Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 22: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:00, 22 December 2021

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 21	December 23 >

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The result was Withdrawn by nom without any other "delete" !votes.. Randykitty (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae

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

No independent sources establishing the notoriety of the journal. Perfektsionist (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: According to MIAR included in several highly selective databases. Clearly meets WP:NJournals. Article is too brief and fails to show notability clearly (although having an impact factor, even from 2012, should have been a warning sign), but that's not a reason to delete. Failure of WP:BEFORE. --Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The journal being "included in several highly selective databases" only indicates that it exists. What significant coverage from reliable and independent sources do the databases bring? Perfektsionist (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the discussions on the talk page of WP:NJournals. Several of these databases (mainly Scopus and the Journal Citation Reports) provide detailed analyses of citation patterns indicating the impact that a journal has. Inclusion in such databases has been taken as evidence of notability for well over 10 years now. I recommend you withdraw this AfD, as I can confidently predict that it'll go nowhere and is basically a waste of good editing time. --Randykitty (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a nearly century old journal indexed in multiple selective databases (e.g. Scopus). Clearly notable and influential. (As a side note, we cite it ourselves well over 200 times on Wikipedia). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I request the withdraw of this AfD. Perfektsionist (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The WP:GNG or any other subjective criteria for notability do not require "English-language-only" sources. Applying SNOW.... (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djabal Club d'Iconi

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

Cannot find English language coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. Club does not appear to have played in a WP:FPL nor sources showing team played in a national cup competition that would satisfy WP:FOOTYN. dashiellx (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.--dashiellx (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - club won the Comoros League in 2012, confirmed here. Sources will likely be in French, not English, and probably offline. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman the club won the the Comoros League in 2012.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no requirement in WP:GNG that "English language coverage" is required. Coverage can be in "any language" Jeepday (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, invalid nominator statement. Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Troy, Michigan. Anyone is free to add any content to the target article if any. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 15:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Barnard

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

This person is not notable, and the source is not enough to show a hyper local politician is notable. Barnard was Township supervisor in a township that was on the verge of large scale growth and had seen some of its area annexed by the city immediately to its south. This was Troy, Michigan and Royal Oak, Michigan, but the year was 1956. The article seems to indicate Barnard did not hold a position in the new city government, or at least not mayor. He was later a probate judge, but that is not the level of judge, a county level judge dealing with estates and the lke, that is notable. Generally only appelate level judges at the state level are considered default notable. In 1960 Troy, Nichigan had a population of just under 20,000, being some raised well under a mile from the city boundary of Troy in the larger by population city of Sterling Heights, Michigan, and having read extensively on the history of Detroit, where I now live and work, and of metro-Detroit, it is clear that in 1956 Troy Township had a smaller population than Troy did in 1960. We are talking about actions in a place with under 20,000 people that was even then clearly within the Detroit Metro Area. There may be township supervisors that are notable, but we would need much more entensive coverage to show that. This article also suffers from about a third of it really being coatracking the history of the house Barnard lived in onto this article. If his house is notable, we should have an article on it, not coatrack the information onto a non-notable hyper local politician. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Troy, Michigan: Definitely deserving of a mention in the article for the town, but not for his own standalone article. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, here is his obit from the Detroit Free Press. Cbl62 (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Troy, Michigan. No evidence of significant coverage and hyper-local information that has little chance of ever being better covered. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Troy, Michigan. Doesn't appear to have enough press coverage to meet WP:NPOL as a "major local figure." Redirecting to the town seems like a reasonable target. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amb Prayer Pemu

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. It is sourced entirely to press statements. A BEFORE search brings up more press statements. Princess of Ara 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 20:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I have read both the WP:GNG and the WP:NPOL most especially. There’s no default reason why article should be deleted because the subject passes all. WP:NPOL never said anything about press statement meanwhile as a politician things like that are expected and they are even said on notable reliable sources and also he is the special assistance to the Delta State Governor Ifeanyi Okowa but that doesn’t guarantee him notable according to WP:NPOL last statement but he passes all in WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I was unable to write more because that’s all I know about him. --Gabriel601 (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may have read the policy pages like you claim but I don’t think you understand them because WP:GNG says a subject is considered notable if they have had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Press statements are neither independent nor reliable and cannot be used to assert notability. Also, NPOL requires an elected statewide office. Being Okowa’s aide is not a claim to WP:NPOL. I encourage you to read the policy pages again for better understanding. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a repository of stuff you know about a subject but about what is documented in reliable sources. I think you should see this for better understanding. Regards
Princess of Ara 21:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Press statements are neither independent nor reliable and cannot be used to assert notability.” No such statement was said at WP:GNG. Secondly I’m not a newcomer as you referred me for a better understanding. Have been here 5 years but not active, you have been here 10 months with nice articles created which is nice. Compliments to your contribution and happy Sunday. I might not be responding to your next reply due to my offline activities, I leave this section to other contributors --Gabriel601 (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is very clear about her requirements for a notable politician. You should be elected into an office, not appointment. To be a notable entrepreneur, my interpretation of the standard is even higher. I can't see any evidence that demonstrate the subject passes any of both, which implies failing WP:GNG.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Noticed the subject has a statewide appointment, which can be interpreted as meeting one of the criteria for NPOL. However, in practice, we don't automatically deem special assistants to governors in all countries as automatically notable, Wikipedia will be a mess if that was the case as most statewide special assistants have little or no reliable sources covering them (as the case in Nigeria). If you can establish that "Office of Special Assistant, Information, Culture and Tourism to Delta State Government" is a consistent and reputable office, I might change my !vote.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HandsomeBoy, there has been a consensus at AfD that state commissioners (who have a more established office) do not meet NPOL so their notability is assessed by GNG. I think the same should apply to special assistants. Princess of Ara 15:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a logical consensus that I definitely support when contextualized. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Subject is notable from Google search but needs enough improvement such as citations.--Tcgchv (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcgchv, subjects are only notable by evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and not by google hits. Princess of Ara 17:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! Nothing looks notable here or satisfies Wikipedia's GNG or NPOL criteria, the only position he holds is the "Special Assistant" and this is a common appointment in Nigeria, many governors have hundreds of them. Governor DanKwanbo's 229 Special Assistants, Special Advisers Taraba State, Governor Ben Ayade's Special Advisers, Obaseki Appoints 72 other aides. User:Em-mustapha ^talk 03:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Suonii180 (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Em-mustapha. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of pen names#Clare Richmond. RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Richmond

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

Pseudonym of two writers who have their own articles. Anything relevant would be for the actual authors and not their shared pseudonym. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, would it be appropriate to turn this into a disambiguation page referring to both the target authors? It's quite likely a reader would search using the pseudonym, and ought to be directed to somewhere useful. Elemimele (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele - Yes, that is ideal. Also is a WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No per WP:ONEOTHER (if there are only two topics on a disambiguation page, then we shouldn't have it), except perhaps under the exception of WP:NOPRIMARY (i.e. if there is no primary topic). Even if there are three or four topics, this is kind of a borderline case, but we should definitely have a dab page if there are >5. Also, this shouldn't be an article proper unless "Clare Richmond" has some kind of magical notable property apart from the two people who've used it, but I don't see any so far. Furthermore, a quick DuckDuckGo search reveals a bunch of other people also called Clare Richmond, making this even more ambiguous than it seems onwiki.

From pageview statistics, we find that Louise Titchener gets more pageviews than Carolyn Males, so weak delete and redirect to Louise Titchener with a hatnote linking to Carolyn Males. (I'll change my !vote accordingly if this title turns out to be a richer topic than I initially thought.) Duckmather (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I had considered whether a DAB could be here instead, but then that would imply someone searching for the term actually wanted to know about one or both of the real authors, rather than the pseudonym. For me, a pseudonym would have to be notable in its own right and I am not seeing that to justify an independent article. A redirect isn't really viable when there are two competing targets. I can't see sufficient evidence this passes WP:NAUTHOR. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Clare Richmond" can be an independently notable author without having to be a single real person. See, for example, James S. A. Corey. The question is just whether "Clare Richmond" passes WP:NAUTHOR. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're doomed, this is quite a difficult one to decide. (1) In this particular case, I don't think it's helpful to discuss the notability of the author and the pseudonym separately. In both cases, the pseudonym applies to a significant proportion of the author's output, so the notability of the author and their pseudonym are based on the same material. If one's notable, the other is. (2) We don't know which name our readers are using; they may know the pseudonym and want to know who's behind it, so we have to have some way to link pseudonym to article. But (3) In this case, both authors used the pseudonym together, collaboratively. This means we can't say Titchener is better known than Males, as "Richmond" because we're talking about the same Richmond and the same novels. To be honest, I think they're borderline anyway (they've both got decent output, they're decent-sized fish, but in an enormous pond, and a pond that is quite ephemeral), so I'm not keen on a whole article on their collaborative pseudonym as well as on the two authors separately, and yet we can't really combine the two authors in one article as they also wrote independently. So practically, if you don't want a DAB because there are only two targets, the best would be to redirect to one of the two authors at random, and then decide whether to use hatnotes to refer to the other, or whether to emphasise in the article text that the Richmond name was used with the other, linked author. Elemimele (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it provides useful information for the reader who finds a book, or a reference to it, by "Clare Richmond". I have expanded it with content from the two authors' pages, which could presumably be properly sourced if those pages are themselves properly sourced. An alternative would be to direct to one, randomly chosen, of the authors, with a hatnote "Clare Richmond redirects here: for the other author writing under this join pseudonym see ...", but that seems overly cumbersome (especially as they both collaborated with other authors too, so a complete set of redirects would be a mess). Simplest just to keep this mini article, which is informative for the readers. WP:IAR if need be: just help the reader. PamD 10:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think using WP:IAR is a bit of a cop-out in a discussion for which there is no policy-based argument to use in defense. The fact is, each of the real authors in question that used this pseudonym also used other pen names too, as very clearly stated on their articles. Are we to have a standalone article for each of these too, because if we keep this one, then surely that has to happen? There may be a case to have one central article that links the authors together (say Pseudonyms of Louise Titchener and Carolyn Males), then redirect all the pseudonyms to that (although could get messy if other authors used the pen names too). I simply cannot see a need for standalone articles for a pretend author that does not seem to have independent notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see no reason not to follow PamD's argument for WP:IAR in this case. Redirecting to one author or the other adds confusion, not clarity. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Delete as below. I still think redirects will just cause a mess. -- asilvering (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate The pseudonym itself obviously isn't notable, and there is no primary topic (pageviews do not necessarily correspond to primary topic), so a disambiguation page makes the most sense. Mlb96 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, gsearches under ""Clare Richmond" book reviews", and for each book ""[book title]" by "Clare Richmond" book reviews" bring up zero reviews, which may not be surprising given that there have been 20,000+(?) harlequin titles published, as for needing a redirect/disamb for wikireaders, once this is deleted and Clare Richmond is entered wikireaders can "search for pages containing Clare Richmond" and hey presto! the two authors that use this pseudonym will be at the top of the list, ps. i note that both author wikiarticles presently have all the books listed, possibly just need to add mention of the other author ie. "As Clare Richmond with ...." and the titles' isbn but that is all. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple Works for me. I'll strike my !vote. -- asilvering (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with "delete redirect and rely on search" is that it stops working once we have a new article on another Clare Richmond, a singer or astronomer or politician. I'm beginning to think that a List of shared pseudonyms would be useful, to which to redirect this and similar cases. Maybe something like that already exists: will check further when not on phone. PamD 14:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of pen names, to which I have now added her. PamD 16:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Bungle: Alyssa Howard is similar to this article; Clare Richards is a dab page, which complicates things slightly: have added both those names to List of pen names. PamD 16:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect wouldn't be a bad outcome I guess, though I won't advocate it. There are many pen names on that article without articles or redirects, although I can't argue against redirects being relatively harmless. I'd suggest whatever the outcome of this AfD should apply to Alyssa Howard et al where independent notability cannot be ascertained and demonstrated. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect would be an ideal outcome, tagged with {{R to list entry}} and categorised as Category:Collective pseudonyms. Whyever not? It helps the reader. We could add a source to the list entry to verify, but the convention there seems to be not to add sources. PamD 16:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tess Marlowe, another of this gang's pseudonyms, was deleted at AfD in 2015 with rationale "One of these articles that is basically one line saying that it was a name used by 2 writers but nothing to back it up" but I've now added her to List of pen names and created a redirect. PamD 17:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I have created list entries at List of pen names and redirects or dab page entries, for all the other pseudonyms used by these women and their coauthors (well, all those I could find). Seem the ideal solution: not a standalone article, but a redirect to an informative entry in a list that includes links to the real authors involved. The reader gets their information. The perfect WP:ATD for a case like this - will try and remember it for any future instance. PamD 18:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD Hard to believe it took three AfD relists for anyone to realize this solution exists. This redirect sounds fine, unless there's some mechanical reason that makes this unhelpful for mobile users? A List of shared pen names might be an interesting list to make, too, if you've a mind to do it. Given that List of pen names exists I'm actually a bit surprised that it doesn't. I suppose it could present an annoying problem where someone adds something to List of pen names but not the other one? -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have struck out my "delete" as this has moved on, and a big thankyou to PamD who has found this sensible solution. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of pen names#Clare Richmond (with the history preserved under the redirect), where I've added an anchor, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Thank you, PamD (talk · contribs), for this excellent solution. Cunard (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliprasadh

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

Not notable and sources are not reliable ~AntanO4task (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~AntanO4task (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in support of Notability:

Kaliprasadh is a published Tamil author, his books are published by Yaavarum Publishers and Natrinai who have hundreds of titles. Prior to that, his work has been published in leading online Journals (Vallinam, Solvanam). The publisher held critical review discussions in Chennai in December 2021, where notable authors like Akaramuthalvan attended and presented on Kaliprasadh's works. Kaliprasadh is one of the invitee guests of honor at Vishnupuram Vizha 2021 which is being attended by former Indian Union minister Jairam Ramesh

Evidence in support of Sources: The sources provided in the Wikipedia article include Ananda Vikatan.com (which is a well-known magazine in Tamil with 100-year history), Dinamani (Tamil's leading newspaper). Other sources include websites of authors Jeyamohan and S Ramakrishnan who are themselves highly notable as leading authors in Tamil literary sphere.

