Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 07	July 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Un aliado en el tiempo

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

Non-notable short film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFILM. The minor awards this won from film festivals are just not enough. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:29, 13 July 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 23:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Ginty

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

Unsuccessful candidate fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 22:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obscure ideologue, has lost a few races, obtained nothing but routine mentions in a horserace style. Fails any test of notability I can think of. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Easily fails WP:NPOL. and meets no other notability criteria. Curbon7 (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL not met.Tec Tom (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Creator This is an article created more than 15 years ago that hasn't improved with time to meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by KidAd, they are extremely competent in political related topics. Celestina007 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, you're too kind. KidAd • SPEAK 01:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd, thanks, although there are some editors who wouldn’t agree with you on that and argue that I’m a mean an evil witch, it’s refreshing to hear someone call me kind. Thanks mate. Celestina007 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates for state legislature are never notable for that fact. While in a few cases actual winners of the nomination for senate are notable, people who loose in the prmary for senate are virtually never notable. There is clearly not the truly indepdth coverage of Ginty to make him one of the super extremely rare exceptions to these rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Lost badly in his only race. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 15 July 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 01:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Shadow (2019 film)

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

Does not pass WP:NFILM, all a search brought up was a single review listed on Rotten Tomatoes, which cannot even be accessed anymore. All other sources found were either about a 2018 documentary or a 2020 Australian novel. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything beyond the one review either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:41, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To be frank, even though I created the article, I feel I have only half a dog in this fight, that's why I created it as a stub, hoping people with more knowledge of the movie business might help expand it. It doesn't help that I don't know a great deal about LGBTQ+ movies. I came across the movie on Showtime, where it features in the Pride collection. Googling it, I found little info, but thought this might be one of those movies that missed out on a lot of chances because of the Covid pandemic, and thought someone with more knowledge of movie and LGBTQ+ media might "rescue" the article. What persuaded me to watch it was that Tess Harper is in it. Guess I haven't made much of a case for notability here. == Peter NYC (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a relevant LGBTQ+ Wiki project where there might be people with more knowledge? Sorry to sound like an idiot... == Peter NYC (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter NYC, WikiProject LGBT studies might be a good place to ask for help. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some automated process notified me -- I only just noticed -- that it won the Best Louisiana Feature Award at the 2019 New Orleans Film Festival. Should count for some notability. == Peter NYC (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked down the review: it's by Claudia Puig, reviewing it for NPR’s Film Week, and I linked to it. The film won an "Honourable Mention" jury award in the "Best LGBTQIA+ Feature" category at the 2020 Oxford Film Festival. == Peter NYC (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I did a lot of researching but I have not found any coverage from reliable sources yet. It did win an award and the cast seems notable, but the article is lacking that coverage unfortunately. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for hopefully some more viewpoints.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:53, 8 July 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 23:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All in the Game

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a one-off film with an article that doesn't even try to claim notability. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very little on the web as far as I can see, there is an entry at filmaffinity one review here and one more hit at some database website called salty popcorn! I don't know about off-line sources. Govvy (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Nitesh003 (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to have had little coverage and made little impact so it would not seem to meet notability standards. Dunarc (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero references, and unlikely to find much. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 15 July 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. Sandstein 09:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chat-Avenue

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

There have been PROD and speedy attempts in the past, let's see what folks here at AfD make of this...

This chat site may be well-established and popular, but I cannot find any proper secondary RS coverage of it, so I'm moving for deletion on notability grounds — fails WP:GNG / WP:WEBSITE.

That said, TBH it does get some media attention, but it seems all to do with paedophile sting operations etc., and even then in local press only, so I don't know if any of that counts as sigcov. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability (WP:GNG) grounds - no RS coverage beyond, as pointed out, local media paedophile sting stuff. It's not even the world's oldest chat room, so there's no excuse to name check it in the Chat room article, even. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources and presumed notability grounds- Chat Avenue is by far one of the oldest and most popular community chat websites on the web (even existing before Facebook, Omegle and Chatroulette). A considerable amount of media-related coverages have also been aired by leading publications such as the BBC and Reddit— with articles dating back to decades ago. There are also many new articles over the past couple decades that mention "Chat Avenue" by name without giving further information. Any individual searching for more information regarding Chat Avenue would discover it here. The deletion of this article would suggest deleting every page linked here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chat_websites in addition to thousands of other articles categorised specifically for chat sites. There have been multiple PROD and speedy deletions attempts in the past which were all rejected. Reeebsss (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)— Reeebsss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Presumed notability'? 'One of the oldest chat websites'? These are not policy grounds. And deletion of this article has nothing to do with the others listed in the chat websites one. As for whether previous speedy or PROD attempts were successful has no bearing on this AfD. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added recent secondary RS coverage. Chat Avenue IS mentioned by many publications (not just some local ones as you claim) and has a very long and extensive history at that. Many of the articles mention chat avenue by name only without much details. A wikipedia article would clear that up for those people and provide some usefulness to this already popular site. Previously speedy deletion and PROD attempts shows that this article has been reviewed before. Bringing this back up yet again would be redundant and questionable, IMO. --Reeebsss (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just stumbled on this now. Definitely keep. This website is extremely popular and makes headlines often. Many senior editors have edited this article in the past without seeing the need for a deletion. I noticed RS were added recently, so i think it meets the necessary requirements of remaining. Anniehh13 (talk) 03:34, 03 July 2021 (UTC)— Anniehh13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist. This needs some more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's got significant coverage in a reliable source, seems good enough to me. Mlb96 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 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 23:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Lancashire and District Football League

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

Similar case to Guildford and Woking Alliance League in that it does not meet WP:FOOTYN, the WikiProject guideline, and WP:GNG, the main guideline. Google News and Google Books are both coming back with very little. The best I could find were Westmorland Gazette, LG1 and LG2 all of which are examples of trivial, local coverage.

