5 raised a €7m Series-A round PR.Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Ref 6 Invests 7million Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital
Ref 7 Tech Crunch. Raises 26million. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

You start to see how banal these refs are and its more of the same. Routine annoucements, startup news. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just said a lot and really nothing. Notability is judged by sources, NOT by references. I provided 5 sources, all in independent, nationwide media. All but one proudly signed by journalists. The fifth is sourced from the Dutch independent prime press agency. gidonb (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: Thanks for finding those sources. Unfortunately the Dutch seem to be following our lead with paywalls. Hopefully someone will add more info from them. There's also significant non-financial related coverage in this Forbes article. The writer lists 20 years of retail journalism experience on her bio but I've seen others question the "Forbes contributor" (senior contributor in this case) byline and use that in their deletion arguments, so I left it out. But once this is kept, I can use that coverage to improve the article. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoTalk: I managed to read all with my free subscription of Het Financieele Dagblad and Google's own paywall workaround ;-) 01:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I managed to miss the references at the top. Looking at each of one of them.

European Off-Price Designer Marketplace Otrium Launches In U.S. Low quality Forbes ref. Routine annoucement of company launching in the US.Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Standard notices from a press-release. of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance The 120million Series funding press-release.
Paywalled. Unable to read it.
Paywalled A March 2018 article, when they got a 750k funding round, so probably a press-release.
Paywalled Growth of designer outlet webshop Otrium positive for XL Business Park in Almelo
Paywalled. The url states. 120-miljoen-dollar-op. Press-release.
Paywalled. The url states. 7million raised. Press-release.

Assuming AGF and taking the 3 press-releases as typical of the five, they are extremely poor references that fails WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. IThey are all from company news, PR. This whole article is native advertising, for a shop. As cool as its a shop, its completly typical coverage of a startup. The article fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 08:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom has made several statements that show WP:BEFORE was not done, and that this is a bad faith nomination. Since he says he's a new page patroller, I'm also concerned about his ability to understand what he's reading, or at least the haste with which he's reviewing and nominating articles. He writes above that this article is about a furniture store, and describes the furniture as "cool" and the company as a "shop", but it's a multinational online clothing retailer. I can only assume he saw a picture of their office in one of the Dutch articles and didn't do a translation. He claims to have read the Forbes article but brushes it off as a repurposed press release. Anyone can click on that link and see that's not true. I posted a link to the Forbes writer's bio above. He mentions WP:SPA, which I don't see. He even calls a personal essay an article above, when it's clearly marked as an essay. Finally, as I also pointed out above, he deleted a big chunk of info with sources, since trimmed and restored, before nominating this for deletion, instead of letting the nomination play out. TechnoTalk (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoTalk: If you keep making personal attacks like this WP:NPA, I will need to make a report at WP:ANI and cut out the bludgeoning per WP:BLUDGEONing. It is deeply uncool. scope_creep^Talk 18:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: None of what I posted is a personal attack. I'm simply repeating what you said and did, and explaining why it makes me question your ability to fairly monitor and review articles. You on the other hand accused me of being a paid editor once this started to go the wrong way, and said you're going to go after my other articles, so that's grounds for me to take you to ANI. Feel free to save me the trouble of opening a case, and watch for WP:BOOMERANG once your previous block for similar targeting and harassment is brought up. You'll also get another one-way IBAN. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoTalk: I routinely received the same threats from the same user. Maybe his way to cover up WP:BEFORE failures? He does seem to try to jam through his plentiful, poorly researched nominations. I don't care, I look at the data, not at the people. If nominator one day comes up with a nomination that does make sense, I would support it. It's the best strategy for sanity at Wikipedia. Keep focus on the data at all times. gidonb (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. As an aside, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.

NCORP and WP:SIRS make clear that we require references that discuss the *company* in detail. WP:SIRS says *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability. The takeaway here is that the quantity of coverage is irrelevant - what we require are multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
Some editors don't fully look at the definition of "Independent content". It says that content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company. Articles that are essentially copies of a basic company description, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, etc and without some other in-depth content, fail ORGIND.
Several sources were included by an editor above, claiming that those sources meet GNG and NCORP. I disagree and there's not much point in berating/accusing the nom for not carrying out BEFORE and then producing regurgitated announcements and press releases with claims that they meet GNG and NCORP. All of the sources fail as follows:

This from fd.nl headlines with "Dutch online clothing outlet Otrium raises million in investment" regurgitates the company's announcement of the same day. Just like the other articles covering the news of their new investment like this is WWD and this in TechCrunch. None of these articles contain any "Independent Content" and fail ORGIND
This next from fdl.com is a "puff piece" based *entirely* on an interview with the founders. It contains much of the usual format we're used to seeing with puff pieces (Background, Problem, Initial Idea! and solution, investment, problems overcome, vague future-looking statement) and also has the obligatory "cool" photo of the founders. It has no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
This in ad.ml (and also carried by a couple of other publications) cannot be viewed without a subscription but from the summary I can see, I cannot find any reasons to believe it might contain in-depth "Independent Content". The article appears to be focused on the topic company's logistics within Europe which is handled by "Bleckmann Fashion & Lifestyle Logistics" and says that the popularity of the brand has been positive for the area (Twente/Almelo). It goes on to interview Bleckmann's Commercial Director (who is a supplier and not unaffiliated to the company). I'm not seeing sufficient CORPDEPTH nor "Independent Content". If someone else has access to the rest of the article and finds something, let me know.
This from rd.nl deals with the same topic as the first two sources above - the raising of 120m. This article refers directly to the announcement in the Financial Times but it is significantly shorter. There's nothing in the rd.nl article that isn't contained in the longer ft.com article which in turn is based on a valuation provided by an "unknown source" (so not RS) and quotes from the company. It has no "Independent Content" by way of analysis/opinion/etc and fails ORGIND.
This from nu.nl says in the first sentence "the company announced on Thursday". It's about the company raising €7m in 2019 and contains a summary of the Press Release from the investment company on the same day. Fails ORGIND

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, or come close. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a fundamental disagreement over whether or not there are adequate reliable sources to prove notability. It would be nice to see fewer comments on contributors and some consensus on the sources or this could go "No consensus". Also, it is unwise to remove large well-sourced sections of an article before it is nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll get on my soapbox here and defend the sourcing, as requested above. A recurring argument with this nomination and other AfD nominations of company articles is that funding announcements don't make a company notable. But when we see a funding announcement, particularly one that values a company as a tech unicorn, doesn't that tell us that an experienced investment company or investor has carefully studied a company's business model and has faith in their management team? They have access to private information that we as editors do not have. Significant repeated funding rounds tell us that someone has done the background checking for us. Until there's consensus at Wikipedia that I'm mistaken, these sources all help with determining notability. Also, the funding announcement is often the first time the media hears of the company, and it then spurs them to do additional coverage of the company. That's why there's more info in the article than just funding. It's just being ignored. If it's because the source is paywalled, I'll be happy to send it to any reviewer. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our guidelines should be viewed as the encapsulation and solidification of consensus over many years and by many editors. While we also acknowledge consensus can change and even Ignore all Rules, there has to be some justifiable reason, perhaps even an extraordinary one. There's nothing you've said above that hasn't already been considered in likely hundreds of other AfDs - and yet NCORP still hasn't decided that funding announcements can be used to establish notability. NCORP also requires in-depth (CORPDEPTH) "Independent Content" (ORGIND) and funding announcements that simply regurgitate the same announcement is churnalism. I've provided a fairly detailed breakdown of the sources and reasoning for why they fail NCORP. If you're going to convince the community that there are special reasons for keeping an article on this topic company, it will be more convincing to refer to reasons contains within our guidelines and sources where you can argue and point to that meet NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your notability challenge has focused on funding news, and I defended it, but there's more info than just funding info here, and it's all properly sourced with reliable independent sources. Clearly meets WP:NCORP. And anyone who does a WP:BEFORE can find more info, in multiple languages. And I'll keep an eye out for more sources with a Google alert, ensuring this will keep getting even better. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TechnoTalk: You're raising a very important point! Recently, I wrote on this very issue in this failed attempt to delete the article of Ahmed Salman, a professional Arab-Israeli footballer, who plays for Hapoel Jerusalem: The mixed herring and salami approach, this article is about this and this about that, is an old AfD strategy and is quite boring. For example: this article is not about the company, it's only about who leads it, who invests in it, what they produce, and how much they make. Not recommended because it pointlessly prolongs discussions where Wikipedians could be working in the article space. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add here that the guidelines are very, very clear on this, and nearly everyone seems to agree (and has for a while): investment does not establish notability. The results of the consensus are documented at WP:FUNDED et seq., and you can see them even here. The private information that some investor might have indicating the company is the next world-changing unicorn is completely irrelevant to us here, because there's no deadline (so we can write the article when it actually does change the world), and we're writing an encyclopedia with reference mostly to citable secondary sources (said confidential information is neither citable, nor secondary). Once the press starts reporting on the company beyond interviewing the founders, cataloguing funding rounds, and reprinting press releases, we can have an article. For nearly all companies, that never happens. FalconK (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH per scope creep's source analysis. Per precedent in the application of that policy at AFD, funding announcements are not considered RS towards proving the notability of corporations. Perhaps this should change, but that would require an RFC. As such, lacks enough significant independent sources of the company itself to pass WP:NORG.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @4meter4: can you share diffs that funding announcements are considered routine, per policy. We have an article about the companies that secure unicorn funding rounds List of unicorn startup companies, and the term unicorn itself is notable. Otherwise, it suggests WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TechnoTalk I don't need to share differences because it's actually in our written policies at WP:FUNDED under "examples of trivial coverage" in the section "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" where it lists "capital transaction, such as raised capital" as trivial. In other words, it's an official guideline adopted through broad community input of how to view these kinds of sources. It's policy. If you want to change the policy you will need an RFC consensus to overturn it. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Gotcha. Thanks for sharing. I think that the guideline as interpreted is overly broad, for the reasons I mentioned above. Unicorn funding is major news. It dominates business coverage. If all I had was routine funding, I'd not write an article about the company. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TechnoTalk I can sympathize with this perspective, and as I said above this might be a policy worth revisiting at an RFC. However, we have to follow notability guidelines as written not as we wish they would be.4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine coverage that fails WP:NCORP which is more stringent than WP:GNG. Slywriter (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NCORP, A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. All coverage is significant and all the sources are independent. It's a literal reading of the policy. Media coverage covers the business, its history and of course the funding. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLUDGEON. No need to repeat yourself for the nth time especially with a position that has been thoroughly dismissed by previous editors. Slywriter (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP, and it's borderline with WP:GNG but I would say the absolutely routine nature and scope of the references does not show notability for even WP:GNG. I am in complete agreement with Scope Creep's analysis of the sources in his comment above. I have read through this AfD discussion to see if there were any points made that would influence the notability of the subject, but I personally find the arguments defending the article's sourcing to be unconvincing. - Aoidh (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NCORP. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - recent additions to the article, e.g. the advertorial Elite Traveler [10], the similarly-promotional Forbes profile [11], and the obviously promotional I amsterdam [12] ("As the official foreign direct investment agency of the Amsterdam Area, we can help you set up, succeed and expand your business here.") appear to further support deletion per the WP:NOTPROMO policy as reflected in the WP:NCORP guidelines. WP:NCORP notability does not otherwise appear adequately supported by independent and in-depth coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scope's excellent source analysis, which was obvious just looking at the sources but good job on making it easier for everyone to discern! PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:45, 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) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Rose[edit]