One of the Wikipedia admins has deleted external link YouTube videos which are direct evidences of a critical review about literary work. They have done so without even considering if the link was Relevant, Unique resource as per Wikipedia guidelines. This is a highly suspect circular logic in applying Wikipedia rules and guidelines

It is obvious that the AfD has been placed without even a basic awareness of what is notable or not in Tamil literary sphere. I submit that the AfD be removed

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhusam (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

___________

Wikipedia's policies.. under WP:CREATIVE

1) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors:
a) Sahitya Akademi Award winner S Ramakrishnan on Kaliprasad
b) Sahitya Akademi award winner Nanjil Nadan has written introduction to Kaliprasad's collection of stories.
more link
c) interviews in media covering tamil literature - here and here
d) he was one of the guest speakers in the Kumaraguruparan Award 2018

While this alone is enough to establish notability, lets look at one more policy requirement under WP:CREATIVE
2) The person's work (or works) has: won significant critical attention
a) [Sahitya Academy Winner S Ramakrishnan selected Kali Prasad's work among the best works of 2019.
b) Review in Vikatan, leading tamil weekly
c) Reiew in The Hindu (Tamil)
d) Review in Dinamani]
e) Review in Kalaignar News
f) Review in Solvanam
g) Review in Vallinam, Malaysia based tamil magazine

Given that the author has well met two of the criterias and not just one for notability, I submit the page may be restored.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshsum1spcl (talk • contribs)

Comment - Simply the article is failed to cover WP:BIO, specially WP:BLP, WP:ANYBIO --~AntanO4task (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I have submitted specific clauses in policy you can’t respond with blanket link to a policy… specify which aspects of those are not covered by the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santhoshsum1spcl (talk • contribs) 02:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply read WP:ANYBIO which is just 3 lines.--~AntanO4task (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This appears a trial to promote an author who doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR yet. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 17:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbly Keep. I don't like to vote when I can't read the sources, but I feel the need to write this as a keep to counterbalance the Delete arguments, which I find insufficient, since they are just stating a guideline without explaining how this article doesn't meet it. My understanding of WP:NAUTHOR is as follows: despite the fact that this is not explicitly stated at WP:NAUTHOR, articles on authors routinely survive AfD when they have multiple (that is, two) published books with multiple (that is, two or more) reliable-source reviews. This person has two books, both with three published reviews. As I see it there are therefore only two possible deletion arguments here: 1) that three or more of these are not reputable reviews; 2) that a literary translation with solid reviews does not count for notability, and that the additional evidence here, such as being a special guest at an awards ceremony at which your work is a topic of discussion, does not bump a borderline case over the notability line. Neither of those arguments have yet been made. If someone can make them compellingly, I'll change my vote. -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per asilvering. oncamera _{(talk page)} 16:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Intro para says R. Kaliprasadh (born 1979) is a Tamil writer. He has written short stories, translations, and literary reviews and criticism. This is not notable. "Literary Work" says he contributed to magazine, etc. Most people do such contribution. He or his work not won considerable awards. He is just an author and not per WP:AUTHOR. If the aricle is written as per [[WP:AUTHOR]], let me know which part and does it fit with reliable source? --~AntanO4task (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have already answered this question, and (clearly, I believe) explained the two possible deletion arguments. The lead sentence is not obligated to explain why the subject of an article passes notability guidelines. (For comparison, take this unquestionably notable author: "AUTHOR was a British writer and lay theologian. He held academic positions in English literature at both Oxford University (Magdalen College, 1925–1954) and Cambridge University (Magdalene College, 1954–1963)." None of those things are inherently notable either.) -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm reluctant to delete an article about an author in a major literary tradition, when that author has apparently published many books, just because I am totally unfamilar with the tradition. It's possible that the references are good, and we accept references in any language. There is no rule that the article must say X is notable because ____ . Such an argument was occasionally used in my first days here, but that was when we were still floundering around with the meaning of notability and the criteria for deletion; I haven't seen it since 2006 or 2007. I and many others thought it absurd then, and very soon so did everyone. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox (brand)

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

The fact that a bunch of stations go by this brand and play similar music doesn't make the brand notable. Quite a number of the stations are of no relation to each other at all. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to IHeartMedia#Programming. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Brew (brand)

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

Non-notable radio brand that now is only used on two stations. Fails WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to iHeartMedia#Programming. Fails WP:NMEDIA per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Isabel Football Club

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

Cannot find any english language coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG nor any sources to indicate the team played in a WP:FPL nor sources showing team played in a national cup competition that would satisfy WP:FOOTYN. dashiellx (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. dashiellx (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FOOTYN. According to the (most unsourced) article in the pt.WP this club only played in state leagues in a time when pro soccer didn't exist in Brazil. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 05:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Associação Atlética Vila Isabel

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

Cannot find any english language coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG nor any sources to indicate the team played in a WP:FPL nor sources showing team played in a national cup competition that would satisfy WP:FOOTYN. dashiellx (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. dashiellx (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of significance. Could even be a possible A7. I don't see significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One line, no source article. Fails WP:GNG, WP:FOOTYN and WP:MINIMUM. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 05:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevan Marg Sophia Secondary

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

Unreferenced article stub. Does not pass WP:NORG as there are no WP:RS to support. fails WP:NSCHOOL. DMySon (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Deoria, Uttar Pradesh. Which ever, but this school clearly isn't notable. I couldn't even find the usual trivial mentions in articles about other things that usually exist for schools of this type and the references we have aren't usable for notability either. So I'm not seeing a valid reason to keep this. I'm fine with a redirect though. Articles about cities can really use more information on local schools. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Associação Atlética Vila Isabel

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

Cannot find any english language coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG nor any sources to indicate the team played in a WP:FPL nor sources showing team played in a national cup competition that would satisfy WP:FOOTYN. dashiellx (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. dashiellx (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of significance. Could even be a possible A7. I don't see significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One line, no source article. Fails WP:GNG, WP:FOOTYN and WP:MINIMUM. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 05:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Nagar Public School Moradabad

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

Un-referenced article. No indication of notability. Fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:NORG / WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is un-referenced and all I could find is a trivial name drop in an article about migrants who started a yoga class there. So it clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I'm not sure it's worth a redirect either. Since there's nothing to create a section of an article about it from. Let alone a passable sentence. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AllatRa

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

Poor sourcing that does not establish notability for a new religious movement, or voluntary association or whatever they actually are. I was unable to find more significant sourcing during a WP:BEFORE search. Mostly it's self published, fringe or primary sourcing. I had Ymblanter, who is familiar with the language used in sources I could not read, check sources for me. They responded Concerning the reliability of the references: 1 - an academic article in a conference proceedings book, the book was reviewed, but no indication separate contributions were peer-reviewed; 2 - a student presentation at a conference, not peer-reviewed, I would say not a RS; 3 - similar to 1; 4 - low-impact journal published in Ukraine, presumably peer-reviewed, an academic work (the journal is published by a university); 5 - a deadlink, and is supposed to reference the fact that the organization is legally registered, would not establish notability in any case, a primary source; 6 - typical for Ukrainian media, looks like a media publication, but in fact is just a report of a blog of a non-notable person, definitely not a RS; 7 - slightly better than 5, looks like kind of RS, Daily Mail level; 8 - a web portal controlled by the Orthodox church, I would say hardly a RS; 9 - slightly better than 7; 10 - would never pass RSN, not a RS; 11 - see 6, cites a primary source. I have never heard of the movement (which by itself does not say anything, I do not live in Eastern Europe), but for me the notability is on the edge. AfD could go either way.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC) I have pinged Ymblanter, as I have quoted them in this AfD nomination. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah very little coverage and no indication of notability. Volunteer Marek 18:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mujinga (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Country (brand)

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

There is no connecting thread among these stations; it just so happens that they have the same name. This is like a list of people named Jane. The brand itself isn't notable, nor is there a strong affinity that binds these stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to M-Girls. Can be restored if better sources are found. Sandstein 12:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four Golden Princess

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

I cannot find evidence of notability for this musical group. News results are limited to tabloid type coverage for their marriages/child births, but nothing clear that they meet MUSIC or the GNG. The Chinese language article does not have anything present reliable soure wise to back up the sales figures, which might help. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Very notable band throughout China. Article is not as well written as others and not much reliable sources are present. This article has a lot of potential and it should be kept. HelpingWorld (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but recreate as draft. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- CuteDolphin712, Draftifying a 15 year old article that is not likely to receive much new coverage is not a good idea. Curbon7 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sales numbers alleged in the article are impressive. If true, then this group would have multiple albums certified platinum in both Malaysia and China, and one album certified diamond in China (assuming that the page List of music recording certifications is correct). This would be more than enough to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. However, the numbers are not sourced. This probably needs some attention by users who can actually read Chinese or Malay. Mlb96 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M-Girls where some information about the group is mentioned, including collaboration albums. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Róbert Wessman

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Of the 13 references, are either profiles, interviews or company details, i.e. Alvotech, not specific to a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 18:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to clearly pass GNG, with many articles significantly covering Wessman over many years. The current article has 20 references (not 13), and the majority of them are about Wessman, including [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. There are also many more sources available through a quick Google search, including [12] titled "Viking boss, Viking strategy" from The Economist in 2007, as well as many sources from just the past few weeks where he has been quoted or mentioned. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD that was closed just two weeks ago. He is one of Iceland's best known and most successful businessmen and easily passes WP:GNG. Here is a four page coverage from 2004 in Iceland's largest newspaper, Morgunblaðið. Here is is a 13-page coverage on him in the Icelandic business magazine Frjáls Verslun after he was named Iceland's business man of the year in 2006. [13] Here is a two page coverage on him in Dagblaðið Vísir. Here is yet another full page coverage on him, this time in Fréttablaðið. Should I go on? Alvaldi (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They all look like interview's so far. I will go through the references, all of them. scope_creep^Talk 21:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first nomination for deletion was made by someone who was working on behalf of Róbert Wessman. I suspect it was due to the coverage of some unflattering allegations made against him by a former colleague and they didn't like it. They wanted to TNT it so that it might not even be in the edit history if and when the article was recreated. Those allegations were properly sourced and over time, due weight seems to have been achieved. As for this nomination and notability, I think Róbert Wessman is highly notable. He is an extremely well known public figure in Iceland to the point where one could call him a celebrity. For instance, just look at the coverage his wedding got: here and here as examples (of notability, not great sources). Jökull Júlíusson performed. Wally and Alvaldi have already given examples establishing notability from a business perspective. He is not a "flash in the pan" as significant coverage goes back to at least 2007. Also, I am not sure why "interview" is being used like it is a bad word. AFAICT, interviews help establish notability. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right. They look like royalty in those two articles. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 22:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes WP:GNG, by sources that Wallyfromdilbert mentioned. Ginbopewz (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ginbopewz: You don't usually vore keep when the nomination is withdraw. The work has been done. scope_creep^Talk 02:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 02:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Harmon (executive)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. WP:BEFORE didn't locate anything that shows notability. External link to website looks more like a spam link. CNMall41 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real indication of notability. A search finds material on other Frank Harmons, but not this one. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is not a notable businessman, doesn't satisfy WP:ANYBIO.Ginbopewz (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything supporting a claim to notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient secondary sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Augoustides

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

South African Olympic beach volleyballer who competed at the 2008 Summer Olympics. That, aside from an infobox and a birthdate, is all we have on her in this article. I've checked Google, which brings up many other wiki and user-generated articles, and some databases that confirm that she did not win a medal in a later Olympics either. My newspapers search just brought up single-sentence mentions, all related to the 2008 Olympics. I suspect that South African newspapers are under-indexed in my database, but I don't know that finding more of them would make a difference here or if it would just be more single sentences.

I assume this article was added because all Olympians were once considered notable, but the guidelines at WP:NOLYMPICS now hold that only medallists are notable. asilvering (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only held due to the previous WP:NOLYMPICS standard. While I disagreed with changing that criteria, consensus is consensus, and it has deemed these such articles to be non-notable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the first, or at least one of the first, Olympian AfDs since that change. Curbon7 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the editor who deprodded the article, I was unaware of this really incredibly major change to the notability guidelines in August and I suspect many other editors will be too. My, this really does open the floodgates for the deletionists, doesn't it. They'll be in paroxysms of joy. Yet another disservice to the encyclopaedia that they've managed to get through. Where will it all end, I wonder? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It will end with a lovely, tidy, encyclopedia with no articles and no readers, where people will be able to argue endlessly without being distracted by such unimportant things. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Cynical, but sadly probably all too true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure -- I've come across a lot of athlete stubs recently, and this is the first one (iirc) that I've felt was PROD/AfD-worthy. The rest had an Olympic medal or were on a major pro team. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, de.wikipedia.org has some more information on her. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11 Nothing that gets her into en-wp notability standards as far as I can tell, though I might be wrong or might have missed something? If it turns out she's within notability guidelines I can port some of that over (it's fun that she retired and started a bakery, but I don't think that helps the notability case, unless this is an extremely well-reviewed bakery...) -- asilvering (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim that merely showing up for the olympics, especially in the pre-World War I phase, or in sports where you are playing on a team as opposed to getting judged individually, makes one default notable was never supported by the facts. It has lead to huge numbers of "biographies" with one low quality source, that only tell us the person competed in a certain year in the olympics, and maybe the year they were born, and nothing else. This new rule is going to cause people to spend the energy to better review these articles. It will lead to us having much higher quality articles on the olympic competitors whose articles we keep, and it will lead to removal of articles that can not be supported through GNG. This article clearly lacks the sourcing that would be needed to pass GNG, and significant searching has not produced the needed significant coverage in independent, reliable, 3rd-party secondary sources, so we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already Speedy Deleted WP:G3 by uninvolved admin. (non-admin closure) Singularity42 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacOS 13 (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation is not needed. Youssef Land Metro 1.0 is not notable, MacOS 13 redirects to macOS High Sierra. Mvqr (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, otherwise delete. Based on the author's recent edits, including their creation of Draft:Youssef Land Metro 1.0, the other article is probably for something that doesn't exist. While I appreciate this was done up as a (unneeded) disambiguation page, it was really done as a workaround to create a reference to a non-existent product. I'm wondering if WP:A11 applies? Singularity42 (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Agreed that this should be speedy-able, it's pretty obvious misinformation. I'm not sure what the creator is going for, but ~~A11 should apply~~. Scratch that, I think WP:G14 is easier to apply to this. ASUKITE 17:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. Yeah, G14 seems to the obvious route here! Singularity42 (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I can see A11 and A7 as below applying too, it's all the same in the end haha. ASUKITE 17:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was deleted as WP:G3 by an admin not in this AfD. Also, should this AfD now be closed because the page is deleted? Courtesy pings: (Mvqr—Singularity42—Asukite). snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it will have to be somebody else I believe. I'm sure somebody will get around to it. ASUKITE 18:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per at the least WP:A7 (and seemingly also WP:A11) snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 17:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Parrish