Searching newspaper archives for "North Lancs Football League" and "North Lancashire and District Football League" returns nothing better than basic results and fixture listings, the occasional AGM writeup and a bunch of articles which barely mention the league. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having lived in that area for several years, I totally agree that it is not notable. --Bduke (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like a lot of other leagues at this level, they fails basic GNG. Govvy (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:25, 12 July 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 23:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moneta digital (MMXN)

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:ORG and invariably has no WP:ORGDEPTH. The organization was established this year thus WP:TOOSOON applies here. Furthermore a before search links me to self published sources, user generated sources and sources without editorial oversight. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - promotional crypto guff, churnalism at best, no WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Gerard as borderline WP:SPAM, and as a run of the mill alternative currency. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 15 July 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 23:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Star Life

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

Programming list for a channel in South Africa which only airs Indian content from Star India, and is completely duplicative of List of programmes broadcast by StarPlus. Airing dates are vague-waved guesses and non-specific, 'sources' claimed in the article are just generic weekly soap summaries or fansites. Redirect attempts and PROD refused by creating editor, thus here we are. Nate • (chatter) 20:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Television programme lists should be limited to original programming and it appears none of these shows are original, the are all acquired from Star India. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary creation. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nominator and reasons above Ravensfire (talk) 20:16, 12 July 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 23:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Brandt

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY (has only played in the non-fully pro German 4th division). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's plenty of other players who have only played in the fourth tier who have wikipedia pages Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ajax.amsterdam.fan: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Those articles maybe pass WP:GNG, which this article does not. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from the sources presented and from a German source search, fails WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I am a dumb American, can anyone inform me on the reliability of the German publications in this GNews search. One of them has Brandt as the main topic, others talk about or mention him as part of events. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one that has Brandt as a main topic appears to be a transfer announcement (from what I can see of it, as it's paywalled) in a local paper and the other articles only seem to mention him in passing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guidelines. Please inform us of the other articles about 4th-tier players so they can be deleted too. Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:38, 12 July 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 speedy delete. Having checked the history of the article and also searched online for information about the expression, I am convinced that this is either a hoax or WP:MADEUP, and in either case it should be speedily deleted. At a couple of months short of 12 years, this is probably by far the longest surviving hoax article I have seen. A sobering reminder that Wikipedia is a highly unreliable source. JBW (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBOB

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

This article has been uncited since 2008, and I cannot find any results for this term outside of Wikipedia itself and circular sources citing Wikipedia, or just the sentence "[…] just a bunch of bytes". An IP on the article's talk page suggested it might even be a hoax. Either way, if this is not a hoax, I reckon it is likely not notable enough for its own article anyway, unless notability can be established. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Tagging WP:G3. Seems to be WP:MADEUP as there's no sources using the word prior to the creation of the page. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:33, 8 July 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. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 16:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marabar Caves

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

Not seeing how this justifies a separate article from A Passage to India, the whole article is just an extended plot summary Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see that this could readily redirect to Barabar Caves - the movie itself incidentally was shot in southern India - Savandurga and Ramanagaram. Shyamal (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Fails GNG. Redirect if the term is mention in another article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC) PS. Changing to weak keep after reviewing sources from A&H below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Admittedly a bit unusual for a fictional setting, but there's a lot of coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and that's just from the first page of Google Scholar results. The article could be rewritten to focus more on these critical debates and a lot less on the plot summary, but it's a notable topic. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Arms & Hearts Can you provide evidence of SIGCOV that goes beyond google hits? I've looked at the first paper (HOLLINGSWORTH 1962) and while it uses the name of this location in the title, it contains no discussion of it - just two or three mentions in passing. It is not uncommon for an entity to be mentioned here and there while not being notable due to nobody bothering to actually discuss it. Arguably the second (Clubb 1963) has some SIGCOV ("The importance of the Marabar Caves is indicated by the emphasis given them in the opening chapter... the Marabar Caves are modeled on those of the Barabar Hills near Gaya... The ultimate mystery of the Marabar Caves, the mystery behind the existence of conscious spirit in the universe, is beyond the powers of the human intellect to solve"), as does the third (Shahane 1985: "The vast spaces and immensities of the landscape of the Marabar caves only reinforce the Zen Buddhist concept of space"), so I am changing my vote to Weak keep. But it would be much easier if you were to provide your analysis of the sources here instead of just google hits, and when your list of sources starts with a source that is shown to be irrelevant it weakness people's motivation to review the subsequent ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: I'm not sure Hollingsworth 1962 is as irrelevant if you think. It's true that if you search the text for "Marabar caves" only a handful of mentions come up, but that's because the author tends to use the more natural "the caves" to refer to the location instead. The purpose of the article is fairly clearly laid out in the first paragraph as offering an interpretation of the symbolism of the caves. I haven't read the entirety of all the papers I linked (for lack of time and because I'd like to read the novel one day and don't want to spoil it for myself) but avoided linking any that didn't seem likely to contain substantial discussion, based on abstracts or introductory paragraphs. It's possible I'm wrong on one or two, but in that fairly unlikely turn of events we'd still be left with five or six peer-reviewed scholarly articles published over the course of decades, i.e. very good evidence for significant coverage. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Arms & Hearts, Fair enough. And in case it wasn't clear, I do want to thank you for finding sources for rescuing that. We, the Wikipedians, too often have a habit of saying "you could have done it better" without saying "thanks for doing something in the first place" :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arms & Hearts.4meter4 (talk) 04:51, 8 July 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)} 16:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs cleanup and citations but the subject itself appears to be notable looking at the references provided by Arms & Hearts. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:53, 13 July 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 17:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Shopno Tumi