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

Demi Rose's appearances in eye-popping red lingerie apart, there's nothing here to get us over WP:GNG - certainly no independent, in-depth coverage or any role other than as a model that would possibly confer notability. As a model, there's no coverage beyond images, a couple of interviews and incidental mentions in coverage about others. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty lady in photographs, nothing else for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of the articles are about how she looks in a bikini or something similar, no stories about her life in reliable sources. The BBC article as down below is one step towards wiki notability, I'd suggest we could revisit this later when she has more quality "hits" in media we can use for sourcing. Either delete or draftify, she's not quite at the notability bar yet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deep coverage on BBC[13]. As a side note, she has 20M followers on Instagram. It's impossible to have such a huge fan base and not be notable for a Wikipedia article at the same time. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her follower count could very well be boosted by bots and clickbait farms, it's the number of active users that tells the story. It's about the same as spotify stream numbers. There are videos and stories of stream farms, where it's literally a wall of ipods on rack shelving, all streaming the same song at the same time. People pay others to boost their numbers for them, it's not terribly honest. But it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Although BBC coverage is reasonable as 4nnl12 notes, that article seems to be quite the outlier. Nothing in WaPo, NYT, Slate, Variety, etc.—simply not commensurate with her popularity measured in followers. If more sources crop up discussing her in a nontrivial manner—actual consequence on, say, the modeling industry, on fans, on other notable celebrities—then yeah. Ovinus (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Keep per source found below; my research was apparently inadequate. Ovinus (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are more reliable sources. I can put more time into finding them, but this one from news.com.au, an award-winning online newspaper in Australia, should be enough, I think. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article, though? Its title ("Demi Rose shocks in racy Dolls Kills green bikini") is representative of its contents: meaningless commentary on some photos. Award-winning indeed.... Ovinus (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I understand that you folks on enwiki don't like "racy" articles on British tabloids.

I found some content on Metro (British newspaper) and People (magazine) which do not have "racy" things in their titles. But please note that she is not a rocket scientist either, so it's not logical to expect these article revolve around deep issues:
Death of her parents [14][15]

Appearing in a music video by Tom Zanetti [16]

Dating Tyga, ex-boyfriend of Kylie Jenner [17][18][19]

Catwalk incident[20][21][22]

Are these acceptable on your part? If yes, then maybe I can find more. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Metro.UK is not reliable per WP:METRO. Dating a celebrity does not confer notability. So no, these sources don't contribute to notability. And with regards to "expect these article revolve around deep issues": Of course, we're not expecting that. It just needs to be significant coverage, and it's easy to cover a celebrity beyond Instagram photos. For example, any decent interview would likely discuss a celebrity's life, intentions, interests, opinions on the industry... something we can actually use. Ovinus (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most people (including the nominator) are getting misled by the spicy titles of the sources, but the cited sources do significantly cover different aspects of her life and career. For example the following sources (along with many others) talk about her life in a nontrivial manner:

Also note that "hot images" are essential part of her work as a social media model, just like "songs" are part of a singer's career or "books" of an author's. Insight 3 (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She's almost at the notability bar. I had to wait to create the Shannon Singh article until we had decent enough sources to use; this lady is about the same idea as Singh. She's almost notable for our sources. One more interview like the BBC one and she'd be good enough for an article here in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Oaktree b; once she receives another good interview, there's an article to be written. I"m not being misled by the sources' titles; I'm being led by the sources' content! The BBC source is good and ought to be used. The Things and Birmingham Mail look questionable in terms of quality, but what do they say, anyway? The second one is a fawning article over her difficult backstory and (perhaps the only part deserving mention here) that she got a lot of followers without contracts. The first one is broken for me, unfortunately, but the usage of the word "Distraught" in the title is a bit worrying. It's about reliability, not me/others being puritanical. Ovinus (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then both of you should change your votes because here is that interview you requested :) 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good find; thanks! Ovinus (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even then your article Shannon Singh is tagged for notability issues! Insight 3 (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She was interviewed in Glamour UK, in the BBC and the Guardian used her story as an example of women of colour not getting enough airtime. I figured it had enough good sources; problem is articles get chopped up once I publish them, so they don't always retain their quality. It's not been brought to AfD yet, so that's good. Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have added new references as per search of 4nn1l2. Everyone voting for "Delete" should revisit the article. Insight 3 (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and appreciate your efforts, but she still doesn't get past WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has 20 million followers and is covered nearly daily in British tabloids. Coverage extends beyond tabloids, for example BBC, AP, news.com.au, and yahoo.com. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AP is probably the best after the BBC one. The news.com.au is simply about her in a bikini and yahoo.com is of the same quality. I'd count it as 1 good source and one ok source, not sure it's good enough for notability yet. Oaktree b (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the bikini images, the news.com.au also mentions some info about her age, native city, number of Instagram followers, being a former DJ, etc. Also she is in the People Magazine and the OK! Magazine. Insight 3 (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:SIGCOV is "significant coverage in reliable sources", I think we need to recognize the sheer amount of coverage of Rose in non-reliable tabloids where it is daily almost. It is actually difficult to find reliable sources due to the sheer amount of tabloid coverage, I found reliable source coverage by searching specific sources and trying to filter out some of the tabloids. All this tabloid coverage is not usable, particularly not for BLP, but it is an indicator of significance and interest. Pikavoom ^Talk 08:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And let's not forget about Fox News and New York Daily News, both of which are reliable according to WP:RSP. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider new sources found since the AFD was opened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With significant media coverage in multiple reliable sources, the subject passes WP:BASIC. Insight 3 (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage. Artw (talk) 16:05, 7 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 redirect to Fundamental (Mental As Anything album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big Wheel (Mental As Anything song)[edit]

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

Big Wheel

Song that does not come anywhere close to general notability, and does not satisfy musical notability. Song notability requires independent coverage other than artist and label. A draft was declined twice, at which point this article was created and is essentially same as draft. Review of the references shows that they are catalog entries and show that the song charted 75 on the Australian national chart.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	45cat.com	A catalog entry	Yes	No	Yes	No
2	australian-charts.com	Another catalog entry - Shows that songs by the band have charted	Yes	No	Yes	No
3	charts.org.nz	Another catalog entry	Yes	No	Yes	No
4	australianmusicdatabase.com	Another catalog entry - Shows that the song was at 75 on the chart	Yes	No	Yes	No
5	germancharts.de	Shows that the song was 75 on Australian charts	Yes	No	Yes	No
6	Kent Music Report	Wikipedia, and so a circular reference		No	No

There is no coverage other than the mention of the chart position, and no coverage is not significant coverage. Recommend Redirection to Fundamental (Mental As Anything album) as alternative to deletion for both article and draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Australia. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication of notability or commercial significance. Easily fails WP:NSONGS. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fundamental (Mental As Anything album). A minor hit in the local charts. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:02, 2 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. We now have sourcing, which solves to the earlier question of whether being listed was sufficient. Star Mississippi 01:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Main Guard Post, Helsinki[edit]

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

While one reference used in the article is offline and I cannot access it, the other two certainly do not indicate notability, and the offline source is used only for a fairly minor point so I suspect that it is a passing mention as well. The second source as of this nomination is a blog, while the third is about the guard regiment and mentions the building only in passing. Searches reveal only map listings and some other mentions, but nothing which would demonstrate notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a heritage-listed building[23] so clearly meets the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBUILDING Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" as required for buildings under WP:NBUILDING. I don't accept that buildings fall within Artificial geographical features. It may be there are Finnish sources that I'm not seeing. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course they do. What else do you think that section is referring to? Artificial hills? Artificial rivers? Artificial islands? Not a lot of those that are heritage-listed. And Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course they don't otherwise why would the buildings section even be necessary? That section refers to burial mounds, stone circles, hill figures etc. Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you've arbitrarily decided which heritage-listed things fall into the category and which don't. What makes you think a stone circle is covered but another structure is not? All are "artificial geographical features" and one is not more notable than the other. It's fairly obvious what the second section refers to. It's saying that if a structure isn't heritage-listed (i.e. is not covered by the first section) then it may still be notable for other reasons. Fairly obvious, I should have thought. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - For someone who maintains numerous lists of what they personally think establishes notability, accusing me of being arbitrary is rich. As usual you claim something to be "fairly obvious" when it isn't at all. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not arbitrary. That's illustrating consensus against deletion in order to undermine the tiresome arguments of deletionists who like to ignore consensus because they personally disagree with it. Incidentally, it appears you're the only one here who doesn't think it's obvious! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Your supposed consensuses and idiosynchratic interpretations of policies and guidelines are arbitrary and tiresome. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some Finnish language coverage from a few minutes in Google:

Yle news story: [24]
Paywalled Helsingin Sanomat story, ~350 words in 15 paras: [25]
Iltalehti story about effects of COVID: [26]
Listed on this website, which has a non-trivial editorial team, with the Editor-in-Chief being a professor of history.