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

No evidence is shown to indicate this player meets GNG. He was briefly on the books at Atlanta Silverbacks and some sources indicate he made a single appearance for them, though this isn't indicated in the article and it's hard to find a report for any match he participated in (so there's no way of knowing if it was even a competitive fixture). Whether he played or not, he never received significant coverage and his career is clearly over. JonnyDKeen (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As pointed out below, Parrish did in fact play a single minute of pro football in 2008. I still don't think he meets GNG and struggle to see what possible benefit there is to maintaining his article, though I do appreciate Keskkonnakaitse providing sources to help this AfD be better assessed. --JonnyDKeen (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG and probably also NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Parrish does meet WP:NFOOTY, as backed up by FBRef and Stats Crew. This thread at BigSoccer has details on the appearance, he came on as a substitute in the 2008 season opener. Now, with that said, I'm aware that current consensus would still have this article deleted for failing GNG, and I just don't have the time during the holiday season to do the necessary deep dive to find sources. Therefore, I'm going to make what might be a strange request: if and when this article is deleted, I would like to request the closer to preserve it in my userspace, if possible. I'd like to try to rescue this article, but definitely won't have the time until after the new year. Courtesy ping to @GiantSnowman: and @Mvqr: on the off chance that this new information has any bearing on their !votes. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still at delete. A single minute's playing time when he came in on the 90th minute back in 2008 does not alleviate the GNG issue here.--Mvqr (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. There is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Mujinga (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Arnzen

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

Fairly borderline n notability; largely self-sourced by obvious SPAs. Qwirkle (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an expert on horror fiction but I figure winning the Bram Stoker Award would pass notability guidelines. I was able to dig up some sources [14] [15] [16] [17]. So I feel he meets GNG as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oh my how embarrassing, an afd of someone who clearly meets WP:ANYBIO as having won four Bram Stoker Awards plus nominated for another three (see here), and WP:NAUTHOR with multiple reviews of his works (some have multiple reviews meeting WP:NBOOK and could have their own wikiarticle) in Locus, Fangoria, CyberPsychos AOD, Science Fiction Chronicle, Realms of Fantasy, Star*Line, Strange Horizons, Cemetery Dance, Dead Reckonings, Bifrost, Xenophilia, 2 AM Magazine, Horror: The News Magazine of the Horror & Dark Fantasy Field, see listings by ISFDB (a first port of call for any editor looking at any scifi/horror/fantasy author) here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator, no !deletes. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Richter

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

This biography is largely unsupported by sourcing. I previously prodded it, when it only had the passing mention in the New York Times. Now a book reference has been added, but I'm still not convinced if this alone is sufficient for WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Gustav Richter was clearly an SS officer in Romania at some point. Is that alone notable? The SS was a large organisation. There are many more, bold claims in the article that remain unsubstantiated. If even half of these were true, it is surprising that this 14-year-old article has not garnered a few more reliable sources demonstrating substantial coverage of these events by now. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator The DE Wiki coverage does indeed appear compelling. I should have checked. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources that say that he was the advisor on Jewish affairs in Romania, i.e. the officer in charge of implementing the final solution in a country that was firmly in the Nazi camp but still retained some autonomy. This is much more than just being a "normal" SS officer. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A couple of points on this one. Richter seems to have played a somewhat significant role during the Holocaust in Romania, in addition to being the last person known to have seen Wallenberg alive. The corresponding German Wikipedia article lists some offline sources that would likely provide WP:SIGCOV, in particular Romania, the Holocaust and the Logic of Violence by Heinen. Curbon7 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the de.wiki article is well-sourced, indicating notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as DE wiki has sufficient sources and content to establish WP:NPOSSIBLE even if the EN wiki page is presently poorly sourced. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. May I point out that this is an excellent illustration of why articles should not be prodded (as this was) unless they are blatant non-notable rubbish. Anything else should be taken to AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 14:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alia Martin

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG mentions seem all trivial/routine so far. I had draftify-ed based on WP:TOOSOON but the page creator reverted it and also de-PROD'ed. I'd suggest draftify again until she makes her NWSL debut. Seany91 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Seany91 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Next NWLS season doesn't start until March. There's common practice of keeping via WP:NFOOTY if the season start is within a month or so, but this is a bit out of that timeframe; however, this may very narrowly meet WP:GNG. Not !voting for now. Curbon7 (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Can be re-created if/when she makes her pro debut in a few months. Giant Snowman 08:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until debut - I agree with the nominator. Footballers can be notable prior to their debut but it would need to be a special case where the coverage is so substantial that we shouldn't wait. This isn't one of those rare cases. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – this article would be in good shape for a player who has just met WP:NFOOTY, but she hasn't yet. As mentioned by GS, can (and should) be re-created *if and when* she makes her debut, but as of right now this is TOOSOON. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until her debut. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Archdeacon of Horsham#List of archdeacons. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Martin (priest)

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

No evidence of notability found. Despite the recentness and this happening in England, this got no coverage in independent sources[18][19]. Fram (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite my best efforts, the subject fails WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that she is an archdeacon, albeit very recently appointed, and we have usually kept articles on archdeacons. I'm undecided as to whether we should, but it's still the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD outcomes for archdeacons have been very mixed, not "usually kept". The ones that are notable get kept, the other ones don't. Fram (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, a number have been kept purely because of their post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then these were outliers and not supported by policy. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Lacey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Fitsrogo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael. Others have been kept because enough coverage was found. Fram (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Archdeacon of Horsham#List of archdeacons as an ATD and tag with {{R with possibilities}}. TartarTorte 20:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. It fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must have looked at this article 24 or 34 times when I reviewing them. There seems to be an attempt to add folk. There seemed to be several of these religuous folk and couldn't make head nor tail of it. I see several have been through Afd already. scope_creep^Talk 09:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archdeacon of Horsham#List of archdeacons per TartarTorte. I don't see a delete outcome as consistent with our ATD policy if there are not exceptional content issues. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Uppsala suicide incident

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. A tragic event, but no lasting coverage or enduring notability for this unusual but minor incident ("minor" for everyone but the directly involved, just like e.g. thousands of car crashes every day). Got some international attention when it happened due to the combination of "unusual" and "Abba", but such human interest articles come and go swiftly. Fram (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; there isn't even any lasting local coverage. I think the article creator is a sockpuppet (am creating an SPI report) so it may even be speediable. --bonadea contributions talk 14:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sad incident since the guy at the bottom died as well, but it is not even close to meeting WP:GNG. It's difficult even finding Swedish language coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Tragic incident, but a tragic incident among a daily sea of similar tragic accidents. /Julle (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage around the world.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of it WP:SUSTAINED though, which is the reason for the deletion nomination. That it was reported on internationally was already in the deletion statement... Fram (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comments like It's difficult even finding Swedish language coverage would suggest editors believe otherwise, hence my clarification. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

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

- Please tell me, what crime would that be? Show some decency please. Fram (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - He killed somebody else by his selfishness. Had he survived he may well have been charged with a crime. And deletion sorting is purely intended to make those who may be interested in a particular subject area aware of relevant AfDs. So your comment is frankly bizarre. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I get it, no decency at all then. Fram (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is an encyclopaedia. If you want to emote I suggest you move to social media instead, which would be a better fit. What possible problem is there with putting an AfD in a location where it is likely to be spotted by possible contributors to the discussion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, "crime" people will be so much better at establishing notability for this non-crime recent events story than anyone else. But I'll try to remember that your definition of an encyclopedia is "a place to call some old man who may have committed suicide "selfish" for no good reason, without consideration for who might read this, just because". I hope you feel good about yourself after these priceless contributions which have made this AfD and enwiki so much better, good job. Fram (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure the family of the person he killed and the person he injured don't feel he was selfish in the slightest... If you want to kill yourself then jumping onto a crowd of people is hardly the best way to do it. Presumably you also believe that someone who drinks because they're depressed, gets in their car and kills somebody or who stabs somebody to death while undergoing a psychotic episode is not a criminal either; I think you'll find the courts would disagree! Being suicidal, depressed, mentally ill or whatever does not abrogate you of all responsibility for the effects of your actions on other people. But we digress. Never before have I seen an editor attacked for adding an AfD to a deletion sorting page thus facilitating its wider exposure. Utterly ludicrous overreaction. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, in civilized countries, being mentally ill, psychotic, ... often does mean that you are not a criminal according to law, courts, and people with some empathy. But you don't seem to understand that believing that this is not the place nor the time to discuss the guilt, selfishness, ... of the person who fell or jumped, and that doing so is very insensitive, is not the same as saying that the family of the victims may not feel that way or that we mean the opposite. Sometimes, you just need to know when to shut up and show compassion. Fram (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Oh well, I see that you are not really the go-to administrator when one wants to have reasoned, adult conversations instead of divisiveness[28], so I shouldn't be too surprised about your behaviour in this AfD (see also your extreme helpfullness in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makhtumkala). Fram (talk) 17:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on the moral discussion or how this conversation should be sorted but if anyone's interested the crime would, according to the police investigation, be "grovt vållande av annans död", which roughly translates to "first-degree involuntary manslaughter". Source: Sverige Radio P4 Uppland. /Julle (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Delete NOT NEWS. But the situation calls for neither joking nor irony. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject meets the criteria for being in an encyclopedia. There is plenty of coverage so I think it should be kept. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that include more or less celebrity gossip and other things that are not suitable for an encyclopedia.Tanumena (talk) 12:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)— Tanumena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Tanumena (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Linde Place (talk · contribs). [reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a news outlet. Sure this has gotten some coverage in the moment, but suicides like this one often do, and I doubt it will get any kind of long-term sustained coverage once it dies down as a topic. Everything about it is literally from this month and the end of November. It's not like the article can't be recreated if there continues to be coverage of it in a few months or whatever. In the meantime, I think this also goes against Wikipedia not being a repository of basic facts. A single sentence about the "Incident" is extremely WP:MILL. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy; also, has failed to gather sufficient, lasting, third-party independent WP:SIGCOV to warrant an article. ——Serial 13:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is very obvious that this is WP:NOTNEWS and there is no more media coverage about it. All sources are from the days after it happened. Also, the author is banned since they have disrupted Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linde Place. Drierlodge (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Russof

AfDs for this article:

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

Total absence of suitable sourcing and pornbio is no longer an argument & this BLPfils GNG and ENT. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All coverage is either non-notable porn stuff or junky gossip rags. Nothing that I can see to qualify the subject for WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Missvain. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. No independent RS coverage in the article. An independent search for RS coverage gets interviews and incidental mentions in relation to Pierre Woodman. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martins I. Imudia

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or otherwise demonstrate notability. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist - sourcing appears to be directory entries, books self-published via CreateSpace by the subject, and run-of-the-mill business rankings. firefly ( t · c ) 10:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 10:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 10:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. firefly ( t · c ) 10:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After my own investigation, the subject fails WP:GNG. Hopefully others can prove me wrong. Missvain (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet Wing Director of Operations (AFCW/DO)

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

Does not appear to be notable by wikipedia standards. . All sources are the USAF Academy Slywriter (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slywriter (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Copied from my (slywriter) Talk page)Hey!

Not too sure why this article is up for deletion... not every source is from the Air Force Academy, and the content is relevant for all cadets at USAFA, grads, prospective cadets, and their families.Airportexpress (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airportexpress, the dissertation, published by RAND, is the only non Air Force reference and looking at the sections where the position is mentioned does not show me that the subject is all that notable outside the halls of the Air Force Academy. Also, The AfD itself is a better place for this discussion. Slywriter (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DO is a standard position in most Air Force organizations, and not unique to the USAFA. Not especially notable in my view. Intothat darkness 15:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 14:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing. A single PhD thesis from Rand is hardly WP:SIGCOV, so a standalone article seems a bit much. The content could easily be folded into the main article, resulting in one stronger article rather than multiple weaker ones. The same applies to Cadet Wing Commander (AFCW/CC) as well. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a merge in both cases. Cadet Wing Commander isn't a unique position, either. Intothat darkness 22:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to United States Air Force Academy Cadet Wing No evidence of significant coverage as an entity independent of the parent organization. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus and no indication one will emerge after a month. Star Mississippi 20:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baye McNeil

AfDs for this article:

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

I came across this article and found it contained a lot of problems (Too one-sided, rely on self-published sources and notability issues). I actually took a couple days trying to improve it but the problem still exist after I edited it couple times.

There are several problems with the subject Baye McNeil.

(1) The subject have problems with notability. He basically is a blogger, self-published book author and part time columnist (Mainly The Japan Times). Although he wrote several pieces to more well-known news media like The Washington Post, I dont think it's notable enough to have it own page. The only thing he did that could be considered somehow notable is his involvement in the 2018 Fuji TV "Blackface" incident. But his involvement was mainly just wrote some op-ed to protest and some of his remarks was picked up by some US news media. Although the subject name pops up here and there in some big media coverages, almost all of them are just asking his thoughts about Fuji TV "Blackface" incident. Most of the other news pieces that include him were just like that. Other than that, he is, to put it mildly, a nobody (Except his remarks last year cause some backlash in Japan).So I think he fails WP:GNG

(2)This entry seems relies heavily on self-published sources or interviews about himself, which is not reliable sources.The whole "Early life" basically came from his self-published books, his blog or interviews with the subject. Almost all of them were subjective. I already cut out quite a few paragraphs that were poorly sourced. Like the previous edits claimed he is a lecturer in couple Japanese Universities but all I found is the subject posted some pictures with seemingly students in it. I couldnt found any official records from those universities. So it's almost impossible to tell if he is a lecturer or just some guy who happened gave out a speech in those places. The editor Ray Jameson, who created this page, also included a section name called "Ariana Miyamoto and Naomi Osaka" but the whole section just talked about McNeil had wrote some columns about them and gave out his personal opinions, which is hardly worth metioning in a wiki page. The whole previous page seems more like a self-promotion page as most of the things there were overwhelmingly positive and the used of words were quite subjective. I already tried to clear out this problem and balance both opinions but I think it's worth mentioning here.