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

Non-notable film, cannot find significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The fews results I got in searches mentioned a song with this name, not the film. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches of the usual Google types and of my own collection of several dozen books and articles about Bangladeshi film, including by name in Bengali script, found only a few passing mentions.[8][9][10] Fails WP:NFILM. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmood.Husain (talk • contribs) 00:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no sources, that proves the notability of this film. Nitesh003 (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM with zero reliable sources. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:52, 15 July 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 17:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Crush

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

Non-notable unreleased film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM, especially non-notable as an unreleased film. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This film was never even released. We would need better sourcing than this to justify having the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:15, 13 July 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. Nearlyevil665's analysis has remained uncontested. Sandstein 17:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Silva

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

Notability concerns for a knife thrower who appeared on a TV talent show. Sources are dubious (Facebook, Youtube), or are just TV listings. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing to suggest a pass of WP:GNG. nearlyevil 665 14:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per norm, the links i found are not WP:RS. Slovenichibo (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is actually a lot better RS on them from USA Today ([11]), Good House Keeping ([12]), Entertainment Weekly ([13]), Newsweek ([14]), etc. No opinion as to whether that makes them notable. 4meter4 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per 4meter4, the references mentioned are enough to pass WP:SIGCOV, the article may be kept per WP:THREE. Chirota (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking further comment on posted sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @4meter4:

Entertainment Weekly ([3]): Routine run-off-the-mill coverage of their performance at the AGT. No Wikipedia:SIGCOV.

USA Today ([1]): Another routine run-off-the-mill coverage of same performance at the AGT.

Newsweek ([4]): This mentions Alfredo once in an article that isn't about him or his duo.

Good House Keeping ([2]): Seems to cover Alan Silva more than Alfredo Silva. Even the header reads 'Who is Alan Silva?". nearlyevil 665 09:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking those, NE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:50, 13 July 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 11:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Harvey (musician)

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

Note that this article makes no statement of notability. The musician can be found in some movie/TV credits, but that is probably not his full-time job with 8 movie composition credits in 25 years and 4 songwriting credits in 27 years. For sources, I was only able to find one gig announcement [15] while he is sometimes mentioned in stories about his father [16]. I can find nothing more significant and reliable per the requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN, and he is only visible in basic directory listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCOMPOSER WP:NMUSICIAN and GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:48, 8 July 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 13:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amasa Wright

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

Unsourced for years, was turned into a redirect in December for notability concerns. The redirect was taken to RfD (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 30#Amasa Wright), which resulted in the article being restored without making a decision on notability. 3 of the 4 participants wanted it taken to AfD to decide where it should be added. I can't find any sourcing which actually verifies the claims made in this stub. There was a person by this name with his nephew who purchased some property and then later sold it. But the sourcing I found is unclear where it was located, and if he did subdivide it to "create" the city of Chicago. Definitely could not find enough about him to warrant a standalone article, and without better clarity on what his actual role was, not sure of an appropriate redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see that he is briefly mentioned in some books of Chicago history, but I think this article overstates his importance. Jean Baptiste Point du Sable is celebrated as the "founder" of Chicago, and James Thompson is known for making the first plat of Chicago. Amasa Wright may have been a landowner of some sort, but he's not widely remembered in Chicago, and I don't think there's enough information available to support an article. Alfred T. Andreas' History of Chicago lists something like 17 Wrights in its index, but no Amasa. Of course, if someone can scrounge up more information, I'd be happy to change my mind. I am curious what the Willis Tower says (or said) in their display. Zagalejo (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing does not really support the claim. As stated by Zagalejo James Thompson was the person who created the first plat of Chicago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -MJ (talk) 02:39, 15 July 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kashdan

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

Seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, with the 1E being the scandal reported by the Washington Post. That WaPo citation is the only WP:RS in the entire article. The rest of the sources are WP:PRIMARY (papers he wrote, contributor profiles, blogs, YouTube, etc). Does not meet any of the bullet points in WP:NACADEMIC. My own searching didn't find anything useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be clearly in the minority here, so I'll withdraw the nomination to save everybody time. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google Scholar profile looks to me like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, even in a high citation field -- there are several articles with around 1000 citations, including first authored (in a field where that matters). He's also published several books, and WP:NAUTHOR looks plausible: reviews include [17] [18] on a short search. His Psychology Today profile [19] also lists some fellowships in scholarly associations which might pass WP:NPROF C3, although I didn't verify them. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PROF#1, he has a h-index of 96, including 3 works with over 1,000 citation in which he is the first author.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with the case for WP:PROF#C1 articulated above, he also has a weak case for WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he passes WP:PROF#C1, even in a high-citation field. I was able to verify his Fellow status in the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science and in the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, but not in the Association for Psychological Science; their directory seems to only be searchable by members. I don't know if those would pass WP:PROF#C3, but I wouldn't rule it out (to my recollection, they simply haven't come up before). WP:AUTHOR also looks plausible, per book reviews added by David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up Done - I am going to try to address the tags on the article. It seems like profiles (likely written by the subject of the article) from magazines, etc. and his web page are used as sources. I am going to see what I can come up with after cleaning it up first and if it looks like saving.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After swapping in better sources and adding some content, I vote to keep. It would be great if someone could check what I have written - I am a bit foggy today. But it seems like there could be much more added by checking out where his research is referenced in other studies. There's a lot more in newspaper articles, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above. --hroest 00:22, 13 July 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 13:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alibi (2007 film)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 02:01, 13 July 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nakul Roshan Sahdev

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

Fails WP:NACTOR Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Logs: 2021-03 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 8 July 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 withdrawn by nominator. ✗plicit 11:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greenmuseum.org