Searching the digital archive of the National Library of Finland shows a couple thousand hits, but I don't have time to look over them and I'd expect a lot to be passing mentions ("so-and-so escaped from/was moved to the main guard post" etc.) with a bunch of false positives thrown in. I'm not sure where to look for potential offline coverage, as architecture etc. are really not my forte, but I'd expect books on the historical Helsinki downtown to mention it. At the same time, I can't point at any specific offline sources that would do so. With all that said, I'm leaning keep on GNG terms alone, with the heritage aspects (per WP:NBUILDING) pushing me clean over. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for the additional sources, I have expanded the article based on them. JIP | Talk 20:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the national heritage list, and I see articles all about it from the national broadcaster and a major newspaper. (I think we have Ljleppan to thank for both; thank you!). A clear notability pass. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:34, 2 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 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!} 23:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Mehmood Jaan Qadri[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since January. I’ve been unable to find any additional sourcing. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shah Mehmood Jaan Qadri entirely fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete this article. 72.181.180.51 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’ll need to provide sources demonstrating notability or otherwise explain how this subject meets WP:ANYBIO Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 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!} 23:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gathigio[edit]

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

No indication of notability, sources, does not actually show up on Google Maps at reported coordinates Kazamzam (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete This has all the hallmarks of an article zipped off from GEONAMES, which has consistent problems with nonexistent places. There's a similarly name actual town nearby, but a quick look at GMaps shows that this place is spurious. Mangoe (talk) 23:44, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benvar Farm[edit]

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

No indication of notability, sources, etc. Kazamzam (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is actually a farm. I get very few hits for its actual name, so I don't think it passes notability standards as a business. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk
Delete. No evidence that this is an actual settlement, and a majority of the article is tangential in an apparent attempt to WP:COATRACK it. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it does have Facebook page, but no significant coverage.--Chuka Chief_talk 16:10, 3 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 redirect to Daniel Benson. There is no clear consensus that BLAR is inappropriate, so the history remains under the redirect. Star Mississippi 02:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Benson[edit]

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

An article on this subject was deleted in 2011 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Benson. This more recent incarnation rehearses material relating to the period before 2011 and adds a small amount of more recent stuff that may qualify this as an attack page. In any case I think it is highly doubtful that the subject is in fact notable so calling for a discussion to determine consensus. Mccapra (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, currently the only cited source that would begin to count towards establishing GNG is [27]; consequently, the only well-sourced content in the article is about Benson's (as yet, still fleeting, amateur) adult film career, hence the attack page concerns and IP editors on the talk page raising the issue of whether that's appropriate to include. I was unable to find additional coverage searching online. N.b. the preexisting redirect is to Daniel R. Benson, who has no relation to the current article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Came to the same conclusion as Rosguill. Bare links and IMDB are not sufficient enough to establish GNG. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could do with stronger sourcing, but passes WP:GNG and two regular roles in television series pass WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimreapercake (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC) striking as this account is a sockpuppet Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through the sourcing that has been added to the article since my !vote, I don't see how one could assert that GNG has been met. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Florida, and Missouri. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't found any better sources, so I'm leaning toward delete or redirect. @Rosguill and CollectiveSolidarity: if we determine that Benson is non-notable, shouldn't the article be deleted and then the redirect restored? If we just blank and redirect, it will continue to have the revision history about the non-notable subject. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be strictly necessary, there's plenty of old revisions about non-notable subjects hidden behind redirects. What would make it appropriate would be if there was outright libel, extremely non-neutral content, copyvio, or something else that makes the content unusable even in the case of the subject otherwise becoming notable in the future. ATTACK content would qualify, but despite editors' concerns that have been raised here and on the talk page, I think that the information included in this article and prior revisions, while falling short of notability guidelines, does not comprise ATTACK content per WP:NOTCENSORED. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's very helpful. Thank you. You seem like you might know a thing or two about redirects. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the actor article as before. ~~Then restore the redirect to the unrelated Daniel R. Benson.~~ The new content should be nuked, not just blanked. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The dab page Daniel Benson is a better redirect target as Firefangledfeathers notes. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daniel Benson, a disambiguation page, as an alternative to deletion, which I would otherwise support as GNG is not passed. I think the attack-iness of the article is a bit overblown. He's on OnlyFans under his own notable name and he links it indirectly from his instagram bio. If the sourcing shifts, the article history could be useful. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 3 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 merge to Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Ukrainian coup d'état attempt[edit]

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

In whole number of events during 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, this seems to be not notable, especially considering that in 2021 there also was some kind of attempt. I think it violates WP:NOTNEWS, coverage of event is not deep. Renvoy (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ukraine. Renvoy (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Renvoy. You wrote that the coverage of the event is not deep. I can, if you want, look for more sources, because some politicians from the US and the UK have stated in January and February that there will be a coup along with the invasion, and some independent foreign media have also written about it, so after adding foreign sources, coverage of this event is unlikely to be perceived as not deep and not notable and article itself will not violate WP:NOTNEWS. I can either add sources today if I have time, since I'm busy, or tomorrow. Danilmay (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does not stand as a separate page. One could make a page Preparation to Russian invasion of Ukraine, but we already have Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. My very best wishes (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: If this is even true, which is a big if, it's just plainly not independently notable on its own. It certainly deserves mention at the Prelude article with wording like "Uke officials claimed that Russia etc etc etc", but we should not be publishing neither Russian nor Ukrainian propaganda as if it were fact. Curbon7 (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine seems like the best solution. Depending on the course of this invasion, this could change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Not a very significant event on its own. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with the idea or merging --IgorTurzh (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Prelude to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine this event is fairly minor and can't really stand on it's own. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:15, 5 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) 14:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa N Edwards[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG: while there's some sources cited that look usable, on further inspection they fall short. At the bottom of the most substantial article, published in Stockhead ([28]), there's a disclaimer saying that all information in the article is the interviewee's (Lisa N Edwards') views and that the publication does not vouch for it. There's other interviews in less-than-reliable cryptocurrency publications (and even if they were reliable, the interview format raises questions about independence). Coverage of the subject's career as a writer seems to be limited to blogs, and falling short of WP:NAUTHOR. Meanwhile, the subject's acting roles appear to fall short of meeting WP:NACTOR, comprising minor parts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, Cryptocurrency, and Australia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Note also that the review currently linked in the article is the "we'll review if you send us a free copy" kind - might be intellectually independent, but no good for notability. -- asilvering (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. On inspection, fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:PROF. None of the current references (and some are very recent) really are RSs-- it's a bit of a hodge-podge of articles, none of which appear to be true reliable sources. Possibly she could be mentioned on her brother's page (Craig Steven Wright). She just doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable in any field to satisfy the relevant requirements. Cabrils (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Many of these sources are questionable. Going through them... first we have Telerama: I don't speak French or have a good understanding of the Francophone media landscape, but it looks like a IMDB-type site. There's an interview with PrimeXBT, which doesn't look like a media site at all, it's a crypto exchange (at any rate, a review is not a very reliable source for BLP anyway). The Writing Piazza, similarly, is an interview with her. ArtsHub looks like a real website with an editorial staff. Article is paywalled but it might be usable for more content. Steemit seems like a non-starter, it is just a webhost/social networking site. Magweb looks like utter dreck -- machine-generated clickbait, which I frankly expect to be scraped from Wikipedia. Vivid Publishing is just a publisher's website, not independent at all. Australian Geographic looks like a reputable site... but the source doesn't mention her at all. I don't see a lot of cryptocurrency sources in this article. Same for Australian Television -- no "Lisa Edwards" anywhere to be found. Same for abc.net.au, which I believe is a fairly credible source -- no mention of her in the article. Nor on Box Office Mojo. No mention in the cinemagazine.nl article, and the fusionmovies.to page is machine-generated actor summary page on a website that is definitely not a publication. I guess maybe I've found a site to stream free movies, but I haven't found a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. Finally, in the AACTA awards PDF, we have a mention of her as a juror -- in a list of some several dozen other people. We have..... a book giveaway advertisement, an interview from NerdyGirlExpress, and Edwards' own book. There is a short article about her upcoming film on Proactive Investors, which is a financial news site, okay, but the article isn't really about her. Basically, notability comes down to whether the couple Stockhead articles are SIGCOV. Per their about page says the publication is about Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) stocks, and they have actual editorial control over their content -- I don't know if they are a RS or not. At any rate, though, it seems like it's basically all interviews, and most of the sites are flagrantly subpar for BLP sourcing, and I move to delete. @Rosguill: which cryptocurrency publications are you referring to? I do not see these. jp×g 00:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misidentified PrimeXBT and gave it too much benefit of the doubt. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:07, 5 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 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!} 23:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Hochgeschurtz[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. 12 of the 12 current references are routine employment notices, becoming the new chief. scope_creep^Talk 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, all I can find are news releases saying he got the job. One mention on Gbooks in a German book from 2014, can't tell what it says. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 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 speedy keep. I'm satisfied with the sources provided by the keep !vote, withdrawing nomination. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dontez Byrd[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, all substantial coverage I was able to find was from non-independent sources, such as teams that the subject played for. Coverage in independent sources does not appear to rise above trivial. BeanieFan11 contested a PROD with the above rationale claiming they found coverage that might be significant, but did not provide links and I was unable to find such sources online. Note as well that the primary contributor for this article has been blocked for UPE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Kentucky. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what my search was able to bring up: Tech's Dontez Byrd taking advantage of opportunity from the Herald-Citizen (appears to be SIGCOV); Pirates Re-Sign WR Dontez Byrd from OurSportsCentral (probably SIGCOV, but I'm not sure whether or not it is reliable or independent); Undrafted Rookie Turns Childhood Letter Into NFL Dream Come True from FanBuzz (definitely in-depth, not sure on the reliability however); Former Walk-On Receiver Could Make Falcons Roster from Fansided (SIGCOV); Falcons WR Dontez Byrd might be surprise of training camp from SB Nation (SIGCOV); USFL Wideouts and Corners: Who will get picked up in the Draft? from American Football International (about a paragraph on Byrd, probably not significant enough); Dontez “Speedy” Byrd is flying high in Seattle from XFL Board (if reliable, would count as SIGCOV); and U of L walk-on Byrd earns scholarship from The Courier-Journal (probably SIGCOV). I'd say its enough for GNG. Keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:41, 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) 14:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senegalese people in Norway[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable group. Fails WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Africa, and Norway. Curbon7 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked all of this up on Statistics Norway, and this is where I found all of this information. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not think there is any need to delete this article. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Indeed fails WP:GNG, and we aren't a database for statistics. Ovinus (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don’t mean to argue or be rude, or violate any guidelines, nor am I offended by anything, but I disagree with that.