Someone97816 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Someone97816 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep But very weakly. I agree with the issues of most of the refs being WP:INTERVIEWs and self-published sources, but a GNEWS search, along with results of his work for The Japan Times, brings up non-interview articles where comments from him are cited for topics besides the Fuji TV incident, especially on Naomi Osaka. That would not be a strong enough case, however, and he needs a lot more nontrivial coverage about himself for my !vote to be stronger. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 03:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment@HumanxAnthro: I checked those articles where his comments were cited but every pieces are the same quotes(Chinese and English alike) How about we put his opinions on the Naomi Osaka page instead of having its own page? Seem more fitting that way.Someone97816 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I for this article being merged into that section as well, or maybe an article about the Fuji TV blackface incident where his involvement can be discussed there? 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 16:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @HumanxAnthro: Agreed. I think a section named "Controversy" in the Fuji TV page explaining this incident would be just fine. This incident did not last long nor really that "noticeable". I doubt that it would have much contents and sources for its separate standalone article.Someone97816 (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep For western ex-pats (and possibly also non-western Black ex-pats) in Japan, at least those of my "generation", McNeil is something of a household name, and while I don't think being relatively famous within a certain small community merits a standalone Wikipedia, nor do I find the fact that he is frequently cited in articles running in The Japan Times (his "employer" in a manner of speaking) compelling, but excluding those results still leaves a number of articles on Naomi Osaka, etc. in various international papers. However, I do think that we should be more vigilant about this article's content and cut anything that can't be attributed to a reliable secondary source, as was done some years ago with Debito Arudou; if, once this is done, the article turns into a permastub, then we can probably come back here, or perhaps someone could boldly redirect it to Japan Times (since, unless I'm mistaken, most of the time someone cites him they are citing something he wrote for that paper). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Hijiri88: I see. How about create a section on the Naomi Osaka page, explaining the incident and include his opinions in it instead? Seem more fitting.Someone97816 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Fails notablilty and full of unreliable sources. As user HumanxAnthro above point out, the Fuji TV incident should be merged into that section of the Fuji TV page instead. The subject need a lot more nontrivial coverage about himself to have a standalone Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone97816 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like three of us agreed that the subject is not specially notable and most sources about him are unreliable. The subject's commentary about the Fuji TV "Blackface" incident and Naomi Osaka were sought out by some media outlets but that's about it. User HumanxAnthro and I both agreed merging his remarks into the sections of repectively articles insteads would be a better ideas.Someone97816 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this a promotional page or an attack page? It seems both at once. I invoke WP:TNT without comment on his notability. Ifnord (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIf u look back those early version, it's definitely feel like a promotional pageSomeone97816 (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 13:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article needs cleaning up to tone down the possible self-promotion, but it already includes sourced information critical of him (thanks in part to Someone97816). It also includes citations of articles in major media that introduce him such as the NYT. Further searches see him on the BBC [29], Reuters [30] [31], Christian Science Monitor [32], etc. He's also appeared on news shows in Japan (as noted here: [33]). For reasons beyond just the 2018 incident he has become for major international media a go-to person for commentary on the place of Black people in Japan. You also see him giving invited talks at universities and academic conferences on the subject: [34] [35] [36] etc. He has, in a sense, become an authority on the subject. Given that his commentary has gone beyond any one incident, it makes no sense to merge this with any one incident. Michitaro (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like it contains some weasel terms, like "early interest." Also, looks like an advertisement. --I.hate.spam.mail.here (This is YOUR page) (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Joseph

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol Zero real sources amongst the zillion links listed. Was converted from a redirect. Some concern that the editor is obviously experienced, but has only 19 edits under that user name, all on promotional-appearing work on two artists. North8000 (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Many of the "zillion links" to sales pages have been removed. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and all the significant coverage in reliable sources is about projects this person has participated in and not about the person. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Eggishorn - there are a bunch of references here, however none of them are specifically about the Felix Joseph, and there is not other information here that established his notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against restoring redirects to the main article if/once it leaves draftspace (which it hasn't, at present). czar 21:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 MotoGP eSports Championship

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

This individual season of the MotoGP eSport Championship is not notable. Normally I would redirect to the main article, but it has been (understandably) draftified. I can't find any independent sources that cover the individual seasons of this video game competition; all references are from the MotoGP website or its YouTube channel. I am also nominating the article on the previous season:

Same story for the 2020 season: all sources are to the MotoGP website, no independent coverage. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I promise I am trying to improve the article, so just wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyD's234 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify As the parent page is of dubious notability (see Draft:MotoGP eSport Championship), there's little reason for a single season of that event to remain in mainspace. It might just merit a WP:REDIRECT to the parent page in due course. My advice would be to focus on the parent article, remembering that this is not a real world race, just a load of people playing computer games, as far as I can tell. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MotoGP eSports Championship IF parent article passes draft, otherwise delete. Non-notable video game competition. Extremely low WP:POTENTIAL for passing GNG in the future. I would argue that eNASCAR Coca-Cola iRacing Series and Formula One Esports Series are both far more notable "video-game-competitions-sanctioned-by-motorsport-league" and between them, only two season articles exist. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Disability Awareness

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

The subject does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. My WP:BEFORE search delivered no substantive coverage in reliable independent sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 08:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, my research showed no significant coverage.
Delete as it fails WP:NORG, the proper notability criterion for this subject. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article. SN54129 — Review here please :) 20:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Karikku. Daniel (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Prasad

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

Fails WP:GNG nothing more then outside his company. Behind the moors (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Behind the moors (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karikku. No reason for separate bio from company. Pikavoom (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the author of the article, Nikhil Prasad is the first ever person who founded a digital platform in Kerala and established it as the top digital company. He is the only one who written, directed, produced, edited the videos for Karikku. The page Karikku and even their web series Thera Para as notable as here on Wikipedia. Nikhil Prasad is the only man behind these, He is not only the founder, but also the creative head of it. In my personal opinion he falls under WP:CREATIVE. Can we keep it? Thank you, happy editing Onmyway22 talk 07:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us exactly which point of WP:CREATIVE is matched and how? Behind the moors (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eevee01^(talk) 11:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photograph of Nikhil Prasad seems to have been made with the man's cooperation. I see that it was uploaded by Onmyway22, creator of the article. This makes me wonder if Onmyway22 might know Nikhil Prasad. -- Hoary (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It took days to contact him via LinkedIn. To get permission to use his image in Wikipedia to avoid copyright. I got an image and permission to use it as a free file. That's all. I believe that an article without an image is incomplete. You can check my previous image uploads I contribute images (by taking them directly that I can access) for articles that don't have an image. As I got a copyright message earlier, In his case, I tried to avoid copyright by not using his image from public sources. To conclude, this is not about a conflict of interest, It is all about my effort and time to create this. That is why I asked for help in TH. Please do not misunderstand. I am just waiting for other's votes to conclude. Onmyway22 talk 13:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His only claim to fame is Karikku. Thera Para is a subset of Karikku and I can assure you it will not result in a keep if somebody nominates it for a deletion. He is not the first person to start a digital platform in Kerala, though he indeed is the founder of one of the more popular platforms. Probably a deletion or at best a redirect is in order. Jupitus Smart 18:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karikku. Karikku is, at best, marginally notable, but as long as that article exists, it makes sense to redirect this title there. Prasad does not meet WP:CREATIVE nor WP:BASIC. --bonadea contributions talk 14:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Burj Khalifa. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emaar New Year's Eve

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

A new year's party on top of a building is not a notable event. Fails GNG Whiteguru (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Delete Could be an interesting section in the Burj Khalifa article, nothing on its own. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Whiteguru but the event has significant coverage. Could be renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviksaman (talk • contribs) 06:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This article should merge into Burj Khalifa because the article is not notable enough but it would be cool for this event to be merged as a section in the Burj Khalifa article. HelpingWorld (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as is the case with many NYE ceremonies, they almost never warrant their own page. Just as an example, earlier this week I tagged Pelican Drop for merger into Pensacola, Florida. In a case like this celebration, even with the articles covering it, it seems like it's largely WP:INHERIT as the notability of the event derives from it being on the Burj Khalifa. Having said that, there is more coverage than your average NYE celebration. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 15:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Clearly some RS here, but as has been noted, it doesn't warrant its own page. Merge into Burj Khalifa Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Don't think we need an AFD discussion here. As of User:Ornithoptera's latest edit, it had {AfC submission|t}, indicating the draft had not been submitted, so it's unclear why User:Leomk0403 submitted it for them. Looking forward to Ornithoptera's continued improvement. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 14:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insects in Japanese culture

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

Original author of the article, draft was published without any consultation or notification through my talk page while I was doing my final exams and the article was clearly unfinished while I took my break, and still is, as major portions within the article are unfinished. Looking to WP:DRAFTIFY the article as per WP:ATD-I, I was directed by the guidelines to do so through AfD. Ornithoptera (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is plenty good enough to exist in its current state (with thanks to Ornithoptera), and is much more likely to attract improvements from a range of constructive editors in main-space than if hidden by draftification. Elemimele (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elemimele, you seem to forget the fact that I am Ornithoptera, and I was not meaning to publish it, and the actions were done without any warning whatsoever, the reasons are listed above. I would really appreciate support through this, because these actions were undertaken while I was in the middle of my exams, and I didn't have any choice or knowledge this happened, and I wish to overhaul it before actually putting it through the approval process when I am actually done with the article. --Ornithoptera (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atanu Bhuyan

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

Bhuyan is a journalist from North-East India who does not seem to meet WP:BIO. None of the six sources cited in the article constitute significant coverage; and a search on Google turned up no significant coverage either. There's a few mentions, largely quoting him or his tweets, but no actual in-depth discussion. Due to the lack of significant coverage, Bhuyan fails WP:BIO. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill coverage that most local journalists receive (a brief shout out in another article as a source, etc). Nothing I can find online shows me the subject meets WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This source on the article and this one (which is not) together indicate notability to me. Mujinga (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: see WP:TOI. Also, the article in The Telegraph does not quite discuss the subject in detail, i.e. it is not significant coverage. Java Hurricane 17:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of WP:TOI, doesn't change my opinion about an article in TOI about Bhuyan's resignation being significant coverage. Likewise, the Telegraph article is about Bhuyan entering politics and is significant coverage in my book.Mujinga (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find it somewhat surprising that your views on significant coverage and RS seem to differ so significantly from what I've seen to be the community's attitude generally. Java Hurricane 02:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ToI article linked above entirely consists of his quotes. Telegraph's was routine election coverage (btw he decided later to not even contest in that election). Even hindi/bengali searches (https://www.google.com/search?q="অতনু+ভূয়ান"+OR+"अतनु+भुयान") don't turn up anything. I note that neither bengali nor hindi wikipedias have pages (hitting some bug, can't properly linkify the search link) --Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond of controversy, he is not having any coverage. --Arunudoy (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Krishna Goswami

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

Religious teacher who fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. No major achievement. All ISKCON Board members are not notable. Promotional Venkat TL (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the coverage I can find are passing mentions usually from appearances at events. Nothing I can find qualifies the subject for WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources brought on by the "keep" !votes fail to convince that this meets NCORP and the "delete" !votes have very strong policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cielo WiGle

AfDs for this article:

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

There does not seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. It does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources brought up in the first AfD to support keep !votes were blogs, passing mentions, "best 10" lists, and routine announcements. MarioGom (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has been changed since the last AfD that was closed just 3 months ago. I just looked at last Afd comments. [37] is a RS from The Express Tribune. As I mentioned in last discussion, It is an American company with a an office in Pakistan and worldwide market place, in my opinion passes WP:NCORP. Brayan ocaner (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reference needs to be more than RS, it also needs to meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. That includes WP:ORGIND - since the article you've linked to relies entirely on quotes and information provided by the company and execs, it fails. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source and was published by a independent reliable magazine in Pakistan and is a report of company. Your reason is not reasonable for rejecting this reference. It completely qualifies criterias for being a RS. صحاسبت (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the article. You can find evidences of notability in article that is being shown by recent references. Because ghe features of them are : deep coverage about company and independent context from reliable sources. صحاسبت (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some citations for this and was added recently, and this significant one from The Express Tribune was written in natural point of view, another from Times of India. It was featured on several Pakistani portals, because of its office in Pakistan and also as other voter told it has worldwide market. Meets WP:NCORP. Alimovvarsu (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article on The Express Tribune is mostly an interview. There is little independent reporting there. MarioGom (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not definitely an interview! An article along with 2 quotes is not called "Interview"! Most part of article is about the company and give us useful information and there is no need for quotation to be used as reference. The source is focusing on company (significant coverage) on The Express Tribune. صحاسبت (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per HighKing. The Tribune article seems like interview-based promotional "churnalism" to me. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added multiple sourcing to the article. I believe The Express Tribune article is a report that is a RS to demonstrate notability. In first nomination, other sources was mentioned about market of company in Pakistan, USA and other countries of Middle East. These along with the good amount of news coverage from the would constitute substantial coverage, I think. This company is of sufficient notability and source coverage to deserve at least as a stub. صحاسبت (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the coverage in The Express Tribune many commenters are relying upon to show substantial independent coverage in reliable sources is kind of run of the mill; it's an interview with an executive and coverage of a capitalization round. This is routine corporate stuff, and I echo what User:HighKing was saying earlier. Articles about companies about which little has been said other than "they exist, they make some products, they sell stock" plus interviews with the founders are not valuable as encyclopedia articles and serve no purpose other than to puff up the importance of the company at our collective expense. Wikipedia isn't a fundraising tool or a directory of random companies. FalconK (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely minor startup. The previous keep was based on invalid arguments, including attempts to say that articles entirely about funding met NCORP. it's just the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan national under-17 football team results

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

Results pages exist for senior national teams, but as a rule, not for junior teams. Extending the results service from senior to junior level fails WP:NOTSTATS. Junior teams do not receive the same amount of coverage and their players are not presumed notable. Precedents for deletion include the similar discussions for India, Indonesia and Uzbekistan - in addition, there has been an effort to clean up Asian youth football stats-cruft in the form of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 AFC Youth Championship qualification and several related qualifications. Geschichte (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Junior sport is rarely notable. The fact that the article hasn't been updated since it was created in 2015 perhaps shows that there's little interest in this anyway. Nigej (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not needed, NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 08:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant coverage. The basic level of coverage provided by RSSSF and AFC is insufficient. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no RS - NOTSTATS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan national under-20 football team results