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

Unsourced article about a now-defunct website. Tagged as {{advert}} since 2013. I read previous AFD discussions in 2011 and 2013 as giving it the "benefit of the doubt" given that it was still active. There are admittedly a few mentions in news/scholar/books/ProQuest but as far as I can tell, it's almost always passing mentions, footnotes or works by its founder Sam Bower. All in all, does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. JBchrch talk 10:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Substantial improvement by Netherzone. Still unsure about technical notability but there's no harm in keeping the good work of a neutral and competent editor. JBchrch talk 16:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 10:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 10:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 10:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I feel like there should be something out there, which I know isn't a valid argument for keeping. But I'm running into the same issues as the nom with much of the coverage being limited to papers by/interviews with the founders and others associated with the project. Want to keep looking though and hope I can find something, but at the moment doesn't appear to meet WEBCRIT, as stated. Star Mississippi 13:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://www.visualartsource.com/index.php?page=editorial&pcID=17&aID=401 provides some decent coverage that is not just "in passing", or "mere mention". 1866 words. I have not (yet) been able to find anything that has been written since its closure that discusses the museum's lasting impact or legacy. Vexations (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The GreenMuseum actually was a "thing": an online museum yes, but mainly an online clearinghouse for information about environmental and ecological art, artists and "toolkits" for ecoart pedagogical practices. They had a lot of influence internationally in the short period of time they operated. The org has been defunct for a number of years so I'm not sure how much is still online, but from a quick BEFORE search, here are some things.... a simple Google Books search finds many book hits:[20], if I search with the founder's name "Sam Bower Greenmuseum" I get these:[21] hits on google scholar[22], over 20 hits on JSTOR[23], ~~I'm also finding hits on newspapers.com[24].~~ Netherzone (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Netherzone your JSTOR results are part of what I ran into thinking there should be something. The museum's work was relatively well cited, but I haven't yet found much depth. It feels like a mix of academic/org guidelines are a better fit than web criteria, but they're not exact either. Star Mississippi 14:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Star Mississippi, yes, and another way to think about it would be as an extended socially engaged art project or Relational artwork of the founder, Sam Bower -- like a work of social sculpture. Netherzone (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing is that WP:ORGCRIT is even more stringent that WP:WEBCRIT. WP:NJOURNALS only applies to journals publishing scholarly material, which the greenmuseum was not specialized in. Maybe just WP:GNG then... JBchrch talk 15:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not in favour of turning AfD into an exercise of applying the notability guidelines as stringently as possible. Guidelines are not firm rules that need rigorous enforcement. The presumption of notability is just that. What really matters is verifiability: Do we have enough sources to sustain an article, not whether we can find a set of criteria that we can somehow meet, while ignoring another set. What is far more important than the guidelines is whether greenmuseum.org was the subject of a critical discourse. (Did people who matter discuss it as something that mattered?). I lean towards yes. Vexations (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Vexations, I don't think we disagree. I don't see a way this passes Web criteria, so looking for other means it could pass. The cited element of academic, fort example. I do think notability is more than verifiability, it existed, did enough people take notice? In depth coverage still seems TBD, although we're beginning to find sources. Star Mississippi 15:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article has just been stuffed. Delete the thing. Inadequate references. 22:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
Keep - The article sourcing has been improved, meets WP:GNG. There is probably enough out there to also support an article on the founder & executive director, Sam Bower. See article for improvements. Here is a five page article I just found about the online museum and some of its online exhibits in the journal Public Art Review[25]] - see pages 52-55. There are other resources out there as well for further development. Netherzone (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been improved to the point where we now have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 16:02, 10 July 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. No argument provided for a redirect. ✗plicit 11:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global warring

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

I don't see any indication that any of these is ever called "global warring". A Google search for the term mostly gets articles about Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic, and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map by Cleo Paskal. There's some case, then, to redirect this to Paskal's article, but a) the book isn't mentioned there and b) this is much more likely going to be an autocorrect error for "global warming", meaning that it's better to let the search engine sort this out for people. (If Global war were a DAB I'd say to redirect this there, but it redirects to World war, and retargeting this to that would probably necessitate a hatnote.) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 09:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weird term that isn't used by historians, journalists or probably anyone else. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I kind of wish this term was used more often as synonym for global wars, but unfortunately it isn't, so Delete. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World war. My very best wishes (talk) 19:42, 14 July 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 17:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian involvement in the Syrian civil war

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

Hoax article that portrays rumors as fact based on deprecated sources such as Anatolia Agency Viewsridge (talk) 09:17, 30 June 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 June 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The most problematic inclusions have been removed since the creation of this AfD. The article is certainly notable, and there are plenty of reliable sources that exist ([26][27][28][29], these were literally the first 4 on Google). Curbon7 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All four of those refs only make mention of Egypts vocal support / recognition of Syrian Government. There are dozens of other countries that follow suit eg North Korea, Venezuela that don't need their own article about their "involvement" in the war. There is only one deprecated source about Egypts involvement in the conflict. Furthermore the infobox is considering Egypt a belligerent. Viewsridge (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viewsridge, If the infobox is a problem, then just be bold and remove it yourself. Regarding the sources, the ones I provided here are fine, but if you really want, here are a few more [30][31][32] that show that Egypt's involvement is clearly of notability. Involvement is not necessarily militarily, but also diplomatically, economically, etc. On the other hand, as you brought up, Venezuela and North Korea's involvement is so miniscule that theirs are non-notable (and regardless, that argument is Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST), but this AfD is not about Venezuela or North Korea, it's about Egypt. And the sources that exist show that this easily passes WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, with the hoaxes such as belligerently removed the article is three sentences wrong and not worthy of an article. Viewsridge (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viewsridge, Just because an article is a stub does not disqualify it from being on Wikipedia so long as it is notable and reliable sources exist, which they do. Curbon7 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for notability concerns, but also per WP:TNT. The fact that so much content has been removed is indicative of the fact that this article just needs to start over. If someone wants to write this article, they can take up that responsibility. But an article like this is really just not acceptable. Also, if there even is any good coverage, it can be added to an existing Syrian Civil War article. versacespace leave a message! 06:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I don't want to bite a newcomer, I do believe that articles like this one hurt Wikipedia. There is simply no evidence that Egypt is in any way "involved" in the war in Syria. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:50, 10 July 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 Oganesson#Predicted compounds. czar 04:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OgTs₄