AmericanEditor350 (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability. Note that AmericanEditor350 appears to have voted twice. More important, the comment "I looked all of this up on Statistics Norway, and this is where I found all of this information" seems to suggest that AmericanEditor350 makes no distinction between evidence of accuracy and evidence of notability. Plenty of statements are accurate, and even demonstrable, without being notable. Athel cb (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this only numbers a few hundred people, so probably not notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 19:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Immigration to Norway, same rationale as with all other mass creations here. MarioGom (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not only unsourced but partly incorrect/misleading and mainly original research. The article doesn't even have a clearly defined topic. The source (there is just the one source, used twice) doesn't say anything except how many people currently living in Norway were born in Senegal; nothing about citizenship or ethnicity. The list of people in the article includes a mix of Senegalese people who live in Norway, Senegalese people who moved to Norway to live and work there for some time but don't live there now, and Norwegian people who might or might not have a parent or grandparent born in Senegal. --bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 3 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 redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2022. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K2-371[edit]

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

No coverage except for discovery papers where this is one of a great many stars found to have exoplanets. Fails WP:NASTRO. Lithopsian (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2022 where the companion is already listed. Exoplanets are a dime a dozen these days, so more evidence of notability is needed. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's just an uremarkable K-type star with a Jupiter-like exoplanet. If it at least talked about the star, maybe we could head for redirect.Speed doesn't always mean quality. - 400Weir (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just improved the article, but there's no notability beside 9 papers over 6 years of observation. Speed doesn't always mean quality. (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. It's just another boring orange star. Even if it has a planet, it isn't very notable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:38, 5 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 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!} 23:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamaearth[edit]

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

Promotional article that does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. All of the references appear to be routine coverage and press announcements. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Haryana, and India. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is genuine and doesn't seem to be a promotional article. I think it needs more editing in terms of the information written other than that, the deletion request should be removed. Thekaransingha (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely undisclosed paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 10:10, 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 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!} 23:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maithai jama Haphong[edit]

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

Editor Fahimhasan created this article, based on a expedition by "Fahim Hasan from Dhaka", described in user-generated content.

According to WP:GEOLAND, named mountains can be notable, "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." Searches in English and Bengali found zero reliable sources on the topic.

According to WP:5P2, "editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia". Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm – Mehedi Abedin 15:13, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Kathuria[edit]

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

certainly coi and prob autobio. Essentially a post-doc, "Not Yet Notable". Gooogle Scholar shows only one highly cited paper, but it's a large group effort where she is one of 43 authors. The senior person in her group seems to be Rakesh Karmacharya, who might be notable Her awards are junior awards or fellowships. The article is furthermore unacceptable under MEDRS because it makes therapeutic claims for specific diseases sourced to her own work. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another person using Wiki in what looks like an effort to boost their brand. Nothing notable found. Low citation index. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:NPROF. WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not at least yet meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Certainly reads like a vanity page whether or not it is an auto bio or highly COI - or even UPE. I note also that the article with its raft of sources was dumped into mainspace in just one edit , in fairly clean format (very unusual for a new user) by the creator who had first just done the mandatory edits to become autoconfirmed. Many of the sources are unreliable or simply inadmissible. Does not meet WP:NPROF in any ways. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NACADEMIC, definitely too soon. Editing pattern of enough very minor edits to become auto confirmed followed by article creation, as well as image uploaded as own work and where it is used elsewhere, strongly suggests WP:COI if not WP:UPE. Melcous (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON and, I suspect, a WP:COI of some sort.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 17:12, 2 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) 14:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueFish TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Inadequate referencing, but fails anyway 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Religion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete beyond the nomination, a search identified only PRWeb and other similar churnalism. Nothing that even comes to close to WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 16:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this page were to be kept, it would need to be renamed RightNow Media, which is the current company name. But a search on Newspapers.com mostly turns up passing mentions (e.g. in TV guide or Church sections listing when the media company's "Marriage Night" is being simulcast). By far the strongest piece of newspaper coverage (via Gale) was in this article about "Christianity in the Digital Age" which has two paragraphs about RNM plus a quote from a church subscriber. There is one similar paragraph in a larger article about church libraries, referring to it as "Netflix for Bible studies". Beyond that, there is a write up about Evansville Life Coaching announcing that it is partnering with RightNow, which is more about Evansville rather than RightNow, and reads a lot like a press release. It doesn't seem quite enough for notability according to WP:NCORP rules (or for updating/expanding the article), although a Google search does seem to indicate that they have a broad base of churches that subscribe. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:08, 5 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 until additional sourcing comes forward. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Williams (historian)[edit]

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

This clearly does not meet GNG. Our one source is a publication from his employer, so it is not indepdent. I was able to find an article on Godfrey of Rheims by Williams, and what looks like a whole magazine that was his coverage of Godfrey, but I was not able to find any more secondary sources on him. Clearly he does not meet GNG. I do not see any way that he meets academic notability. I do not think we have enough to show that his impac as a historian was to the level called for by prong one, and just being on the faculty of Dartmouth is not enough to meet any of the other criteria. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Appears notable due to the coverage in these sources: #I wasn't able to access it, but as he's mentioned in the short title, I think it is safe to assume it talks about his work: EDWARD K. KAPLAN. Jules Michelet: Historian as Critic of French Literature by John R. Williams. L’Esprit Créateur, [s. l.], v. 30, p. 112–113, 2017. DOI 10.1353/esp.1990.0009. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsair&AN=edsair.doi...........cd4cbb5f9ef8e50dacf9035f7d80725d&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 29 jun. 2022. (struck by me, probably about a different author) CT55555 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an academic paper that reviews his book: Matthew Bell. (2001). [Review of The Life of Goethe: A Critical Biography; Das Genie und sein Fürst. Die Geschichte der Lebensgemeinschaft Goethes mit dem Herzog Carl August von Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach. Ein Beitrag zum Spätfeudalismus und zu einem vernachlässigten Thema der Goetheforschung; Goethes klassische Lyrik; Metzler-Goethe-Lexikon: Alles über Personen, Werke, Orte, Sachen, Begriffe, Alltag und Kurioses. Mit 2200 Artikeln, by John R. Williams, Friedrich Sengle, Reiner Wild, Benedikt Jessing, Bernd Lutz, & Inge Wild]. The Modern Language Review, 96(2), 568–571. https://doi.org/10.2307/3737455
Note, this is by the same author as above. But also significant coverage: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Faust. A Tragedy in Two Parts, with the unpublished scenarios for the Walpurgisnacht and the Urfaust John R. Williams Review By: Bell, Matthew. In: . 20(1):117-121 Language: English, Database: JSTOR Journals

Note: two are by the same author and one I was unable to read, can only see the title, but as it mentions him, I have assumed significant coverage. CT55555 (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we sure the above are by the same John R. Williams? It is a common name, and writing on 18th-century Germans seems a bit outside the expected scope of a medievalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I discarded sources that were clearly about serial killer with the same name. Noting that he is famous for writing about Godfrey of Rheims, it was his name and "Godfrey of Rheims" that I searched for in Wikipedia library that got me these results, so that makes me be fairly confidence about the first one. The second two are explicitly about his writing about Godfrey of Rheims, so I am very confident about that. Noting you have doubts, I guess that means you are not using the wikipedia library, and yet it is free to wikipedia users. I would recommend it as an essential tool for verifying notability, and finding sources, it's much better than google scholar. CT55555 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Update, the comment below makes me less confident about the first source, in fact I think it means the first one is probably not about him. I'll strike it out. CT55555 (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author of Jules Michelet: Historian as Critic of French Literature was a John Raymond Williams (1935–2015), who received a doctorate from the University of Colorado in 1967 or 1968.[29][30] I believe that the German scholar is John Rosser Williams (born 1940), who received a doctorate from the University of St Andrews in 1968.[31] gnu 57 18:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm starting to understand your question differently. Background: the article said he wrote about Godfrey of Rheims, a Humanist of the Eleventh Century on Godfrey of Rheims before I edited it. So all my analysis above is base on the assumption that is accurate. Assuming it to be accurate, I searched for him on google scholar using the terms "Williams" and "Godfrey of Rheims", to get the above sources. If it is a different John R Williams who wrote about Godfrey of Rheims, then everything I've said above is based on a flawed starting hypothesis, and therefore the article contains errors before Mr Labert question it's notability. So the question in my mine now is: are you saying it was someone else who wrote Godfrey of Rheims? CT55555 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 I think it's very likely he wrote about Godfrey of Rheims. Download the finding aid here: [32]. -- asilvering (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is to say, he did not write about Goethe. He's a medievalist who worked on French intellectual history. -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've struck my keep. I'm going to think if I'll remain with no !vote or vote delete. I'll see what others say before maybe commenting again. CT55555 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 If you manage to find anything on him that we can link through Template:Authority control, let me know and I'll have another look. I was hoping I could piggyback from an ISBN and try to solve the name disambiguation problem that way. -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't actually find that he has written any books at all. The Godfrey "book" appears to be an article (here: [33]). This is an article in the most prestigious journal in the field of medieval history, so he wasn't no one, but the usual WP:NAUTHOR path to notability doesn't appear to be available for him. Here's another one of his [34], and a second article in Speculum here [35]. Google scholar gives the citation figures for these as 22, 29, and 45, respectively. I don't really have a good comparison for what historians' citation figures in the 1950s ought to be, but I don't think we have WP:NPROF here. -- asilvering (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought I had posted this note about the time involved. It seems to have been shown above that there are multiple academics by this name. This John R. Williams died in 1988, at age 91 or maybe still 90. The Goethe book was published in 1998. While there are writers and academics who have works published posthumously that does not seem to be the case here. In fact from what is said above it looks like there are at least three academics named John R. Williams who had published works. I do not think we have someone meeting our inclusion criteria for academics here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized I had made an edit along these same lines earlier, but had gotten distracted with other things and then gone to other tabs and never actually saved it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 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 delete. Consensus that he fails WP:N, but also no evidence presented in the article or this discussion to verify his existence and so also fails WP:V. TigerShark (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Southcott (died 1657)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N / WP:V? For starters, is it Southcott, Southcote, or Southcot? The first source mentions a "captain Southcot", in passing, without first name or dates or any further information, so isn't useful here. The second source doesn't seem to include anyone named Southcot (in any variation). I have not been able to find a source that verifies the existence of Southcot(e)(t) Island. Finally, the third source, not linked in the article but available online[36], has a chapter on the Southcote family, but doesn't mention a Thomas (not on page 399, not in the index).