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

Results pages exist for senior national teams, but as a rule, not for junior teams. Extending the results service from senior to junior level fails WP:NOTSTATS. Junior teams do not receive the same amount of coverage and their players are not presumed notable. Precedents for deletion include the similar discussions for India, Indonesia and Uzbekistan - in addition, there has been an effort to clean up Asian youth football stats-cruft in the form of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 AFC Youth Championship qualification and several related qualifications. Geschichte (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Well below the level we should be covering in this type of article. The parent article Bhutan national under-20 football team is surely sufficient. Nigej (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not needed, NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 08:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia national under-19 football team results

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

Results pages exist for senior national teams, but as a rule, not for junior teams. Extending the results service from senior to junior level fails WP:NOTSTATS. Junior teams do not receive the same amount of coverage and their players are not presumed notable. Precedents for deletion include the similar discussions for India, Indonesia and Uzbekistan - in addition, there has been an effort to clean up Asian youth football stats-cruft in the form of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 AFC Youth Championship qualification and several related qualifications. Geschichte (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Fails NOSTATS. The parent article Malaysia national under-19 football team is surely sufficient at this level. Summary of results in important tournaments is worthwhile, but excessive detail about results/squads etc is not. Nigej (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not needed, NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 08:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timberloch Tower

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

Not notable, only real coverage is of its demolition in 2017. Mvqr (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find coverage about the demolition. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge few details into Anadarko Petroleum#History, which describes their Woodlands complex in general. Otherwise anonymous office building. Nate • (chatter) 22:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, with only routine coverage (e.g., of its demolition). --Kinu ^t/_c 21:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Touched base with a wikidata admin who thought there wasn't much suitable to transwiki. If anyone with more expertise than I wishes to explore that path further, let me know and I will facilitate (undelete for transwiki, etc etc.) Daniel (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diborane (data page)

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

Data page that mainly consists of question marks rather than actual values. The three only values available are also contained in the chembox of Diborane (section Thermochemistry). Leyo 11:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Leyo 11:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless. I am surprised that about 5 views a day are happening. Deleting will stop those readers from wasting their time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless indeed. Unless someone wants to populate the whole document with things that are NOT in the mainpage already. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless. PianoDan (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless per WP:DIRECTORY. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't data pages belong on Wikidata? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these pre-date wikidata, some probably by almost a decade. Wikidata is for data, en.wikipedia should present that in a contextualized readable way, so no, I do not think that datapages belong on wikidata. Whether they (still) belong on en.wikipedia is another question. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that this page doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but I don't see how that means that such data don't belong on Wikidata. I have just found Wikidata:Q407684, which seems to fulfil the function intended for this page. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that moving to Wikidata is a good idea. Caleb Stanford (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, - this material doesn't belong on wikipedia - or as mentioned above by Caleb Stanford, move to wikidata. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki whatever is missing from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q407684 on Wikidata. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Hoenen

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

Quite a simple nomination - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Came across this article during suggested cleanup tasks, and there is little I can do to assist in improving this article. Its three sentences say all there is to say about the subject, and it has no ability for expansion due to a lack of significant coverage or verifiable sources. Per WP:CREATIVE this person is not an important figure, no significant new photography techniques, no major role in a well known work, and the works are not of significance. Such-change47 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Such-change47 (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not as simple as you might think, the corresponding article in the Portuguese Wikipedia is much more complete as has a good amount of seemingly reliable sources. Curbon7 (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing here to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Ginbopewz (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article only needs improvement. The article in Portuguese is much better. A quick search shows that he was one of the most important photographers in Brazil in the late 1800s. His photography studio was one of the most important in São Paulo (Brazil's biggest city). He's mentioned in several books and works about the history of photography in Brazil. See here, here, here, here and here. He also has a profile at the pt:Enciclopédia Itaú Cultural which, in Brazil, is normally an indication that an artist is notable. I believe he passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 06:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider Kacamata's notes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kacamata!'s comments. Curiocurio (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rewrote the article using information from the Portuguese article about him, and added sources. I suppose it passes WP:NBASIC. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 18:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at the (english translation of ) that Portuguese article. I don't see notability as an historical figure or as a creative artist. or businessperson. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwatch Nation

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

Per the GNG, the subject of this article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, and so it cannot be presumed as notable. The subject has not been widely covered outside Wikipedia, nor has this show attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time.

Now, I am going to refer to WP:NTV which is an essay, not a guideline, but is still useful and rather persuasive in my opinion. This TV program does not appear to have aired on multiple networks. Per WP:NTVNATL, the absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program audience. So, merely that this show aired in the U.S., even if nationally, does not make it notable.

My conclusion is that a one sentence article with no significant coverage is not of encyclopaedic value and does not belong on Wikipedia. Such-change47 (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No opinion for now, but there seems to be a plethora of news coverage on Google News that provide WP:SIGCOV (the show was called just Nightwatch before recently, so searching without the nation part may yield more results as well). Could pass WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shellwood: I get that Googling comes up with some results, however I cannot see anything significant outside of TV guides? Cheers Such-change47 (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such-change47, Not tv guides, news outlets from various cities reporting on the show. Curbon7 (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ex.: [38] Curbon7 (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance

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

My PROD nomination was unfortunately removed with the suggestion it should be a PROMERGE. However, I don't believe any information from this page should be merged into the other page, as it already mentions his school proportionally. This article reads like promotion for the school and includes texts that are clearly taken from the website (borders copyright violation). Furthermore, I don't believe this school is relevant outside a mention on the page of the university (which is already the case). Dajasj (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like an admission brochure. - Hatchens (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like an add for the school, from what I can tell isn't notable, and is already mentioned in the article that has been mentioned as a possible merge target. Not that there's anything worth merging anyway. So deleting it outright is the best option IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I don't think another relist is likely to achieve a clearer consensus. Only one keep has made an effort to explain a rationale though overall I don't think it's clearly a keep outcome. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Portillo

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Did not play professionally as a player nor has he managed at a professional level. Simione001 (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have you done a decent WP:BEFORE? I did a bit of web searching and feel there is enough to pass WP:GNG. There are news stories for this manager on El Salvador news websites, elsalvador.com [39], that was one of the latest ones, there are tons of news stories with this managers name on to go through on that website alone. Multiple more news hits on a different site. [40] @GiantSnowman: there are sources to be found. :/ Govvy (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where are 2/3 good, in-depth sources? Giant Snowman 10:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passes WP:GNG. A brief web search brings up more than enough verifiable content. --Jimbo^[online] 15:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It's not clear that notability has been established, but with the nominator suggesting withdrawal, there is no apparent consensus to delete either. RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Mohsin Musellem

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

Flagging this for a few reasons. First, there appear to be no verifiable sources. The "BBC" source looks genuine, but is not. The URL is not the same as the proper BBC Arabic site. I google translated this and the name in that 'article' is not the same as in this stub. So this lack of verifiable sources means the article does not and can not meet WP:VERIFY.

Second, as there is no significant coverage and no reliable sources provided, I find this article unlikely to satisfy the requirements of WP:N either.

Third, article is only three days old and has never been reviewed. I understand this is not necessarily a ground for deletion, however it does mean no independent reviewer has confirmed this article as appropriate for Wikipedia. The author has had other articles declined for similar reasons to what I have mentioned.

Last, but this is a weak point - I question whether the article is written in a neutral and objective manner. It merely seems to read like a list of this persons work. Such-change47 (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - consensus unlikely to be reached and taken into account the keep remarks made below, I am happy to withdraw. Such-change47 (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Such-change47 (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the article is very poorly referenced. It would be great if someone who can read Arabic could review this article. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is almost certainly an unattributed translation from another language wiki and thus, like all their other articles and more, copyvio. Please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 21#Project #KMUOS. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is a translation from ar.wiki. I’ve now linked it and added a translation template to the talk page. The BBC source is genuine, it’s just the 2002 version of the site, and the article is about the subject. The ar.wiki article has plenty of sources and a quick search shows an abundance of others. The article does need improving but there’s no basis for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, please provide specific examples or add them to the enwiki article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I’ve now worked on it so it has seven valid references. There are a lot more Google books refs for him, mostly critical discussions and histories of Arabic poetry, but Google only allows snippet views of these so I haven’t used any of them. I’ve also cut out sections that weren’t sourced and for which I couldn’t find sources either. Mccapra (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should the article be retained after the changes by Mccapra?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 4 of the new references show that the poems exist. There still remains a list of 26, so 22 aren't cited. Still no cited biographical information. Please change my vote to delete. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Patil

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

Non-notable biography, created by an account with the same name as the subject. Contested draftify. – bradv^🍁 06:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Does not meet the standards set out in WP:NPOL and also does not meet WP:N. No sources included in the article or located on Google. I have concerns about the neutrality of the article also. Such-change47 (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unelected politician; fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Eagleash (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy general notability or political notability. Appears to be an autobiography. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:N, WP:GNG or political notability.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isopress

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

First, this page has no sources. It's written confusingly by (whom I assume to be) a non-native English speaker, whom in all likely hood has a COI as this is one of the only pages the account that made the page edited, and is likely a SPA. Upon searching for Isopress it is difficult to find information on, and what I do find does not establish enough basically any notability for this to be warranted as a page. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 06:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no issues with it being written by a non-native speaker as copyediting is something many articles could use. The primary issue is that this article has no references independent of the subject, only one included. It is not verifiable, or is it notable per WP:N and so I recommend this article is deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's zero reliable independent source to focus on the subject. Lack of significant coverage. Brayan ocaner (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete seems to be a direct translation of this fandom article without any reliable sources. --hroest 15:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Logan Rait

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Being the youngest loser in the 1923 UK General Election doesn't do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL, and a search yielded no results for WP:GNG. Alas, he only needed 48 more votes to be notable. Curbon7 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missed it by that much. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as being the youngest candidate at the time is not in itself notable in a long-term (he was nearly 22, so not extraordinarily young or with a claim of being the youngest ever election candidate). There are actually a fair few hits on newspapers.com but very much run-of-the-mill reporting of him being the youngest in that election and all as a passing mention. He didn't appear to have any notable political career and if the only claim is that he nearly won a seat as a young-un, I don't think that will suffice. Someone older at the time, even slightly, would not have an article in similar circumstances. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We accept all members of legislatures as notable, because legislatures do things that are important. It is not the winning the election that makes someone notable, it is the seating in the legislature. Members of legislatures that are appointed by means other than election, but actually have functions of making laws and the like, are still notable. The coverage here is not significant, and we do not directly say "youngest x is notable", we follow significant coverage, and are not a newspaper, so we take a broad view, and not just the "youngest x in this election".John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article seems only to exist because he was the youngest candidate at the 1923 general election, but as others have made clear this does not give him the kind of notability that would merit an article. In the absence of any evidence of other claims for notability, this would seem a clear cut case. Dunarc (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. But not a simple no consensus defaulting to keep. There is a clear consensus that this article needs to be stripped back, modified appropriately, improved and better sourced.

While AfD is not cleanup, it is also not a suicide pact, and if significant modifications aren't made in line with the overwhelming sentiment expressed below over the coming weeks and months, we will be back at AfD in Q2 of 2022 and the outcome could potentially be very different. Daniel (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of indigenous peoples