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

Deprodded while providing only a primary source for this predicted compound of two elements too unstable to conduct chemical experiments. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak ~~delete~~keep Normally I would want to delete articles about theoretical things that only one publication exists for. But there is also this: https://cen.acs.org/physical-chemistry/theoretical-chemistry/Introducing-oganesson-tetratennesside/99/i23 a secondary publication on it. However if the popular press pick up on it, then I would change vote to keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not a chemist. I encountered the topic through a Finnish popular tech magazine article. Cyberixae (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK given that article, I change my vote to weak keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I was the one who deprodded this, and based on the information above, I agree it's a weak keep. Walter Loveland, the individual who published the research on this is an absolute powerhouse in nuclear chemistry and am very apt to trust work he's done. Though a single primary source is not enough on it's own, that was enough to make me deprod it. With the finding of an article in a tech magazine that tips me over to a weak keep point as well. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 19:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Oganesson#Predicted_compounds. Some sources exist but there is not enough coverage for an independent article. Polyamorph (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. It's not yet seen, but it reasonably predicted Bearian (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a fascinating theoretical possibility, but it remains just a possibility. In particular, this possible compound can only exist if the calculations are correct, and in the absence of corroborating documentation I don't think we can take this for granted. Don't get me wrong: if this compound is found to exist it will definitely merit its own article as the first of a family of superheavy stable compounds, but right now we have no empirical evidence for its existence and only one theoretical paper. This simply doesn't meet our criteria. RomanSpa (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oganesson#Predicted compounds, as suggested by Polyamorph. I find the arguments in favour of deletion unpersuasive considering that we have a perfect place to merge this into. Likewise, I think the arguments in favour of keeping the article are undercut significantly by the existence of a perfect merge target. Merging seems to me an ideal solution. TompaDompa (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. It's clearly not notable enough for a standalone article, but the underlying research is legit, and there exists a proper article for merging. Tercer (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oganesson#Predicted compounds as suggested above. There already is some relevant material in that section, including a theory paper from 1999. XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 12 July 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. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Shortland

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:PROF or the WP:GNG. The references in the article are either passing mentions or non-independent sources and I can't find any more substantial coverage. – Joe (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as creator, appears in many references ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] to name several --Sputnik12 (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick observation: the ScienceDaily and Phys.org items are press releases, and the Daily Mail is deprecated. I wasn't able to check the Economist and Telegraph stories from my current computer, but all of the other items are passing mentions (and possibly not independent — churning press releases seems likely). XOR'easter (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now been able to check the Economist and Telegraph stories as well, and they are also brief, passing mentions. As WP:PROF says, being quoted occasionally is part of an academic's job. If there's a notability case to be made, it's not through the news. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Weak keep. While I don't buy GNG or WP:NPROF C7, I do see plenty of journal articles with 100s of citations (including first/last-authored in a field where that matters) in what I believe to be a lower citation field. I think it's enough for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andrew J Shortland is covered with google scholar and scopus. He also is found in jstor.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are valid arguments, practically every single published researcher can be found in google scholar, scopus, and jstor, none of which are evidence of notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics this information may help with that. The Scopus group is selective with their database and will not accept just any publisher or any work.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes WP:NPROF#1 with 9 paper with > 100 citations according to Microsoft Academic. Plus multiple quotes (even though passing) in outlets such as Economist etc. --hroest 00:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Shortland is first author on only four of those. And the rule of thumb I've always heard is ten papers with >100 citations (or one with >1000) passes C1. Though never understand how, in practice, such an arbitrary standard is supposed to translate into the ability to write an article that doesn't rely completely on affiliated sources. Or how one would do that from a collection of short quotes in newspapers, for that matter. – Joe (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - My understanding is that citation counts needed varry by discipline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - In example, in theology and church history, people do not have the same citation count as in fields like biology, because the density of publication in the field is so much lower -there are many fewer than 1% as many journals and papers, and correspondingly few opportunities for even the most notable person to be cited.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are no hard rules and it does depend a lot on the field. In a low citation field like this 9 papers with > 100 citations is impressive. It would be much less so in Genomics or high energy physics. Also the standard WP:NPROF#1 does not translate into having RS or "ability to write an article" but simply whether an academic had a substantial impact on a field and therefore likely should have an article. Lastly, Shortland is *last author* on some of these articles, which is arguably as relevant (lead PI), meaning he was the head of the lab and directed the research eg for Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt and DISCOVERY, PRODUCTION AND USE OF TIN-BASED OPACIFIERS IN GLASSES, ENAMELS AND GLAZES FROM THE LATE IRON AGE ONWARDS: A REASSESSMENT. --hroest 18:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability always comes down to the ability to write an article that conforms to our core content policies. That's what notability means and that's what the "N" in NPROF stands for. I have no problem with heuristics like this, but they're not actually in WP:NPROF and, given how subjective they are (archaeological science might be a "low citation field" compared to physics, but it's a "high citation" field compared to theology), ultimately there has to be the ability to substantiate a presumption of notability with actual sources to write an actual article.
    By the way, the PI-as-final-author convention is not always followed in archaeology. The paper on the radiocarbon chronology of Egypt, for example, was part of project directed by Christopher Bronk Ramsey, the head of the Oxford radiocarbon lab, where Shortland had previously been a PhD student and research fellow. Again, our presumptions about significance are not worth as much as sources. – Joe (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm interesting, you are correct in the Science article indeed the first author is the corresponding author. I agree that here the source situation is not great, since independent sources are mostly missing, even if notability is established. However within WP:NPROF there is an agreement that non-independent faculty pages such as this (see General Notes) can be used to write the article, so that should hopefully provide at least a useful stub. Regarding his impact on the field, it seems you are much more qualified to judge this than I am and feel free to advance an argument based on that; but "lack of sources" is not the main issue here. --hroest 15:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:NACADEMIC #1 and probably #5 as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 13:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as creator per previous comments and above comments on citations showing significant impact in field of research , especially 9 papers with > 100 citations is impressive ... Shortland is *last author* on some of these articles, which is arguably as relevant (lead PI), meaning he was the head of the lab and directed the research eg for 1 and 2 by hroest. Sputnik12 (talk) 18:44, 21 July 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 17:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Segmented file transfer