Looking for other sources gives e.g. this about the baronetcy, which doesn't mention Thomas or his role in the creation of it. This is the only thing which perhaps verifies the bare existence of this Thomas, but he is said here to have died in 1639. Fram (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and England. Fram (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Thank god there is a family tree at Southcott family (the variation in the family name seems to just be a symptom of history). This is not Thomas Southcote MP, this is his uncle, also named Thomas. This Thomas this not not notable by any stretch of the imagination, having never been an MP and drastically failing WP:GNG. Potential redirects as an WP:ATD could be Southcott family, Battle of Gunnislake New Bridge, or Southcote baronets. Curbon7 (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not even that. Unless there is verification for e.g. his role in the Battle of Gunnislake New Bridge (which I didn't find), he should not be redirected there but on the contrary he should be removed from that family. And that the two other articles we first need to remove all unverifiable claims about him as well, and only if something is still left then should a redirect be considered. For example, unless we have evidence that someone with this name and from these families actually died in 1657, we shouldn't have a redirect with that claim in it. Fram (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I find are family trees or people born hundreds of years later in more modern sources. I don't think this fellow did much to warrant an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Southcott family~~ Southcote baronets 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southcote baronets, where there is already an account of him in much the same terms as this article. A redirect to Southcott family is a destructive option as it does not provide any detail of his career. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people keep voting Redirect when there is zero evidence presented that there even was a Thomas Southcott died 1657? All you do is perpetuating fake information. What should happen after this AfD is that the other articles get checked and this and other nonsense removed, not that this completely unverifiable thing gets redirected to another place with the same madeup text. Fram (talk) 05:31, 5 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 merge to Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Specific arrests and charges. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Hale-Cusanelli[edit]

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

Raised from a thread at WP:BLPN. I don't think this article really gets to the standard set by WP:BLP1E. Though he got a limited flash of coverage after the attack, I don't think it really amounts to independent notability; there is no WP:SIGCOV from before Jan 6, either. The subject played a minor role during Jan 6 and its aftermath, and otherwise doesn't meet either WP:CRIMINAL or WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Military, Politics, and New Jersey. Curbon7 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pertinent information into Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack per WP:CRIMINAL Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pertinent information into Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Specific arrests and charges Djflem (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Criminal charges in the 2021 United States Capitol attack, per WP:BIO1E, such that this doesn't become a pseudo-biography or WP:COATRACK to unduly tar-and-feather a Bad Person. The fact that the Criminal charges article/list doesn't even yet mention Hale-Cusanelli, nor does any other Wikipedia article, is somewhat odd. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:25, 2 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 redirect to Halsey discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 06:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Badlands (Live from Webster Hall)[edit]

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

A search of Google and News finds little coverage that actually demonstrates anything other than the existence of this album. Not notable per WP:NALBUMS. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 14:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the fact that it's Halsey's first live album noteworthy enough, not to mention it includes a reissue of her first studio album? I wouldn't vote for this article's deletion because it definitely helps learning about every album in an artist's discography, but if the article were to be deleted, could it be then added to the article for the 'Badland' studio album, since this is basically a reissue of the album with a live set of the tracks included, maybe as a separate section in the article or as part of the track listing section of the 'Badlands' article? Bryan McLaude (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean its notable per WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Notability is not inherited. Not every album released by an artist gets an article just because the artist has released albums before. Pages on wikipedia do not exist to create notability for a particular project, we cover notable topics. Per WP:ALTTRACKLIST, "Include track listings for alternative editions only when they are significantly different and when the tracks are the subject of extensive commentary in the article. In such cases, additional track listings can be listed under subheadings. Otherwise, notable differences can be summarised in the prose in lieu of additional track lists.". By default, we shouldn't include the track listing at the Badlands page unless the live album was of significance. E.g. if it led to an uplift in sales or was the subject of critical commentary. Otherwise it just appears in the artist discography as a release without any details. If people want to see the track listing they can check out retailers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Halsey discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:07, 18 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!} 17:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I mean it exists, you can find coverage all over the place. Mostly just mentions of the album release or track listings. Nothing substantial upon which to base an article. I didn't see any reviews in my search either. I get "reviews" in Billboard with "Stream it now!" popping up, it's little more than a repost of social media postings. No traction for the album. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 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 11:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Araz (supermarket)[edit]

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

Amazingly, with articles in several languages, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever even marginally notable about this supermarket chain and no coverage presented to demonstrate that notability. Fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Azerbaijan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:11, 22 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 12:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's significant in Azerbaijan; Azerbaijani news is not well represented in Google but one can find some by searching local news outlets. [37] [38]. Unfortunately, all the news about it is so terse that we can't meet WP:ORGCRIT. I guess it's just pretty run-of-the-mill. FalconK (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too small a chain to be notable. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14 scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 3 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. ✗plicit 12:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Be Here, Be Queer[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary film per WP:NF, lacking significant coverage by independent sources BOVINEBOY2008 11:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find much about this as a whole and next to nothing as far as RS goes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the Attitude source, I couldn't find anything in-depth. A few sources have "so-and-so appeared in it" and some sites that are streaming the video have copied the synopsis. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:30, 3 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 merge to The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forest of Burzee[edit]

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

There isn't meaningful coverage in reliable third-party sources to build an encyclopedic article, as per WP:GNG. WP:PROD was reverted without references that more than trivially mention the subject and its existence. Jontesta (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus. If it is the latter, I ask that the closer transfers the information that describes the Forest of Burzee to the suggested page while starting a section to contain this information. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge. User:Jontesta, while we often see eye to eye (I think), here we have two sentences of analysis sourced to an academic book (Riley). While we could ask whether WP:SIGCOV is met, your nom's ignoring of it seems unfair. Likewise, you don't say anything about whether you've done a BEFORE search. My BEFORE did fail to find anything else that's not a plot summary, so my preference is for a merge, however, this is not an entity that has, obviously, no significance at all, as you implied. If someone finds better sources, ping me, as this has potential (per the source cited). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 17 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!} 02:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus, and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to that page on June 25. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from that page. Thanks, Kevin McE (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus - While there are a couple sentences of sourced material here, it is far to brief to be considered WP:SIGCOV, and the majority of the article is just plot information sourced to the pieces of fiction themselves. I tried some various searches, and could not find any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources beyond what is already in the article. Merging those few pieces of reliably sourced information to The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus would be a good idea, though.Rorshacma (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Nothing to cover except plot information, and we need independent coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:43, 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 delete. Can be undeleted via WP:REFUND for the purpose of transwiki if desired. Sandstein 08:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of undocumented x86 instructions[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN, sourced mainly to blogs, fora, primary sources... Basically, a lot of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH extracted from many unreliable sites. Fram (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a manual or a directory. Mccapra (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, but not without prejudice to recreation as a valid spin off, unless consensus is against having a list of x86 instructions in general (in which case transwikify to Wikibooks). You are welcome to nominate that article for deletion. This article was split off from the main article because it was unwieldy. The article needs to be much better sourced, but there are plenty of RS which discuss undocumented x86 instructions as a group. [39] discusses a systematic way to find them, similar to an well known 2017 paper and presentation at BlackHat ([40] is the paper itself). [41] discusses it too, although I’m on mobile so I can’t assess reliability. Intel and AMD’s own software development manuals contain lists of previously undocumented instructions kept for backwards compatibility, but those don’t count toward notability—just the availability of reliable sources. [42] gives a detailed example of the significance of undocumented instructions to x86 security and the topic has at least been picked up by Forbes [43]. The list should merely be pared down to well sourced items; indeed it’s just as possible to have assembly cruft as cricket cruft, and Wikipedia has both. I’ll look for more sources when I have time; I suspect there are at least a few print sources which describe this list in more detail, but they will necessarily be fairly obscure. TL;DR: A valid split from main article, and sourceable without much OR and SYNTH concerns—that’s just not how the article is right now. Ovinus (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- From that first source: "Also, after classifying the large quantity of the detection results, the amount can be reduced to less than 10000 instructions which is a reasonable amount for further research." 10,000! The topic of undocumented instructions may be suitable for an article with sources like this (and with perhaps a wselect few well-documented "undocumented" ones), but a list like this seems useless. ~~
  - Loling at "well-documented undocumented". Yup, ultimately this article (and the List of discontinued x86 instructions one you PRODed) are spinoffs of the bloated, poorly presented and poorly sourced main article. About the 10,000 number, my understanding is that most of the undocumented instructions are fairly benign, or involve some sort of "alternative prefix", i.e., a particular undocumented set of instructions has a one-to-one correspondence with a particular set of documented instructions. Anyway, you can see the discussion about splitting between me and User:Punpcklbw here. All the documented stuff is immediately sourceable to Intel and AMD's own manuals, but I confess I never considered whether this work is flying totally against WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOT in general. The x86 assembly Wikibook] could use it—it deserves completeness. @Punpcklbw: Thoughts on migrating the content there? Ovinus (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  When looking at it - this situation basically started out with the main x86 instruction listings article being too long and unwieldy, but where my initial attempt at splitting out some of its content to separate articles ended up with two articles (the one under discussion here and the List of discontinued x86 instructions) that do not really work well as standalone articles and as such, both have been suggested for deletion (under WP:LISTN, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:NOTDATABASE etc).
  