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

I am not seeing how this is a maintainable or workable list. There is no clear, consistent definition of what defines an "indigenous people" across the entire planet. While the definition of "indigenous peoples" may be clear in some contexts (i.e. Indigenous Australians and Americans) in many others it is not clear what would be defined as an "indigenous person" as opposed to merely an ethnic group that is found in a particular area, such as in most of Africa. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also endorse the comments of Joe Roe and Austronesier below, which probably get closer to the heart of the issue than my original rationale. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is a clear definition at the start of the article. We also have a category for Category:Indigenous peoples. Dream Focus 07:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't mean that the definition is useful or is consistent. For example, who are the indigenous peoples in states where there are many small ethnic groups and no large ones, like Papua New Guinea. What ethnic group represents the majority ethnic identity of the state that they are a part of? "Papuan" doesn't count because it is not an ethicity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep There is absolutely no reason for this to be put up for AfD, and it's extremely self-evident too. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 08:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Hemiauchenia it is unbecoming to edit out my statement and claim it to be a personal attack when it was not. It would be better to wait and see if other editors feel that way and to inform me as such (editors may review the edit history to make their own judgement). But being both judge and jury is unfair. Nevertheless, I shall re-explain more gently. This proposal reads as wikilawyering and feels frivolous given how self-evidently this article deserves to remain. If you feel it is so questionable and needing of editing, it would be much better to edit the page, and discuss the issue at hand on its talk page with other editors. Outright deletion is far, far to extreme and unwarranted. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 09:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't baselessly accuse me of Wikilayering for writing a deletion nomination that you disagree with. You have not responded to the actual nomination rationale, that the definition of worldwide "Indigenous peoples" is too vague and: inconsistent for a standalone list. I am not opposed for specific lists for the indigenous peoples of Australia and the Americas. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, I can. I'm sorry that you dislike my opionion. This page has existed for over 16 years, has had thousands of edits, with dozens of sources, and hundreds of well-sorted links. It is a clearly well maintained and an important article. Your rationale that it should be deleted simply because it is too vague is nonsensical. You did not even attempt to bring up the issue at hand on the articles talk page to attempt to re-define or engage in a discussion about the articles scope. This is the first AfD this article has been put up for, and was only PRODed several years ago and was promptly removed. Also worth noting this article is also under 30/500 protection via the arbitration committee. Because of this, it does in fact strike me as wikilawyering, at best. At any rate, there is not much more to be said. Other editors can commence with their vote and review. Should this be a keep vote, I would encourage you to discuss on the articles talk page about your concerns over potential vagueness. You could even start that now in the meantime while this is reviewed since it is extremely likely Keep will be the outcome. Carry on~ --Tautomers_{(T C)} 09:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the things you have mentioned are at all relevant for whether or not an article should be deleted. Mass killings under communist regimes has a similar antiquity and edit count, and is also under discretionary sanctions, and yet its most recent AfD closed as "no consensus" a few weeks ago. You have still not addressed the nomination rationale. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this list is not well-maintained at all, Tautomers. Yes there are dozens of citations—45 at the moment—but that is not a good thing in a contentious list with hundreds of entities. Consider also that nearly half (19) of those citations are concentrated in the section on Jews, Palestinians and Samaritans. – Joe (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but stubify. I can see where the nominator is coming from, but we've been too hung up on "definitions" in this set of articles. Even UN bureaucrats now recognise that Indigeneity is a question of self-identification, not checklist-criteria. If a group self-identifies as Indigenous, and that claim is recognise in a significant number of reliable sources, then we should include them in articles like this. Of course there will always be disputes and edge-cases, but I don't think that criterion is any less precise than that used in the majority of our lists. That said, this version of the list is a giant mess. I've had it on my watchlist for about a decade and I really can't recall more than a handful of significant, constructive edits in that time. Instead there is just a tiresome repetition of the same disputes (notably the inclusion of Israeli Jews and/or Palestinians) and a familiar cycle where somebody adds their ethnic group, complains when it is reverted because "we've always lived here!", and we have to patiently explain, again, that if we included every ethnic group that has ever been indigenous to anywhere, we'd have to call it list of ethnic groups. Meanwhile, coverage of groups who are without question Indigenous people, and for whom Indigeneity has been a central part of struggles for recognition and legal rights, has been ignored: the sections on North and South America, Australasia, and the Arctic—where the majority of the world's Indigenous peoples live—are woefully incomplete and entirely unsourced. We should take this AfD as an opportunity to start again with verifiable information a inclusion criteria based on Indigenous self-identification and coverage in reliable sources, not armchair lawyering based on what this or that NGO says. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a fair take and I have revised my vote to keep instead of speedy keep given this. A page like this is bound to be messy basically however you slice it and it will never be perfect. I noticed the intense bickering when looking through the edit history which (sadly) didn't surprise me. I agree this AfD could be a good opertunity for people to come together and improve the article. The topic is inherently very political and will need to be treaded gently and with understanding. I hesitate to suggest draftify though as I worry it might never exit draft space due to how contentious the topic will certainly become during the editing processs. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 10:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term "indigenous peoples" has become a catch-all term for politically and culturally marginalized ethnic groups all over the world, and undoubtedly has helped to create awareness about the strife of these peoples. But alas, this does not always match the stricter definitions of the term (which may vary based on the temporal cut-off point and whether the criterion of political participation is included). The current largely unsourced list is all apples and oranges; e.g. why are Amhara, Yorubas, Hausa included (technically they are non-majority autochtonous peoples, but in no way politically marginalized), but not Visayans who are also a non-majority and non-marginalized autochtonous group? Tongans are listed, even though they have all the political power over their country. But still, a huge part of the list contains groups that are Indigenous peoples by all standards, as pointed out by Joe Roe. I am aware of WP:NOTCLEANUP, but I share with the OP the concern of how to realistically turn this into a manageable list that lives up to its definition. At the current state, I'd opt for draftify or ~~TNT-delete~~stubify. –Austronesier (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am tempted to support deletion, but that would not solve the underlying problem. I do think the List needs to be drastically reformed, and maybe re-named. As other have noted, it is too much of a hodge-podge. In my humble opinion, "indigenous" is a valid term for peoples that entered the awareness of the wider world fairly recently, say, in the last five centuries, and who are now minorities and/or oppressed by other peoples in their own ancestral territory. It overlaps with, but is not the same, as "minority", or "oppressed people", or "ethnic group". I think we need a serious dicussion on what the scope of this list should be and, depending on what that discussion decides, what to call the list. - Donald Albury 16:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insidiously misleading weasel term as others have intuitively grasped and I don't see much room for reform because it's a political term that doesn't match the etymological origin in practice. --Killuminator (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe's reasoning. Not only is there a clear definition at the start of the article, there are multiple others linked that say more or less the same thing. I agree that this version of the article is a mess, though. It may be better to make this an outline linking to the articles for respective continents. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, draftify or stubify - While a list on this subject would be useful, this article at present falls short at every turn. I disagree about whether the definition is clear. I'm not sure why it does not simply start with the same definition as on the Indigenous peoples page. Instead, it cites a far more random journal entry. In the definition section, it then seems to paraphrase some elements on the UN definition. Not a great or particularly consistent start. No wonder the article has become an inconsistent WP:COATRACK. I would tend towards delete only because WP:TNT may be the only way to rationalise this content. Overhauling it, when there are no citations for 90% of the content, will be a mammoth effort. Drafting is another reasonably option, but this obviously has the problem of who would take it on. The stubify option is therefore possibly more viable as it, like WP:TNT, would encourage the article to be rebuilt, bottom up, with inline citations throughout justifying the inclusion of individual entries - the ideal level of sourcing intensity for all such lists. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The definition given in the lead of "Indigenous peoples" constantly changes over time, in December 2020, the defintiion was " ethnic groups who are native to a particular place on Earth and live or lived in an interconnected relationship with the natural environment there for many generations prior to the arrival of non-Indigenous peoples." In October 2019 the definition was "ethnic groups who are the original owners and caretakers of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled, occupied or colonized the area more recently." Arguably a RfC is needed to fix the definition. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there are some serious definitional issues at play. The quote They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system. is sourced to some random person (apparently?) and basically ascribes universal political ideals to all indigenous groups across the world - which is absurd. This article can't seem to make its mind up on what it wants to include. I can see this being a viable list, but it's in a moribund state. Also, re the nominator "it is not clear what would be defined as an 'indigenous person' as opposed to merely an ethnic group that is found in a particular area, such as in most of Africa" the most of Africa thing is not exactly true. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, you have various ethnic groups who are essentially "native" to the country (by political Western standards) and make up the vast majority of the population, such as the Luba people, Lulua people, and Songye people, but because they are descendants of the Bantu migrations thousands of years ago they are not considered "indigenous" in the way Twa/African Pygmies are. In some places, "indigenous" is also a legal category. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful page, and as has been said, it has a definition at the start. However, it needs to be re-written and simplified, having every single tribe listed for each indigenous group could result in this page having tens of thousands of individual entries - and that's not what Wikipedia is. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't even see why this article was nominated for deletion, the term is defined in the article. I see no huge problems with it. oncamera _{(talk page)} 08:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge This is a horrid article, at least in part, with some people being named as indigenous, where that is at best doubtful; if anything, they are the settler community despite being nomadic. We seem to have Roma and other travelling communities all over western Europe, but the best view is that they migrated from India during the medieval period, long after the area was settled. In Britain the Celtic peoples of the west have a case for being indigenous, but colonisation by Angles, Saxons, Norse Vikings, and then Normans took place so long ago, that the distinction between indigenous and non-indigenous is meaningless. It is utterly different with those parts of the world that have been subject to large-scale colonisation by Europeans, African ex-slaves, Arabs, or Han Chinese. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is maintainable, it is just entirely uncited. The first step in making this article functional is going through every single ethnic group and determining what the current consensus among scholars or the people themselves is. Additionally, this topic is subjective, caveats should be included wherever required.

--^💬KaerbaqianRen 22:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and edit forconsistency with other articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To broad to be of any use and will never be well verified or maintained. Yuchitown (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and I don't see one emerging with an additional relist as established editors provide good reasons for each take. Star Mississippi 16:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congelation

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

Uncited, and is basically just a dictionary definition page. I also don't think this'd benefit from a redirect since its an unusual word. Thus, putting it up for AfD. Not doing it via PROD in the off-chance it might be an obscurely relevant term. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 05:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete conditionally that another editor doesn't come along with a very compelling reason for this to be an independent article. This to me does seem very much like it should remain as a dictionary definition and given it's been an article for 16 years and practically unchanged, it doesn't seem likely to be expanded. I may be wrong though, so would withdraw if a valid reason for doing so is offered. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that it's not notable per WP:NOTDICT, but I also want to point out the hilarious fact that in the Turkish Wikipedia (the only other one to include the term), it is listed with the category template, "Alchemy." PianoDan (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand by translating the French article It's not a rare term. I think this may have been nominated without checking Google. [41] which shows 24,000 references. It's used in English. French and Spanish, in physical chemistry, geology food science, sociology., including by Nobelist Peter Debye ( Debye P, Hückel E. De la theorie des electrolytes. I. abaissement du point de congelation et phenomenes associes. Physikalische Zeitschrift. 1923;24(9):185-206) . I'm not immediately clear about the exact difference in usage from near-synonyms, but there see to be a basis for an article here.

And looking further, I see there most certainly is basis for an article, and the usage can certainly be clarified. The French WP article [42] isn't listed in the language list, and in frWP the enWP equivalent is Frozen food, which is one of the many gross semantic errors deriving from Wikidata.[43] Congelation is not just the equivalent of freezing, as the use in soil science illustrates. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: It's worth scrutinising that further to understand if there anything to it, as I noted in my !vote. I do however observe that the french wiki article you linked essentially translates to a page which discusses freezing and google translate directly translates the word to freezing (or deep freezing, to be precise), so of course there will be tens of thousands of literature on the topic of freezing, in any language. What confuses me with the French wiki setup is that the article Solidification is what seems to be the french-wiki equivalent to en-wiki's 'freezing' article. Neither seems particularly relatable to the en-wiki Congelation article in question. I also can't ascertain if 'congelation' is just a french word for 'freezing' by co-incidence or if it's a more specialist topic relatable to the subject of the afd. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss DGG's comments more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the French source, it's an article on a phase change that is not necessarily freezing in the usual sense, but solidification or thickening-- such as the geochemical changes discussed in the article: they are sol-gel transitions, not freezing. The material in our freezing article is contained there, but so is much else. Theway to proceed will be I think to expand this article to match thefrWP, and then deal with duplications. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced in its credibility as an article, particularly as similar terms like congeal and congealment do not have articles (although the former redirects to this). There may have been a consideration to redirect to solidification if that were an independent article like on french wiki, but on en-wiki that just redirects to our freezing article. Reading your rationale DGG, i'd wonder if it would be more logical to create an article built around the broader term solidification (using fr-wiki as a basis) and then redirecting congelation to that. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why should similar forms of the word have articles also, like congeal and congealment? We're not a dictionary. congeall is a verb, and we do not usually make articles for verbs , and whether it should be the spelling 'congealment" or "Congelation" depends on what the more common form is in English. "Solidification" certainly is a possibility, but we need to look if it's a true synonym and covers all the cases. But I agree that "Congelation" sounds awkward in English. DGG ( talk ) 14:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my poor phrasing, I just meant the other terms are also in wiki dictionary only because, like congelation, they're a definition too. If I thought congelation could redirect anywhere, i'd have suggested that but replicating the french wiki in this instance (and redirecting to freezing) would seem inappropriate. I still consider deleting this article is probably the best approach and then if someone thinks a standalone article for solidification could be made, that can be done irrespective. It just seems congelation and it's variants appears too narrow a subject. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's an operation in alchemy listed and linked in Alchemical symbols, not explained elsewhere on Wikipedia or even mentioned in Alchemy. Yes, the article needs to be more than a dicdef, but its a needed article and shouldn't be deleted. Skyerise (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the article contains very little information, the topic has been much studied. Most of us know it as congealing, and congeal is a redirect to it. Wikipedia has an article about how blood congeals, called coagulation. If your blood does not congeal properly, you have a disease called haemophilia. Blancmange and porridge congeal during cooking. I once attended a one hour lecture by a doctor of chemistry from I.C.I. about how cement particles behave as cement congeals, and how by modifying their behaviour during this process, his team at I.C.I. had produced a new inorganic material he called N.I.M. (New Inorganic Material) that was basically cement, but behaved very differently from cement (you could make spoons and window-frames from it for example).-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no idea whether the English term is used anywhere in modern science, but Holmyard 1957, pp. 150, 271 uses the term as the name of an alchemical process which is apparently synonymous to crystallization. Perhaps the use of the term in alchemy derives from the De congelatione et conglutinatione lapidum, an extract from Avicenna's Kitab al-Shifa which was for a long time thought to form the last three chapters of the fourth book of Aristotle's Meteorology (see Linden 2003, p. 95), in which Aristotle described physical and chemical processes like solidification, evaporation, combustion, etc. However that may be, Linden 2003, p. 17 attributes the term to Sir George Ripley in his Compound of Alchymy, which seems to establish that the English term was in use among alchemists in 15th-century England. Searching Google scholar for "congelation" alchemy also reveals that the term is at least mentioned here and there by historians of alchemy.