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

This page has no references at all and all sources I could find online are basically a laughing stock. There is no such thing as "non-segmented" file transfer because data stream segmentation is necessary for processing any file of reasonable size. In practice, this means that software must support "segmented" mode and "non-segmented" transfer is just a transfer with only one segment. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Anton.bersh (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: It might be worthwhile to redirect Segmented file transfer to somewhere in FTP or HTTP.

I see material online which is called "Segmented file transfer" but it is just low-effort blog spam.

https://ijcset.net/docs/Volumes/volume6issue12/ijcset2016061201.pdf (I'm sorry for whoever had to write basically a generic blog post and format it as a research article)
https://aatayyab.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/multi-threaded-vs-segmented-file-transfer-ftp/

Anton.bersh (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or soft delete: (with recommendation for use of alternative title if seeking to return a suitably and properly cited version to mainspace) While in the context of the primary article name of Segmented file transfer I might agree with the nom. but if looking at article in the context of the alternative names multisource file-transfer or swarming file-transfer then that may be more appropriate. Is the nom. a "laughing stock" for not showing the alternative names have been considered in their BEFORE? At brief glance the subject appears to be more focusing on parallelization/distributed techniques beyond those of the transport layer. Lack of references in the article is the big issue and indeed it is more of, or in fact perhaps totally, an opinion essay which will be difficult to cite as written. I'm not considering a Transwiki but if another does a credible and viable volunteer on that I'd probably not oppose it. Possibly notable if renamed and may re-purposed slightly, stubifying might help to avoid issues. Not sure I would work on this one, possibly/probably not.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: To sum up, this article needs to be renamed to have a specific focus, then all irrelevant content needs to be removed and all unsourced content sourced and what is not sourceable, POV or factually incorrect needs to be removed. Since there is literally zero sources, this rewrite is basically WP:TNT with extra steps.

Since this article is mostly sourced from images and facts pulled from other pages, I propose an easy way out via deletion of the article and creation of a new article under appropriate names. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: If you are volunteering to commit your resource into a WP:TNT that's fine, please make this explicitly clear. If you are proposing to volunteer someone else's resource then also make that clear. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark: I'm volunteering to creating a disambiguation page in place of "Segmented file transfer" which would direct reader to a specific place in relevant articles, including FTP, BitTorrent, HTTP, and other protocols which have features that can be described as "segmented file transfer". To be clear, this would essentially remove all existing content of the article. I believe it is the right move because right now article has no verifiable content relevant to its current name. Anton.bersh (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: If you're intention is to achieve the disambig page by editing a new revision that's fine by me (I - and I may be the only one - would regard that as a variant of WP:STUBIFY) welcome that. If the intention the the existing page incarnation is deleted and you were to create revision one of a new incarnation in its place with none of the previous history then I'd be looking at a stubify - possibly after a draftication and rename. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: well, I think you have a point. Fixing this is "WP:TNT with extra steps" indeed. I would offer a little bit of help with fixing/remaking this article (I think this topic is not as relevant as it was several years ago), but would not be the one making it happen. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BernardoSulzbach: I would appreciate any help, including links to reliable sources. I just could not find any good sources, hence this AfD. What do you think of my proposal below/above? Anton.bersh (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: (replying for completeness) I don't have a better solution than your proposal. I've altered my vote to reflect that. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see now (I didn't refresh and/or scroll down before). Anton.bersh (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename (at least). Delete. I think this article wants to be about download parallelization, not file segmentation. It is worrisome that we got to 7,314 bytes without a single reference. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 20:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BernardoSulzbach: what would be the desired name for the article? Anton.bersh (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anton.bersh: parallelized file transfer would already be an improvement. But maybe there's something better. Having sources for it would likely help us see what the literature normally calls this concept. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BernardoSulzbach: "parallelized file transfer" does not incude another benefit of transmission of files in "segments", which is ability to pause and resume downloads and ability to survive network temporarily going down. This is very important for wireless networks (Wi-Fi, cell phones, satellite, in space, etc.). Also, it is basically a must for dowloading any sufficiently large file, e.g., an HD movie, OS or other software installer, or similar. Either way, renaming this article to something else and reworking it to fit the new name would constitute WP:TNT as I mentioned above.

Instead, I propose:

deletion of the current article content (hence this AfD) and
creation of disambiguation like "Segmented file transfer might refer to: a technique to parallelize file downloads via FTP, swarming in BitTorrent, data streaming in HTTP, etc."