  This seems to indicate that this might not be content suitable for Wikipedia per se, and as such it would be indeed be better to move all of these listings to something like the x86 assembly wikibook suggested by User:Ovinus.
  
  While I'm basically fine with such an outcome, I'd suggest a different possibility: rename these articles to establish that they're really parts of one big list rather than truly standalone lists - i.e. WP:NCLONGLIST - in which case the proper action to take for this article would be to rename it to something like "x86 instruction listings (undocumented)" - and similarly for the discontinued-list (and any other splits done of the main x86 instruction listings article) - and then add a compact-TOC to each of these articles to help navigate between the various parts of the list, as is often done with overlong lists elsewhere on WP.
  
  (This obviously doesn't address any WP:RS, WP:LSC, WP:SYNTH issues that the current undocumented-instruction listing has, though.) Punpcklbw (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks x86 assembly Wikibook] could use this as well as List of discontinued x86 instructions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki makes the most sense to me. This is a more clear-cut case for deletion (from Wikipedia) than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X86 instruction listings. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per the above, as this is substantially unlike the other x86 articles. How can we find documentation of undocumented instructions? jp×g 22:32, 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 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 12:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Žan[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSPORTS. Gusfriend (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gusfriend (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely competing in the Olympics is not enough to show notability. We need multiple reliable indepdent sources that give significant coverage of the individual. We have one source and it is a sports stats page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 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 keep as per rough consensus. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stacked (film)[edit]

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

Short film doesn't seem to meet WP:NFILM - coverage consists of WP:ROUTINE reviews and sources that are either unreliable (eg. blogs) or not independent of the subject. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previous Keep decision at AfD in 2012: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film). AllyD (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reviews aren't routine coverage and can count towards notability as long as they are in-depth and in places Wikipedia would see as independent and reliable. The vast majority of media doesn't gain this coverage and even sticking to TV, I'd say that 80-90% of what's aired doesn't get anything beyond primary source coverage. Now as far as what should be considered routine coverage, I'd say that it should be things like trivial mentions of the title in passing, 1-2 sentence promo blips, primary source coverage, and TV listings. Reviews are far, far more difficult to come by as there's far more films and TV shows out there than there would be people to review them and space to print them. This is the case even for online outlets, as the thoughts there tend to turn to web traffic and paying their staff. Most outlets are generally pretty selective and tend to go for what is guaranteed to get eyes on their articles, meaning it's usually mainstream fare, which is why reviews can seem so mundane to some.

In any case, the prior AfD showed coverage from the Daily Record and the Scotland Metro. I get the impression that there's probably more coverage, but can't find it myself. The search terms are pretty generic and Scottish sources don't really work all that well with Google unless they're more recent, so I'll refrain from making a judgement either way. Just wanted to explain why reviews shouldn't be considered routine coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as them being promotional goes, I can see where some may consider them to be as such but in general as long as the reviews are independent and the outlet doesn't accept pay for reviews, they shouldn't be seen as an advert. I'm aware that TV notability guidelines are incredibly strict for shows and episodes. I suppose the main question here is whether this should be seen as a pilot episode for a failed TV series or a film in its own right. The notability guidelines would differ depending on how it's approached. Personally I would lean more towards seeing if there's a section or article for the pilot program for the channel and cover this there in a sentence or two, unless coverage can be found. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems more or less sufficient. Artw (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I participated in the previous AFD for this. I note that the three sources found that convinced everyone to keep it back then, have two which are dead links. I posted on the talk page of the editor who found them to see if he can find links that work so they can be judged by current standards. Not every reliable sources has a searchable archive of everything they ever published on the internet for anyone to freely find of course. Dream Focus 09:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dream Focus asked me to check on the sources I added in the 2012 AFD, it looks like I quickly added the first three I found; two of those links were now dead, but I fixed one using archive.org. Consider my Keep just a restatement of my view of the prior AfD. I feel like this got AfD got lumped into the "young director's 10 minute short film that no one watched doesn't merit an article" basket, which are often valid AfDs. This was really a pilot to a TV series and was broadcast on a major TV network, which is why it got the coverage we can already see cited. While maybe every one-episode TV pilot doesn't merit an article, many do (including dreck like Co-Ed Fever), because they got enough coverage to meet GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments were made at the last AFD are still valid now. The general notability guidelines are met. Dream Focus 15:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Daily Record, Metro and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 5 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. ✗plicit 12:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muthurua Farm[edit]

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

Why all settlements in Kenya are listed? How it is mandatory? No notability at all. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the backlog of tiny villages with no notability indications whatsoever is probably a good 10% of the unreferenced article backlog. I'm going to go through and try to find some more articles to nominate under the Kenya list. Kazamzam (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coordinates point to somewhere called Red Hill, supported by nearby businesses with that name. With the lack of precision in the coordinates, there is a school and church in the vicinity under the name Muthurwa. The U.S. Defense Mapping Agency's Kenya, Official Standard Names Approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names lists Muthurua Farm with these coordinates, but with the class "FRM" for farm not "PPL" for populated place! (Muthurua is separate) This source is related to the GEOnet Names Server, which is deprecated for notability at WP:RSP.
I'd suggest mass deletion of all the unsourced one-sentence stubs on Central Province (Kenya) and others, unless MIDI cares to go back and add sources and content establishing that they are in fact notable villages. These were mass created in violation of WP:MASSCREATION, which was required per this discussion the previous year for this exact reason – automated creation from databases does not necessarily indicate notability, accuracy/verifiability, or that the longstanding requirements for multiple significant sources are met. Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, and I've put in a bot request to facilitate. Thanks, MIDI (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a serious issue that near to 99% of villages and settlements of Central Province (Kenya) and Coast Province are single line sentence with no notability and ref. The page creator's edit is also a serious concern as he has created a total of 1,667 such articles (proof) with 47.4% Minor edits and 77.2% (smaller than 20 bytes) Small edits (proof). In my opinion, these edits attract edit count increase intention that falls under WPNTH by doing such 1 line articles those are not notable, no ref. Probably I'm not the suitable one to raise the concern at ANI as I'm a too junior editor.
I'm really surprised to see the way of being a senior editor with such edits. Someone should raise the concern at ANI as such edits will surely encourage others to increase their edit counts by such an unethical method. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 03:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND guides us that all populated or formerly populated places are notable. CT55555 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 not so. Because of this. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to go to ANI @NeverTry4Me, when @MIDI has offered a suggestion/solution above. NB: unsourced doesn't mean unsourceable. Star Mississippi 03:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi and what about just 1 line article issue and WP:BURDEN? I have landed those pages from my Homepage._{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 03:41, 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 delete. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Augusto Losada Benítez[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, not a head coach or manager but the physical coach only. Fram (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Iran, and Spain. Fram (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is part of staff team of one of biggest football club in Iran and asia. i think its enough notable for mentioning.Shahin (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, physical fitness coaches are very rarely notable. This individual does have some coverage, but most of it is name drops in coaching staff lists and coverage of signings, which do not fulfil SIGCOV in my opinion.--Mvqr (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stay.@GiantSnowman: Hi; He coaches at Persepolis, one of the teams in the Iran pro league, and in List of fully professional leagues has considered the Iran Pro League as a professional league, so he has Notability according to Professional sports people. In addition, it is covered by extensive and authoritative sources that have been added to the article and you can check it out. Thank U ÆBBÄ§ ĶÃVĪĂŇĮ ^(Talk) 10:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that list is no longer used to determine notability, people must pass WP:GNG. Even when that list did exist, it only applied to managers/head coaches of fully-professional team, not fitness coaches. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Hi. According to which section of Wp:GNG does it not have this component? Clearly paragraph 2 of this section covers "Significant coverage" and can be cited. If we do not consider that feature. So what to do with existing media coverage? Shouldn't we consider that too? ÆBBÄ§ ĶÃVĪĂŇĮ ^(Talk) 11:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage". Lots of articles saying he's joined one role is not significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG, see articles like this here.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:41, 2 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. ✗plicit 23:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic Delco[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, significant coverage not presented outside scant local media reports - passing mentions of charity drives rather than in-depth - and an interview in inquirer.com. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:12, 22 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!} 06:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as per nom. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I cannot see any significant coverage. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:39, 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 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!} 04:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Akief[edit]

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

Article fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Beside the article seems to be promotional. _signed,511KeV ^(talk) 06:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. _signed,511KeV ^(talk) 06:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:Anybio --Morpho achilles (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 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 merge to Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Cinematic Universe lists[edit]