However, I doubt that this will ever be much more than a mini-stub. Surely, it would be better to treat the topic within the framework of an article like Philosophers' stone or Magnum opus (alchemy), where all of the 'stages' or 'operations' involved could be explained in their proper context. Then again, these articles need a lot of work and do not seem ready to just merge in the material from our article. I will not !vote since I've been summoned here, but other !voters may want to take a second look after today's updates of the article by Skyerise and me. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who already !voted for review: Tautomers Bungle PianoDan Caleb Stanford DGG Chiswick Chap Skyerise Toddy1 ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the work on this! I'm a bit confused by the current draft: is this article solely about the alchemical usage? If so, the first sentence could be improved by adding a scope ("In alchemy, ...") But the article is also suggestive that this word has a modern scientific meaning. The draft is much better but I'm still not convinced of the scope or notability, and it hasn't moved too far beyond WP:DICDEF. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I asked an inorganic chemist about the word, they said they have never heard of it used in a chemistry context. That seems problematic. Polymerization is used instead and related. A Google Scholar search reveals many papers (particularly on oil congelation?) but not much WP:SIGCOV material. Difficult ask for a keep vote on present evidence. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this article at its first creation in 2005 was intended as an article about the alchemical operation, and it has stayed that way until last year when I –somewhat infelicitously– removed the bit about alchemy because it was unsourced. But here's an idea: we could turn Congelation into a disambiguation page briefly explaining that Congelation (alchemy) is an archaic term for various forms of solidification such as Freezing, Crystallization, or Coagulation (another word with a background in alchemy, see [44]) with perhaps 'see also' links to Congelation ice and Congelatio (though the latter term is not mentioned in its target article). Then again, it may even be better yet to simply remove all references to modern physico-chemical processes and just turn this into an alchemy stub, as it was probably originally intended (as I said above, it should definitely be merged into another article at some point, but the other articles are not ready for that). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Apaugasma: If that's a potential direction of travel, why not just make solidification a DAB linking to the articles you already mentioned, with a reference to congelation linking to the dicdef? I still don't feel overly convinced in congelation as a standalone article. Maybe congelation could then redirect to solidification at a push. Although my delete !vote wasn't with much conviction, I remain steadfast in my general opinion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: I understand why you hold on to your previous opinion, which I do not consider by any means invalid. Just to be clear: yes, Solidification may be a better candidate for DAB, but what do you mean with linking to the dicdef? A link to a standalone stub on congelation in alchemy, or to the Wiktionary entry? Because the latter does not contain any info (as our stub does) on the term's historical background in alchemy, on its being one of the principal operations in the works of pseudo-Khalid ibn Yazid, Sir George Ripley, etc. I agree that congelation in alchemy is barely notable as an independent subject, but it is more than a WP:DICDEF now, if only ever so slightly. If the term 'congelation' as used in alchemy is not found to meet (a lenient interpretation of) WP:SIGCOV (it is often mentioned, but apparently not in-depth), there should not be an article on it, and in that case I don't see a need to disambiguate it at all. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a scenario whereby congelation is present on a hypothetical solidification DAB, i'd have suggested maybe linking to the dicdef page, unless there is another existing article which could suitably house the minimal stub info regarding congelation as an alchemy term (and in that instance, then to a sub-section of that parent article). The issue now may be that the viability of the article rests somewhere between being perhaps slightly more than just a dicdef, yet not quite significant enough for an independent article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caleb Stanford: Polymerisation is a different thing. With polymerisation, lots of small identical molecules daisychain to make big molecules. It is of course true that polymerisation may make liquids get thicker or it may cause them to precipitate (i.e. for solid particles to appear in the liquid).-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the term (or process) is notable withins alchemy, I thik it woul be less confusing to have a separate article for that. But as for the comment not knowing whether the term is still used in modern science, seeGoogleScholar ,limited to English and since 2018 --1530 hits (tho about half arenon-english articles, that happen to have an English language title. The current use is apparently mainly in geology and food science, not chemistry. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the scholar results, despite the English search, are actually in French, or are dual language English/French with the term only appearing in the French text. We need to be careful not to cover French meanings of the word on the English Wikipedia. I am particular dubious about extending its meaning to freezing. Not sure that that occurs in English. For instance this one translates French congelation to freexing in the English version. In any case, grouping crystallisation, congealing, and freexing in one article is getting into dictionary territory. These are not the same thing to modern science, although I'd be fine with an article on congealing proper. If alchemy made such a grouping as a single phenomena, then this should be an exclusively alchemic article. If they didn't, and its just the same word being used in different contexts there is no justification for it at all. SpinningSpark 19:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Im saying keep because seems like a word that people want to learn and what better place is there to learn then here? HelpingWorld (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The correct place for material like this is on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.Iskandar323 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Immersion Corporation

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

Many claims, but no actual notability. They have tried to introduce may things, none of them notable. Most of the references are mere notices, on suing and being sued for infringement, supplemented by a few promotional interviews.

This is part of a not very skilled promotional campaign for its sister company, Immersion Corporation, and their founder, for whom see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis B. Rosenberg. (I am not nominating Immersion Corporation--I think I may have been able to fix it, but it anyone thinks it's still promotional and non-notable, please let me know when you place the AFD. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the person who originally raised the COI on Rosenberg, my impression is that even with COI Immersion Corp and Unanimous are notable. Whether their clear promotional nature warrants them for retributive deletion is another question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrigadierG (talk • contribs) 06:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not notable. I agree with DGG. Mommmyy (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite into normal past tense instead of historical present. Most of the promotion is gone, and the company has been around long enough and in the news a number of times to be notable to me at least. I also ran across the article Immersion v. Sony which is n linked from this one but hidden behind a pipe. Not sure if that was intentional. There was a bit of coverage of that case, and there are 20 years of SEC filings, including a recent take-over attempt not mentioned. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4280751-immersion-corporation-activist-shareholders-circling-company https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/immersion-elevates-legal-head-to-ceo-after-waging-patent-battles

As per the original comment, please clarify. It sounds like user DGG did indeed nominate this article to be deleted. The sister company might be Unanimous A.I., which has been around much less time and seems more dubious, claiming to be able to predict events that are in the past? W Nowicki (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BAT!

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2021 (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 03:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is the guideline at WP:NBAND about how a band may be notable if it contains members from other notable bands, but that's too much of a stretch for this act. They are only visible in the usual streaming and social media sources, and I can find no reliable reviews of their album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music Such-change47 (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 08:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands–Spain relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is very little to these relations. No embassies, agreements, state or minister visits. The historical interaction is covered in Solomon_Islands#Arrival_of_Europeans_(1568–1886). LibStar (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Yilloslime (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable as being one of the oldest foreign relationship of the Solomon Islands. Could do with some more references though. Moondragon21 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - The primary issue is that this article has no references independent of the subject. Primary sources only appear included. No secondary resources of significance can be located as far as I can tell. As such WP:N is not met and so I recommend this article is deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pilaz has brought to light new secondary coverage in another language I had not previously noticed. I now am satisfied notability standards are met.Such-change47 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - secondary coverage of the relationship exists, although it's predominantly in Spanish: The Solomon Islands and Spain, a reciprocal vision from the former Ambassador of the EU to the Solomon Islands [45]; an essay about the "sister cultures" because of Spanish exploration of Melanesia [46]; there is academic research on the current perception of Spanish explorers in the Solomon Islands [47]; in 2013, Spain opened an honorary consulate in the Solomon Islands [48]; and when Guadalcanal, Seville and the cities of Guadalcanal island became sister cities in 2013, it generated quite a bit of attention in Spain: [49], [50], [51], [52]. To me, the city diplomacy and the historical relationship are drivers of the relationship between the Solomon Islands and Spain even to this day, with plenty of sources satisfying WP:GNG. I therefore also think that the historical information should appear in this page (although perhaps in a more condensed version, linking to the Solomon Islands history section). Pilaz (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: perhaps this gets some attention?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pilaz's points. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 20:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly there is a long history of the relationship between these two countries. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deleted - WP:G5. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Tabrizi

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

I admittedly do not read Persian but from what I can see, these references are generally passing mentions that do not establish notability. I had PROD'd this article but the tag was removed by the article creator. In my BEFORE search, I only came across other individuals named Hossein Tabrizi, not this film director. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the references appear to be substantial. This may be eligible for WP:G5 depending on the outcome of this SPI. I'm getting a real sense of déjà vu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hodge

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

I PROD'd this article and the tag was removed so I'm nominating this page for deletion. This is a financial adviser who has done some writing, which they all do, and published some books but hundreds of business books are published every year. I don't think that he is particularly notable except for those who subscribe to his newsletter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sourcing isn't nearly enough to establish notability and the article doesn't even establish his notability as a claim. JonnyDKeen (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks for nominating. Does not come anywhere close to satisfying WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any notability in this author, though his publication may warrant a separate article but not without assessment of the sources. Dear Debasish (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Martínez (footballer, born 1981)

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- ওহিদ^{(💬 | 📝)} 11:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Abbas (legal scholar)

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

no indication of his notable; if it's, there is no independent reliable secondary sources for verification. Fails, significant coverage, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:BIO. As far as the sources are concerned, the writing of all of them is exactly the same (Obviously, this is not the main cause but still...); see 1, 2. Sources do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article standards for living person & academic prof. Three sources were provided from "asiasociety.org", that's primary and seft published; see 'Abbas Senior Advisor and Bernard Schwartz Fellow at Asia Society'. Creator (BEZH) of this article directly or indirectly attached to Abbas, see; they came here only to make this one, it's looks like spamming. -- ওহিদ^{(💬 | 📝)} 03:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- ওহিদ^{(💬 | 📝)} 03:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- ওহিদ^{(💬 | 📝)} 03:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. pass of WP:Prof. Nominator appears to have less than a month's editing experience. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe:Ok, But, It doesn't matter what I'm experienced or not. Matter is that Abbas has no significant coverage at all. People are using his books as reliable sources, Which point do you think that this article 'pass of WP:Prof'? There is no point caught in my eyes any condition to meet the criteria of his significance (especially in WP:NPROF). Thanks -- ওহিদ^{(💬 | 📝)} 04:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the scholar link four inches above. It is best to become acquainted with policy in the area before making nominations and carry out WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. The NYT book review should have been a clue that this is a significant enough book author to pass WP:AUTHOR, but the nominated version had only two major-newspaper book reviews. I added more published reviews from academic journals, enough to make the case much more clear. Hint to nominator: the two reviews already listed were in fact in-depth independent reliable secondary sources about the subject's work, so the claim that those sources weren't present is false. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Hello, Sir my name is Ohid. I'm from India. Can you look at Amira Sonbol's article what I'm creating now. Is it also notable? Thanks -- ওহিদ^{(💬 | 📝)} 08:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three publications with triple-digit citations on Google Scholar, and roughly 26 reviews of her books listed on JSTOR: yes, doubly so. The reviews of her books could be listed in the article to forestall a discussion such as this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per copyright violence, see here. -- ওহিদ^{(💬 | 📝)} 07:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it appears very clear that they copied from us rather than vice versa. Look at the history of our article and how that text came to be there. Look at the copyright date on the web page you list it as supposedly copied from. Additionally, I have struck out your comment because nominators are not allowed to !vote a second time (nor is anyone else). You can leave additional comments, but not with a boldfaced "keep" or "delete" unless you want to explicitly change your mind from some earlier opinion, in which case you should strike out the earlier one. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @David Eppstein: Sir, I'm really sorry, but this author creates controversy at Muhammad's children article. 'Ishan87' told me on my talk page about the editor named by 'Albertatiran' that's why I request to delete this article to help Ishan. Albertatiran quoted from the book by the name of The Prophet's Heir: The Life of Ali ibn Abi Talib, that Muhammad SAW adopted some of his children. Can you help them (Ishan87 & Albertatiran) on Muhammad's children? Thanks. -- ওহিদ^{(💬 | 📝)} 09:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This appears to be totally inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
- See the times before commenting, I didn't doing any inappropriate behavior with David sir, instead of told him with respectfully. I've withdrawn this article after seeing he has secondary sources. Thank you! -- ওহিদ^{(💬 | 📝)} 10:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Open-source video game#Greater organization. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Games Collection

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

Non-notable compilation of puzzle video games. None of the sources cited in the article are reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG and BEFORE searches do not return any further sources that could be used to support the article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is accurate this appears to be a standard inclusion for the GNOME operating system so maybe a redirect to that article could work since there is a small section about the included games.--67.70.101.198 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Jakks Pacific § Plug It In & Play TV Games~~ Open-source video game § Greater organization, where it is mentioned. No need for merger, as there is nothing sourced to merge. czar 21:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:, sorry, I don't follow this. Where on that page is this collection mentioned? I don't follow the rationale for a redirect there? DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, clipboard malfunction :) Updated target czar 05:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes more sense, thanks! :) DocFreeman24 (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per czar. Nothing left to merge. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, there is consensus that the subject currently fails our notability criteria--Ymblanter (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AJDaGuru