Anton.bersh (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 18:40, 10 July 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) 02:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Singh (politician)

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

Not enough coverage for a stand alone article. Fails GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 06:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 06:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From what I can gather from this source, I'm assuming this subject is a failed candidate for office, which means he doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Otherwise, agree that he doesn't pass WP:GNG as the sources seem to be either routine election coverage or just election results. Curbon7 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsuccessful candidate, failing WP:NPOL, coverage is routine and not enough, failing WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to satisfy WP:NPOL. SunDawn talk 12:00, 14 July 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) 02:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suhana khan

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

Being a daughter of a famous actor, doesn't mean you are a notable actor too. Do not satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR DMySon 03:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon 03:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon 03:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom as this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Pahiy (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We cannot have articles for children of celebrities unless they pass GNG or any other subject based notability guidelines. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above - ('Suhana Khan' with a capital K can stay as a redirect to Shah Rukh Khan) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. Her father is a famous actor doesn't make any case, because everything isn't inherently notable.─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 19:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited, the subject fails WP:GNG. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:32, 12 July 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. A WP:SNOW delete. JBW (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative News Agency of New York

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

I am now confident that this article is a hoax, and part of a series of hoaxes at that.

blastingnews.com has been associated with several of the other hoaxes in the series (Christian Church International and Arnulf Seminary of Theology), so I have serious doubts about their reliability.
The only other sources the article has are three books. Two of these (Shrivastava and Czarniawska-Joerges) are available on Google Books; neither of them contain "Conservative News Agency of New York" or "CNA-NY" at all. Those falsified references were both present in the first revision of the article, not the addition of some later hoaxer.
Doing a web search failed to turn up any evidence of this media outlet that doesn't trace back to Wikipedia. If they have a website, I can't find it. This would be, to put it mildly, unusual for a media outlet in 2021.
This article was significantly expanded by Klaus Bells, who created a number of other hoaxes.

As with the last few, any admin convinced by the above evidence could close this as a G3; I opened this AfD mainly to record evidence in an easy-to-find place. Also note that since this article lasted more than four years, it probably merits an entry on WP:HOAXLIST when deleted. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Good find! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This article about an organization supposedly founded in 2007 purports to cite a claim about it to a book published in 1984. Phony citations are always a bad sign for a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - get rid of this hoax as soon as possible Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Tagged article as WP:G3. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A bigger hoax than the claims that the 2020 election was rigged against Trump. Should far-righters get back to conspiracy theories about libcuck elites? 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 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. Daniel (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Pagan

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

Non-notable actor; could not find any WP:SIGCOV about him. Natg 19 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't found sufficient coverage that makes him a notable actor Rondolinda (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the contrary, has multiple significant works: played Anjela Bassett's son in How Stella Got Her Groove Back. THR writes:"Pagan is winning as Stella’s protective young son"^[1], there are mentions in other reviews - and he was nominated for Image Awards (NAACP) for this role. Played one of leads in See No Evil (2006 film), and then played in Forever Strong [33] and Grindiron Gang.[34]. Maybe it is even Speedy Keep. Кирилл С1 (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i have got only one article from Hollywood Reporter. But there is no in-depth news about him so as per norm delete. Trakinwiki (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- High profile site writes about his acting in the film. Does a NAACP, as well as multiple significant roles in high-grossing films not count? The actor had a starring role in a Disney film:[35],[36].Кирилл С1 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per what norm? Кирилл С1 (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not as per the norm, lacks notability.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does he lack notability? He has multiple significant roles: a starring in Up, Up, and Away, a Disney film. [37], [38], his role in How Stella Got Her Groove Back was reviewed multiple times [39][40]. The film he co-wrote, co-starred in and produced received reviews in highly reliable newspapers[41],[42] (3 in WP:Filmmaker). Кирилл С1 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO as he was nominated for an NAACP Image Award which is widely covered in American press. Further, it’s pretty clear he meets criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR as well based on the evidence presented above and the sources in the article. This was a poorly thought through nomination.4meter4 (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Кирилл С1 and 4meter4. His nomination garnered enough coverage to satisfy the relevant standards. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage.Pipsally (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per 4meter4. I do not find the source coverage especially convincing, but the NAACP nomination is a valid point. I feel like this is a perfect edge case, and I am leaning in favour of the article here. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO. Slovenichibo (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of the particular references available, and whether they do or do not meet the requirements of notability, would be helpful in determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/how-stella-got-her-groove-back-review-movie-1998-1231716/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Angiola Borrino