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

This is an unhelpful "article" which duplicates the category Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe lists, but requires additional maintenance each time an article is created or moved. If a section like this is needed, then Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe would be the place to include it. Gonnym (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge some of the lists present at the "article" to the Outline, which already links to the films list and Phases, the TV series list and those groupings, the short films and digital series, tie-in comics, music, and numerous cast lists with the characters link. The other characters lists could be linked to in the "Recurring characters", while the in-universe features lists could be at a new section at the Outline, as could the accolades and box office. Especially considering that this list article was created without prior consensus and most editors (including myself) just went along with it, and how the Outline has been around longer and fulfills the purpose of a list article for an MCU overview. With a rethink of how we present some of these lists and contents to all be at the Outline, I would be leaning to and not be opposed to deleting this list article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per reasons above. Mostly redundant when compared to the Outline article. TNstingray (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is why we have categories and outlines. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as a WP:CONTENTFORK of Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe]. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:02, 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 merge to Heroes (American TV series). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mendez[edit]

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

As per maintenance tags: Minimally sourced fictography, featuring individual episode recaps. There is already a list page of "Heroes" characters. Could perhaps be redirected there if not deleted altogether. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's really nothing here, and nothing online when I did a search. Its complete fancruft. No RS or sigcov to be found. I also think this applies to a number of the other Heroes character articles as well. --Kbabej (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The referenced short section about a lawsuit can be merged to the article about the show. The rest is pure if lenghty WP:FANCRUFT and can leave on as a history of the redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced section on the lawsuit to the main Heroes (American TV series) per Piotr. As the article on this character is up for deletion as being non-notable, perhaps this spinout article, (Artwork of Isaac Mendez), should be bundled with the nomination? Rorshacma (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that article is properly sourced, so there might be more debate there. Feel free to nominate it separately, but I don't think we can bundle it w/ this one. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The spinoff seems to fail GNG, I started a dedicated AfD for it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:17, 2 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. Consensus to delete. It has been pointed out that the subject may satisfy WP:AUTHOR under criteria 3, as having created a reviewed, "well-known" work. Nothing has been presented to argue that it is "well-known", and satisfying a criteria under WP:AUTHOR does not guarantee inclusion. TigerShark (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Michel[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR in that while he has written a well-reviewed book, the author does not appear to meet WP:GNG nor WP:BIO, nor is the book "a significant monument" in the field, nor is it the subject of separate notable works. Sources on the page include sites affiliated with the subject and a number of everyday book reviews, none of which establish notability for him. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON if the author is a rising star, but a few positive reviews of a book don't add up to notability. Google News search reveals many appearances by the author that aren't themselves WP:RS, additional work written by the author that can't itself establish notability, and additional reviews that don't cross the threshold for WP:AUTHOR. I'll note that the page was created by an AFC, so I might be wrong on this one and I might just be missing something obvious. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom that this is probably just WP:TOOSOON. He only announced the sale of his second book on March 11. If that gets NYRB and TLS reviews again, there will be an argument to be made for a WP:NAUTHOR pass, but not yet. -- asilvering (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Asilvering! I just !voted below, and wondered your thoughts on deleting/moving this article and changing the title. Basically a "the author isn't notable but the book is" move. Any thoughts on that? Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could do that, but I'm not sure there's any reason to. Then we just end up with a really promotional book stub. I don't think there's any policy argument against doing that, but I don't think there's an "is this good for the encyclopedia" argument in favour, either. fwiw, the original editor has declared a COI on the article. -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops sorry, here's a ping in case you're not watching this page, @Kbabej. -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering thanks for the reply! That's true, the content about the book is pretty promotional/fawning without really imparting anything that is contained in the book. Probably best to just delete overall at this point. PS - Watching this page now for any other replies. --Kbabej (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Afc reviewer here. I thought this would be a borderline notability case and had accepted it so that the wider community can decide if and when the afd happens. – robertsky (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The released book obviously meets notability criteria per WP:BKCRIT, but there really isn't anything on the author at this point. In the beginning of the 'Career' section it states CNN calls him an "oligarch expert", and then there's a quote from the Los Angeles Review of Books, but when looking into those sources, the first one is a namechecked quote (no sigcov), and the latter is a book review. The 'Personal life' section is unreferenced, except for his own website. I do think this author will become notable, but at this time there's only coverage in relation to the book. Can we just move the page to American Kleptocracy and drop the personal life section and first paragraph under 'Writing career'? There's absolutely enough info here for the book to have an article, and there are additional reviews online (Kirkus, etc). If so, I would update my !vote to Delete/move. Thoughts appreciated! --Kbabej (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After the discussing with @Asilvering above, I think it would be best at this point for a straight delete, not moving the page. The reviews do seem overly promotional without imparting much information about what the book is about. If someone wants to move/create a book page that's more balanced, that's fine, but at this point this article isn't cutting it as a BLP. --Kbabej (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reasoning above used for why this article should be deleted doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for creative professionals. In those guidelines the use of the word "or" means an author doesn't have to meet multiple criteria to prove notability. Instead, an author only needs to meet one of those criteria. In this case, his book American Kleptocracy qualifies him because it is a "well-known work" that has "been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." His book has been reviewed in The Los Angeles Review of Books, The Atlantic, Kirkus, NY Review of Books, The Economist, Publishers Weekly, and many other places. Publishers Weekly also did an interview with him on the work. The totality of the coverage of his book shows he meets notability guidelines for creating a single well-known work. --SouthernNights (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 02:09, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nanjing Massacre survivors[edit]

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

The list purports to contain currently-living survivors of the massacre, but the only cited source is from 2017. The people included may not be alive, are not themselves of demonstrated notability, and may not be considered public figures.

I don't have access to the source, but this article is either plagiarizing from it or contains unattributed translation from the Chinese language Wikipedia version of this article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and China. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are not supposed to make indiscrminate lists of everyone. A list of all people who experinced event X who were alive in year Y is not a good idea. In general lists of people are supposed to be limited to people who are public figures. There is no reason to believe this is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeping lists of currently living survivors hardly makes any sense. Why such list would be notable or useful? My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft and unions[edit]

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

Article has only minor indications of importance. The article is on Microsoft and Unions but only mentions that two unions one at Activision and another in South Korea. A majority of the article talks about a few employee protests but they were not union protests or organized as part of a labour union. I think the article could be salvaged if it was about worker organizations, like the one on Google_worker_organization. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note @Dr vulpes note I moved the article page to naming conventions you suggested. I cannot close/remove this AfD, but if it’s sufficient for you, you can withdraw it, otherwise happy for this to play it’s course. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works sorry for not thinking of that. Your article is really well written and in hindsight I should have suggested that. I'm still new to new page patrol so thanks for being patient with me. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After move by Shushugah the main issue presented by the nominator seems to not be present. TartarTorte 12:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator Moving to a new title is more appropriate than removal. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:13, 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. I have not created the redirect as there's a split consensus of redirect/delete. That said, it's an editorial decision that this close does not preclude. Star Mississippi 02:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Happy Girls[edit]

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

Prod contested with suggestion to redirect/merge, but I see no point in doing so as there is too little verifiable content worth keeping. This doesn't seem to be a notable show, as I found absolutely nothing of worth in a WP:BEFORE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sexuality and gender. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient notability. Not the worst article out there in terms of coverage, sometimes there is nothing...in this case I did find one source in the Daily Telegraph, but the coverage is only a brief mention and so not substantial. There is also a book but as the author is linked to the TV program, it's not independent. Newswire coverage here also too brief to be considered significant and not independent, same with this which is a press release. There are quite a few minor hits around the internet, but mostly brief mentions, appearances in TV guides etc, but nothing substantial enough to meet notability. I think any potential expansion would be relying on primary sources being the show itself and/or original research due to the lack of coverage and sourcing. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to find much of anything that isn't, um, "for a discerning audience" when googling this one. I really tried, sincerely. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~List of Playboy videos~~Playboy TV as preferred WP:ATD. Naked Happy Girls is already mentioned there and nothing in WP:R#DELETE applies. ~Kvng (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that is needed for WP:GNG. Not convinced of the need for a redirect as its only a namecheck, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kvng and WP:CHEAP ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 10:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maddy from Celeste, you !voted to redirect "per Kvng". Kvng has updated his preferred redirect target. Is Playboy TV the best target, in your view? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree it should be redirected to Playboy TV. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 09:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, though I think Playboy TV is the better target. Kvng, I'd appreciate knowing if there's a reason to prefer List of Playboy videos, as the section that mentions the show is saying the show's run was later released on home video. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Playboy TV would be better since it was there first ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect and, if redirect, to what target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No redirect. Absent this non-notable show, "naked happy girls" is too generic to justify this. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. No redirect needed, it's not clear that the title should even be mentioned at the suggested page, since the list there appears to be little more than a random sample. Avilich (talk) 02:59, 6 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 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 03:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teremaki Paniani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 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 and redirect to Taft family#Descendants of Joseph Taft. ✗plicit 03:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Taft[edit]

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

U.S. Presidents are notable; their great-grandfathers (and great-great-grandfathers) aren't. Perhaps a slight merge to William Howard Taft would be appropriate.