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable singer; reviewer that originally approved the article declined to draftify. I can't find any usable sources on Google (string: ajdaguru), and even before I gutted the article in an attempt to bring it into compliance with policy the sources were all bad, mostly being churnalism. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 01:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The singer and musician is notable and his works has appeared in multiple magazines and meets the criteria here under number 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles the user Jéské Couriano has picked apart the article and basically ruined it by false claims of the paid press. Only god can say these pieces were paid for this is a keeper and the subject meets the criteria for notability. we have to understand that in the music industry this is how articles are written from a journalist's point of view. 100 percent of the time the journalist are fans of the artist so this is how the articles are written. The subject indeed is notable there is no reason to delete this. Wikipedia terms state a subject is notable if their works appear in multiple magazines or newspapers or online articles I see several from the subject. Again only God can say the articles were paid other than that. None of the sites offer such services to pay to be on their websites. This article should be kept the sources are not churnalism these journalists are fans of the artist and subject there is no way we can say that the subject is not notable.Godsentme1 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: [[User:User:Godsentme1|User:Godsentme1]] ([[User talk:User:Godsentme1|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/User:Godsentme1|contribs]]) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Comment: All refs and much of the content was removed before the AfD was filed. I restored the content and refs. The value of the refs can be challendged as part of the AfD process, but those (and the content) should not have been removed first. However, after restoring the refs, I deleted two Song BPM refs that contributed nothing of value toward notability. David notMD (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD It's too much going on here as I feel multiple accounts are being run and it's only one user doing all of this. At this point, there are over 5 accounts all attacking me which is run by one user on the site? How fair is that? Also simply because the article was erased like that and removed before being filed for an AFD proves that there is something extremely fishy going on. At this time I cannot believe that someone has the time to create and run multiple accounts and move like this on a site that is marked as the biggest encyclopedia in the world. The reviewer was never supposed to remove the content before the afd was filed? This game ends here I guess because now how am I supposed to go up against the power of the person who is behind all these accounts. I don't see that happening. The subject is notable I shouldn't have to go back and forth for hours about this when this was already accepted the first time. The user who accepted the first time said in the chat that it was borderline but definitely acceptable I say we take the deletion off and put it back. It may be borderline but the reviewer who accepted it even stated it was a pass and stated the previous reviewers who marked as declined made mistakes? So, please keep.Godsentme1 (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: No one is running multiple accounts. The editor who deleted material from the article and is participating in the AfD is an extremely experienced editor who has a expert understanding of what are and what are not valid, reliable source references. Know the bar for notability. As I wrote on your Talk page, improve the article, but do not attack/suspect other editors. David notMD (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Ok you said you removed 2 references that don't contribute to notability, so why didn't you remove the other links if they are not notable? I want us to all participating in this to pay close attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles the subject is notable under criteria 1 Hip hop music websites and magazines report news from staff and editors on the site. The person who started the deletion stated staff articles can't be accepted but this is the music industry where staff and editors write about the music artist. I think if we were talking about a sports subject or science subject then that would be different. Anyone participating in this takes a moment and see for yourself that hip-hop magazines and online websites report news from staff and editors who are admins of the website. I think the problem we are having is that you guys are thinking some form of pay is happening for these articles when these are legit and written by journalists who are independent of the subject. A staff of a credible magazine works for the magazine so how can't we count these? Again no attacks, I strongly again believe this is a keeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsentme1 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:Musician, non-notable singer, no charts, most of references fails WP:RS. 2402:3A80:10DC:3DA5:4D55:92E8:2851:A008 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Because the two refs I deleted had no redeeming value whatsoever (a website that provides beats per minute for songs) while the others are questionable. David notMD (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual, he's made music, but hasn't risen above the hundreds of others that have. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You don't need charts to be notable per Wikipedia guidelines there are many musicians that are on Wikipedia and they have never charted. Per Wikipedia guidelines here under criteria 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles the subject is notable. The subject was already approved because the reviewer stated it was a pass and nothing has changed still a pass. Per Wikipedia guidelines subject works appeared in multiple magazine articles and online articles we can't overlook this. Artists that subject produced for have never charted and they have live Wikipedia's. The subject is being targeted for deletion when he is clearly a notable musician. Charts are not the only thing that makes you notable. One of the users who's saying the sources are questionable was the same user on my talk page congratulating me when the article was approved now is here saying to delete there is some conflict of interest going on and we need real reviewers to take a look at this. Please go to my talk page and see the same user who says delete he was on my talk page saying congratulations. His exact words were "Congratulations!!" "steep learning curve but you made it!" A clear example that this deletion does not need to exist. Please see my talk page for proof. A lot of bias and wrong things occurring towards the subject. No attacks I am giving cold facts at this point. Something needs to be done subject is notable. Under option one "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself".[note 1]Godsentme1 (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Let us first deal with the AFC acceptance. As a reviewer myself I accept drafts that I believe have a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process. Although some drafts never see the light of "day" in main space, as soon as the draft is accepted the community gets an opportunity to make a determination. The community is made up of many people. The reviewer who accepts a draft is one editor. All reviewers understand that their acceptance my be challenged at AfD. This is normal, and healthy. This acceptance has been challenged, whcih is why we are here
The creating editor has made much of the fact that a reviewer accepted the draft. They need to get past that. This is now with the community to determine, and the actions of the highly experienced accepting reviewer are in the past, and are wholly irrelevant.
There are multiple criteria in WP:NMUSICIAN that allow acceptance. I've studied each of those and studied the referencing used to cite the facts presented the article. I have compared the article and the referencing to NMUSICIAN, and am not persuaded that it meets any of the numbered criteria within it (modified for context as stated in the overall guide to it). Thus I am certain in my view that the article should not remain here. I believe it to be WP:TOOSOON.
I recognise the creating editor's passionate attachment to their work. I am willing to reconsider if they either:
* enhance the article to show compliance and show that it then complies (WP:HEY apples)
* show clearly and briefly which numbered criterion they rely on and thereby change my mind
I apologise for the length of my opinion (irony).
tl;dr summary: The draft acceptance was in the past, and should be ignored. The article fails WP:NMUSICIAN. If it is improved to pass I can be persuaded to change my mind. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see they cite Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself above. I do not see it as passing that criterion. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable at this time as per WP:NMUSICIAN. Should be re-draftified at the very least. Geordie (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked the draft approver if they would do so; they explicitly endorsed AfD instead. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geordie, @Jéské Couriano, the creating editor deserves a full community verdict on whether to keep or to delete. I oppose draftification of this article because it will simply delay the inevitable multiple further AFC declines (a painful process when there is no hope) or a rejection, which follows multiple declines and resubmissions where there is no hope. Far better to delete now, perhaps as a soft delete, without prejudice to re-creation when the subject gains notability. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 00:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did my due diligence on the subject and all the sourcing I found were promotional pieces submitted by his marketing team. I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have his own Wikipedia article. Perhaps in the future! Wish him the best of success as a musician. Missvain (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Promotional pieces submitted by his marketing team wow how do you come up with these theories? Anyhow keep the subject meets the musician criteria to belong on Wikipedia besides it's only been one day since it's been nominated for deletion everyone here is attacking and making claims when no marketing team put these out at least two articles from the subject meets the criteria it may borderline at the time but it's still passing. Definitely a keep again I'm looking to fix the article up a little so everyone just relax and stop attacking it how can you make these false claims that his marketing team put these out when he doesn't even have a marketing team just me here which is his manager so sad but keeper thanks.Godsentme1 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear case of WP:TOOSOON. May be notable in a few years, but as of present there's not enough significant coverage out there in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. It should also be mentioned that the user desperately trying to have the article kept is a disclosed paid editor on behalf of the article's subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All claims made that he has worked with GLC, Chevy Woods, and King Chip; as well as featured on different magazines is also fake. I really have strong iiffy vibes that reviewer Primefac is involved in undisclosed paid editing here. 2402:3A80:10C1:96C1:E10D:BF8E:6476:8F06 (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You really think Primefac risked his reputation here for this article? Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable they coming up here attacking the subject saying he didn’t work with Chevy Woods, King Chip, or GLC this is public information. I’m disappointing in these discussions. The musician is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.101.199 (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC) — 76.1.101.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Disruptive comments by anonymous editor

Keep: they up here attacking the subject stating he did not produce or work with king chip, Chevy woods, or GLC? This is next level attacking here and it’s insane. The subject is clearly notable these crackers just don’t want to see a black man prevail. This is a case of racism and more. I hope the subject and the editor sue the entire wikimedia for damages on his name. I’m a witness that he’s being targeted and will testify in the court of law. The subject has been covered in multiple news sources independent of the subject?? What is this here? Also the creator of the article by right has 7 to 14 days to improve the article? But yet and still you people are saying delete the article now. The attacks here are really breaking the law. What about the fair chance to improve the article? (WP:HEY you people here need to go celebrate the holidays and stop committing crimes on an encyclopedia. It’s people here calling the subject all types of names which is against the law “Defamation” at the highest level. You people have lost it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.101.199 (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations of racism here are completely off-base, as is the implied legal threat. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it doesn't matter whether he has worked with notable people or not. Notability is not inherited. The sources are non-independent and/or puff pieces, and he clearly does not meet WP:NMUSIC much less WP:GNG. I have searched for better sources, but haven't found anything that would make him notable at this point. WP:TOOSOON. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but clearly they do not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICBIO. And as Bonadea as pointed out, notability is not inherited. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Heymann_Standard and will be enhanced and improved the subject has been doing music since a very young age and has had national radio play across the world. I just need to plug the info in. Again the subject is notable I'm currently enhancing the article it's been two days since it was nominated for deletion it will be fixed with the proper information thank you. The article will comply it's just was another case of (WP:HEY apples) at the time but it's currently being fixed to meet and comply with Wikipedia standards.Godsentme1 (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY is an essay, neither policy nor a guideline, but it doesn't apply anyway. The article is not in better shape now than it was when it was nominated. If it is kept, it will have to be heavily pruned. But despite the ridiculous amount of detail, there is still no claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 18:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, the early life section is appallingly sourced garbage..."Noble Peace Prize'!! Whole section should be removed it gives zero support to any notability and frankly looks like absolute desperation by COI editor to pad the article out. Theroadislong (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic discussion of paid status and more paragraphs of defence of the article

Theroadislong Hello good day. the early life section are events that happened in his life. There is no desperation because I am not getting paid money for this. Again the subject I manage because I believe in his music. I promise you there is no financial gain. If it was I would have no problem stated that seeing that I am already marked as a coi editor. The noble peace prize was a real event the subject won. His early life again is not designed for notability This information is all facts. I'm here because I believe in the subjects music not because of some piece of paper so serious, but many will continue to bash me. I personally know the subject so I can vouch for these events. There is no claim to notability in the early life. If it's a biography I felt we needed to include the real facts and the info. The subject has been played on major radio which also meets number eleven criteria here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles for that he is notable. The noble peace prize was an event that occurred in his early life. Also, it's not sourced garbage. It's from a credible source with editorial oversight. The source has been active online for over 12 years. I am not here to lie just here to fix and add the facts that were left out. Godsentme1 (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From your own userpage: "Godsentme1, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by AJDaGuru for their contributions to Wikipedia." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Trainsandotherthings that is because when I was creating the article I was not making edits to any other subject. So one of the editors came to me and told me I had to mark myself as a coi editor. Again I know the subject and Is not gaining one cent for this. But because I'm only focused on his article, I agreed to the editor to mark me as a coi editor. I know the subject life and can vouch for the information. It's all true and facts. Again If I was earning from this I would be honest and would not go back and forth with anyone. But I can swear on my life that a car can run me over the next minute that I am not getting paid any amount of money. This is strong belief in the subjects music and career. I know the subject personally and want to push for him out of love. Not from a piece of paper This is pure passion for the subject I cannot take money from him I've known the subject personally for more than 20 years. Again no dollar amount can fill or replace how much I believe in the subject not one single dollar. And that is my word, as a man that is all I have is my word and this is the true facts. If I was getting paid again I would just say it here I'm not child, I would never go against my word I was raised to stand on my word not be out here making up things and telling lies. Karma is real and I'm in no position to face that. That is why I do my best to be honest in everything I do. If money was being made there would not be a back and forth with me. I would have said that loudly if there was money involved. again I'm already marked as a coi editor so me trying to hide that would be pointless. I was there in the club when the subject music was playing nationally on radio he really was performing locally even after his song was charting at number one nationally I seen these events with my two eyes nothing I can guarantee and I mean nothing in the article is a fib or some random lie. I could not live me life knowing that lies was in there. If I noted he won the noble peace prize it's because he did. Not to claim notability, but it's a biography. Godsentme1 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsentme1, you said you were the article subject's manager. That means you're being paid to promote him. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't know where this Peace Prize nonsense came from, but according to the official list he has not received it.~~Primefac (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's something some elementary school teacher dreamed up for the best essay about MLK: the "Noble" Peace Prize. —valereee (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, definitely my mistake, Nobel ≠ Noble and I definitely misread it as the former. Nothing wrong with listing the latter prize, but it doesn't actually mean anything. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee I'm his manager by choice not by pay. Again I know the subject personally and money cannot define that. I'm a manager by choice. I can get up and leave today and not have a problem because again I'm not being paid for this. If I was my ancestors would haunt me for telling these bold face lies. This again is by choice to manage the subject. Some people do run off of passion in the world, and money does not move me. It's a piece of paper and my integrity is way higher than that. Also (talk) yes it was a prize given to him by a kindergarten teacher There was no claim to notability for that, It does mean something if it happened in his life it's a biography that type of info is needed. The subject is notable by way of his music being played on major radio on a national level and holding the number one spot for four weeks straight.Godsentme1 (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I could have sworn I voted here earlier but apparently not. Subject is a non-notable musician. The bludgeoning and disruption here doesn't make a great case for keeping either, plus I was on IRC while they were (and Jéské too) and the threats (both legal and not) and personal attacks issued there meant that they eventually got kicked. Thanks for blocking, GN – this is a waste of time. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've created a source assessment table at Talk:AJDaGuru to help the article creator understand what we're looking for. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears as though there's a concerted effort to fabricate sources to try and save the article. See https://bridgemusicmagazine.com/ajdaguru-is-one-of-the-hardest-working-musicians-in-the-game/ and then compare [53] (only snapshot is from Boxing Day) and [54] (No "editorial staff" link or identifiable authors until the next crawl on Boxing Day). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 09:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has been WP:TOOSOON from the beginning. At one point there was mention of a not-yet-released album. Perhaps try again after that is released and reviewed. David notMD (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Big keep~~: Go look at the articles talk page I see editor pointed out over 5 pages that’s on Wikipedia right now that don’t belong on the platform and is not notable. Something fishy is going on.🐠 If Ajdaguru is not notable then 75 percent of these articles on the website is not notable. I seen from my own two eyes 👀 articles with dead links and one reference including interviews of subjects. But I see the editor being told that he can’t use interviews. There is a ton of bias things happening here and the subject has been played on national radio. I’m back again to say something is wrong here stop attacking the editor and subject and keep the article. Look at the articles editor pointed out on the talk page go see for yourself half those articles can’t contend with Ajdaguru. Wikipedia should not be bias if they are going to be bias then get rid of this website because that’s not what a encyclopedia is built on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.101.199 (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC) — 76.1.101.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This argument is a nonstarter. You also don't need to reiterate your position, we got that you want to keep the page from your last argument. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has some coverage, for example [55] and [56] and [57] but they look kind of PR'ish. I think he is on the cusp of making it, so I think it is a case WP:TOOSOON, at the moment, as his social media presence is low, while two of his songs are streaming well, but for small crowd. The refs that are there are of a similar type. Too early I think. scope_creep^Talk 10:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What is this a gang up the music artist is clearly notable there is radio play and coverage on him wow can't even believe there is a arguememt here? No way! How do we have all these delete's? I'm lost here he has been played on radio and has platinum mixtape on Datpiff.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.247.163.98 (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC) — 91.247.163.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep See someone say pr the artist have coverage that I noticed that don't look like pr? Look like a crew came together to get this article out of here so many delete and he have air play wuh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.247.163.226 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Duplicate vote by IP struck. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Her Defense

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

Article fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV; found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a not particularly notable direct to video movie which does not satisfy WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One reliable review, at CineMagazine [58] DonaldD23 talk to me 12:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the only review in a RS is in a Dutch outlet for a Canadian film starring two prominent American actors, that's a pretty good indicator that this passed by with minimal notice. In other words, fails the WP:42 test. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources for it to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Browns Canyon National Monument. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Browns Canon, Colorado

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

Deprodded with "Notable enough to have a page in the Geographic Names Information System; why does Wikipedia have to have a higher standard for notability?" Yes, Wikipedia does in fact have a higher standard for notability because the WP:GNIS does not determine notability at all, it's merely a database of any name that has ever appeared on a map. They have no discretion in determining "notability" and quite frequently make mistakes in their classification! The topo map that the GNIS took its data from clearly shows just a site on the railroad. Several newspapers.com results mentioning the location near Browns Canyon, often as "Browns canon" with lowercase c, without establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 01:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Browns Canyon National Monument per WP:CHEAP. FOARP (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and GEOLAND. Avilich (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In deprodding, the original author of this article said "why does Wikipedia have to have a higher standard for notability," which is still a question we can ask after 20 years of this project. But still, putting that aside, I see "Browns Canon" is listed as a subdivision of Chaffee County on the 1930 U.S. census and at least as far back at 1900. [59]. It also had a post office from 1888-98 and 1904-08. So it may well be notable, I haven't dug too much.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post offices and census-tracts are not evidence of legal recognition. One is a business that could be operated off someone's porch, or as part of a store, the other is simply an accounting-unit for population within a larger community. FOARP (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to Browns Canyon National Monument per WP:ATD unless significant sourcing can be uncovered. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djabal Club d'Iconi}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Barnard}}