Aaron Taft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peter Taft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ChromaNebula (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, and because their relationship to the President does not constitute a credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Wikipedia is not a genealogical dictionary of notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peter Taft and re-create as new redirect; redirect Aaron Taft: There's nothing to merge, completely non-notable. Delete and re-create Peter Taft as a redirect to Peter Rawson Taft. Redirect Aaron Taft to Aaron Taft House. Curbon7 (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, History, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Curbon7 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to Taft family#Descendants of Joseph Taft, where they are mentioned. - Eureka Lott 17:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at most redirect. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As is unsourced. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 5 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. ✗plicit 03:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ianisha Carty[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some sources online mentioning this footballer, but nothing talked about the figure independently. Fails WP:GNG I suppose. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Anguilla women's national football team Mujinga (talk) 19:57, 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 03:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Lake-Bryan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 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 03:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kieron Lake-Bryan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could find no non-database mentions of him, not even trivial ones. Wouldn't be opposed to redirecting to Anguilla national football team but given he also has a club team, I think deletion is marginally better. But I'm not opposed to a redirect and this !vote shouldn't be interpreted as explicitly anti-redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 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 03:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Lantan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 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 03:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danniell Bailey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Trivial mentions exist, but not enough to meet either criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 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 03:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Vanterpool[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found some trivial mentions of him in the context of the Anguilla national football team so I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting there, but given his club team article also is vaguely plausible target (albeit less so) I think deletion is a slightly better outcome. That being said, this vote shouldn't be construed as explicitly against redirection - I'm fine with that, I just think deletion is better. Regardless, he's not notable. Smartyllama (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cleopatra Abdou[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF, all sources from her publications, in google search's results just a profiles in academic websites no independent sources or news about her, no accolades or notable work or known books, The article appears to be about an ordinary university professor.
Also, on Google Scholar she has 1864 citations (the highest one has 356 citations). Ibrahim.ID ✪ 01:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Egypt. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 01:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accomplished and need more equitable representation on WP. 128.252.172.28 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing a pass of WP:NPROF, nor WP:NAUTHOR. WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but clean up. The heavy wikipuffery, unsourced detail, and reporting of workaday events as if they were significant (she published a journal paper!) evident in our article and the assistant professor title it gives her make her look like a typical WP:TOOSOON academic, written about here before they have had time to make an impact. Maybe that was true in 2014 when the article was written, and I can see from that why the article was nominated for deletion. But I hope commenters here will do their own checks rather than relying on the state of the article to do it for them. Her Google Scholar profile [44] shows five publications with triple-digit citations, arguably enough for WP:PROF#C1 even in a high-citation field. And she is less junior than our article makes out: current profiles [45] list her as associate professor, a vote of confidence from her employer. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still TOOSOON. This is a field where a 2008 PhD with 5 papers who seems to have left the field after graduating can have 987 citations (top 5: 523, 182, 163, 78, 38). Scopus went down for me in the middle of pulling data, but her 8 least-published coauthors with ≥4 papers have an average of 419 citations (median: 239), 13 papers (12), h-index of 7 (8), and top citations of 134 (72), 75 (57), 57 (32), 39 (26), and 30 (24). Her 47 other coauthors will have much better stats than that, which leads me to believe her citation profile (citations: 996; papers: 23; h-index: 16; top 5 papers: 171, 158, 122, 58, 49) is not nearly at the level warranting a standalone biography in her subfield. I'll update with full coauthor metrics once Scopus starts cooperating. JoelleJay (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Scopus is working again. Here are the metrics for her 46 coauthors with 4+ papers:
Total citations: average: 4367, median: 2062, Abdou: 996

Total papers: avg: 84, med: 60, A: 23

h-index: avg: 27, med: 22, A: 16

Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 497, med: 272, A: 171; 2nd: avg: 253, med: 185, A: 158; 3rd: avg: 200, med: 159, A: 122; 4th: 163, med: 125, A: 58; 5th: avg: 146, med: 105, A: 49.

The "average professor test" would indicate we should wait another few years before reevaluating her notability for a standalone. JoelleJay (talk) 04:50, 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 delete. ✗plicit 01:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Croc's World (video game)[edit]

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

Not notable – no significant coverage (e.g., critical reviews or appearances in the media) seems to exist in any independent reliable source, neither from when the game was released (2014) nor anytime after. As of this nomination, the article is completely unsourced, and was recreated in mainspace after recently being moved to draftspace (Draft:Croc's World). ComplexRational (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's in terrible condition. Whoever want to work on it should do it on the existing draft. Neocorelight (Talk) 14:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently there's a whole series of these titles that have at least gotten one review from TouchArcade, and that helps its case, but not enough. Other entries in that search are just listings of release dates without any non-trivial coverage, and Metacritic pages all give me a big fat goose egg in terms of amount of reviews. As of now, this has a better chance of not getting eaten by a croc in a Florida river (believe me, I have aunts and uncles living in Florida, I know). User:HumanxAnthro (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 03:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I almost mistook it as the part of the Croc series, but it seems to be just another Super Mario Bros. mobile rip-off. It doesn't seem to be notable now, nor that it will be in near future. The article is presently in a horrible state, either way. -Vipz (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very poor for mainspace, and does not follow NPOV or verfiability. All of the article is OR. Consider this line: Croc's World is a 2D platform game that, perhaps, does not add anything in terms of originality, but it is capable of entertaining thanks to an immediate gameplay, a successful scenario and 30 game boards. An ideal title for children and with a not too high difficulty. It seems like entirely OR and like an ad for the game. No significamt coverage exists for this, so delete is a easy vote. VickKiang (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all preceding rationale. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting it does not add anything as (though limited) info can still be obtained from it. No real reason to delte. RJS001 (talk) 03:27, 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 delete. ✗plicit 01:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senegalese people in Sweden[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Tow (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But Statistics Sweden is where I got all of this information from. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because a country publishes a complete list of every country that natives of are resident of in the country, complete with break down by male and female, does not mean we need to have an article on them. Basically statistics Sweden is a primary source for this topic, we need secondary sources covering it to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe it's neccesary to delete this article at all. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe it's worth deleting at all. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable group; fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a database for every expat group under the sun. Curbon7 (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – non-notable and not even a cohesive group since it includes Swedes with one Senegalese grandparent as well as expats. Synthesis of numbers taken from Statistics Sweden and interpreted with a large amount of imagination.. --bonadea contributions talk 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, those of Senegalese descent through even one biological relative or expats to Sweden count too, bonadea. AmericanEditor350 (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"count" how? What are you talking about? --bonadea contributions talk 06:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m talking about they qualify for this article, bonadea AmericanEditor350 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes absolutely no sense. As you know, the only source you have contains no information about "biological relatives" or "expats to Sweden". Furthermore, that is not a cohesive group of people, so it's not even possible to create an article about them. --bonadea contributions talk 16:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG & NOTSTATS. Atsme 💬 📧 00:46, 2 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. COI issues don't make a topic any less notable. Additional sources have been found to meet WP:GNG and the article seems to be in a better state than when it was first nominated. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ince Gordon Dadds[edit]

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

Insufficient independent coverage for example newspapers, books etc and weak coverage by unreliable sources like press releases. Doubt over wether or not the company is notable, as whilst they bring in plenty of revenue, there’s not much media coverage to demonstrate they are different from the average law firm.

Previously COI tagged after a number of suspicious users where spotted editing the article, including one with the same name as the company. COI tag removed by another editor despite not making significant edits, so COI tag has since been restored as an ongoing issue. GeekBurst (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the name of the firm has changed to "The Ince Group", so you may have been searching for the wrong firm name. I've now changed it in the article, but assuming the article is kept, we'll need to move it. There is a lot of interest in it as one of the few listed (publicly traded) law firms, so you should be able to find plenty of coverage about it as an entity, from independent reliable sources. I can't find exactly where else this was discussed, but generally lawyers and law firm staff tend to be clued up about conflict of interest issues, so it seems likely that the COI editors are young interns or new hires before they join. In any case anyone actually affiliated with the firm probably would have gotten the firm name right, at least. The article is in terrible shape with outdated information and definitely needs a proper update. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of coverage for The Ince Group plc is press releases, primarily discussing business profits rather than that day to day operation, which alone wouldn’t qualify the business as notable. GeekBurst (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true but there is also a lot that goes beyond that. Do you have access to Wikipedia Library? I'll come back and help you out in a bit. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:04, 28 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!} 00:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily meets WP:GNG via substantial news coverage in trade publications, such as Law.com [46] [47] [48] and Legal Cheek [49]. The firm is also profiled in authoritative industry rankings, such as The Legal 500 [50] [51] and Chambers and Partners [52]. feminist (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Law.com & LegalCheek articles do not meet the criteria for ‘independent coverage of subject’ & the simple inclusion of a business on a listicle such as those seen at The Legal 500 & Chambers and Partners fails both significance and independence. Please keep in mind a business simply been mentioned in multiple sources doesn’t make it notable, particularly when those sources fail to support the GNG criteria. GeekBurst (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Law.com and Legal Cheek articles I linked are all independent of the subject (none of them are sponsored) and are all non-trivial coverage focusing on the day to day operation of the firm, going beyond a passing mention. I don't see the issue here. feminist (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. The Law.com (aka American Lawyer Media International edition) articles are generally OK for establishing notability, if they go beyond regurgitating press releases, which these do (and as with any source, we use them with care in citing them). LegalCheek, however, does not qualify because it's more of an industry gossip and news site, much like Above the Law in the US (which is also very informative but insider gossip-driven). It doesn't mean we shouldn't read LegalCheek and Above the Law while doing background research; it just means we always need to hunt for more reliable sources to back up any facts and cite those sources instead. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And even if I just look at the nominated article in its current state, it cites sources like the Times, the Law Society Gazette and Legal Business – what's the issue with these sources? feminist (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Law Society Gazette is produced by The Law Society of England and Wales which is an industry association and therefore can’t be accepted as independent of the subject per GNG. GeekBurst (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've struck Law Society Gazette from my comment below. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as in reading the article as it stands now, there is more than enough evidence for notability, with substantial coverage from independent reliable sources including legal industry publications such as The Lawyer, Legal Business, ~~The Law Society Gazette~~, The Global Legal Post, and Legal Futures, and national newspapers such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph, and city newspapers such as The Evening Standard and City AM. (Prior commenter also identified additional coverage establishing notability which currently isn't cited in the article, from publications such as Law.com (American Lawyer Media).) While some of these publications are difficult to access, many of them are not, and in any case their existence should have been identified during the WP:BEFORE step prior to submitting to AfD. I would highly recommend that the nominator work toward Wikipedia Library access, as it will make research on business topics much easier, and we definitely need more editors who are interested in helping to create high-quality business and organisation-related content on Wikipedia. I also appreciate the nominator's frustration with the past COI editors, but in cases like this where there seems to be some coverage but you're not sure how to fix it, I would advise posting a notice to the relevant WikiProject Talk pages asking for input and help from others, rather than using AfD to fix WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets notability criteria and reliable sources requirement. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jerell Gumbs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; lack of WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 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.