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

Virtually totally primary sourced. Was draftified in the hopes of improvement, and then moved back without improvement. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is basically a personal novel of sorts, primary sourced only multiple times over, and search results don't bring anything up that could easily improve the article. Pretty blatantly fails WP:GNG and looks to have been fluffed to mask that. Tautomers_{(T C)} 02:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Spent a few minutes looking at this. I agree that there are no good secondary English-language sources that cover Virginia Angiola Borrino. In [1], Borrino is referred to (unnamed) as a "well-known Italian paediatrician", which suggests the existence of additional non-English historical sources: "Adalbert Czerny (1863–1941) had also published a work on infant nutrition and nutritional disturbances (1906) (Schabel 1995, pp. 42–43), and a collection of lectures, Der Arzt als Erzieher, 1908(The Physician as educator: a handbook for doctors, mothers and teachers), which was translated into Italian in 1913 by a well-known Italian paediatrician with the title Il medico educatore del bambino: libro per medici, per le madri, per i maestri (Czerny 1913)." Clicking on a random reference in the Italian article, I found [2] (source from 1981, Google translated w/ attempted fixes): "The cultural setting was high from the start: the confemnzieri were university students or famous writers, and in addition to conferences there were courses in Italian literature, foreign literature, music, and childcare. For the latter I will mention the active, long collaboration of Angiola Borrino: pediatrician, university professor, chair holder in Perugia." A passing mention, but again evidence of potential further coverage. Overall, I might be inclined to say the article needs attention from an Italian-fluent expert, but probably meets the bar as far as historical notability goes. One could consider adding the template that says "this article could be expanded from the Italian language article". Suriname0 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, I see the draftify was quite recent. My vote is to move it back to draft space: the article clearly has merit, just needs more time. Suriname0 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Officially leaning Keep: Here's an English-language bio [3]. Just a paragraph, but quite focused on Borrino and her merits: "Angiola Borrino was the first woman Chief of a University Pediatric Ward." Suriname0 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need additional eyes on both the English-language and Italian-languages refs supporting notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, or move to draft. The Italian Wikipedia article seems to be somewhat more substantial, but not better sourced. Still, the opportunity should be provided for better sources in Italian to be found. BD2412 T 01:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just put a note in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Usually they are good about commenting, sourcing, and rescuing articles like this if possible. Maybe relist this one more time?4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made a couple of additions to the article. While it definitely needs to be cleaned up and subsections formatted better, the subject seems very plainly notable. She was a founding member of one of the premier medical institutions in Italy, not to mention her well covered work on infants and maternity research in the early 1900's. Silver seren^C 04:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With sources such as this (already cited), it looks to me as if she was one of the most important pediatric figures of her day. The presentation of the article could be improved but it is certainly not a candidate for removal. It is not surprising relatively few sources show up in Google searches. The internet did not begin to develop substantially until the 21st century.--Ipigott (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's an English language abstract in this paper which demonstrates notability:
One hundred years ago, medical women's access to directing functions took place. For 42 years they had been practicing medical women in Italy, but they were relegated to marginal functions. In 1918 the lack of medical officers, determined by the prolongation of the Great War, the institutions of the time, even if dominated by a clearly masculine mentality had to entrust important tasks to women, and so, in 1918 Paola Zappa became the first hospital primary woman and in particular in pediatrics. The following year, again for the same reason, Angiola Borrino was appointed director of the Clinic and of the Pediatric Chair of the University of Siena, thus being the first in every medical specialty in Italy. After the emergency, not only the State did not reward these two women who had cooperated with their services to handle the difficult situation, but even, after the war, they were deprived for a few years of directing functions and boycotted by male colleagues who did not accept the role of the woman doctor in the managerial functions. In the study the biographies of the two women are analyzed and compared with those of men who lived in the same period to document the penalization suffered by women.

And, having recently had to defend another similar case of a pioneering female doctor from the same era, we see that, a century later, a systematic process of trying to shut out women continues. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient sources are available to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems clear she's notable for her work & institutional positions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the three independent quality sources added by ~~Ipigott~~ Silver seren. I agree that some of the primary sourced material could be trimmed, and that further secondary and tertiary sources would benefit the article. However, those are editorial concerns outside of AFD, and its clear the subject passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to...toot my own horn or anything like that, but I was the one that added three sources. >_>; Silver seren^C 15:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Smack forehead) I knew that. I just had a brain lapse. So sorry. Corrected above. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources added only serve to further cement notability. We have to use common sense sometimes when looking at these articles. I sympathize with the fact the sources are in Italian which means that it may be more difficult for some to understand but looking at her life and accomplishments and taking into account the era in which she is from should assist in coming to the conclusion she was notable for her time and notability, once established, is forever. --ARose Wolf 18:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Yupik (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a major figure and many sources are available. We cannot expect to compare her to a person that lived in the internet age, the availability of many sources for someone who died 1965 speaks for itself. --hroest 18:41, 14 July 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. Although analyst coverage is a positive sign for notability, the clear consensus from this discussion is that the article as written relies too much on non-independent sources and is written in a promotional tone. No prejudice against creating a new article that focuses on how the company is presented in independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SER Group

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

This was deleted via speedy today and was recreated today itself. The draft looks pretty much same with a bit of trimming. Still fails WP:NCORP Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note the discussion between the article creator and the nominator which has been placed on the Talk page rather than here. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the discussion between the article creator and the nominator Akoszlajda (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nomination the article has been revised by the article creator and couple other persons from the community. Summing up taken actions:

1. Additional references has been added to the article

2. References to "SER Group" home page has been significantly limited from 13 out of 33 to 3 out of 36

3. Ambiguous references to Wiki articles has been removed and this badge is already removed

4. "Article as oprhant" issue has been managed as there are 2-3 articles referencing to this article however the badge was not removed by the nominator due to unknown reasons

5. All mentioned so far issues related to "deletion consideration" has been managed. For example, last suggestion was to provide 3 best Reliable WP:RS and Notable WP:SIGCOV sources of information about the article topic following article WP:THREE.

Answering it the following sources has been provided:

a) Gartner publishes the information about SER Group and its product Doxis4 since 2015 and the last one is from 2020: (the solution was first in Enterprise Content Management - ECM category and then in Content Services Platforms category)

* in November 2020 SER Group has been defined as a Visionary in The Gartner Magic Quadrant for Content Services Platforms 2020^[1]^[2]^[2]^[3]

b) Forrester publishes the information about SER Group and its product Doxis4 since 2017 and the last one is from 2021:

* in June 2021 SER Group has been recognized as “Strong Performer” in Forrester Wave™: Content Platforms report^[4]

c) Information about SER from Dun & Bradstreet

* About SER Group^[5]

Gartner & Forrester are well known, independent IT research companies, which reports are widely used and they are treated as reliable source of information for strategic decisions in big enterprises. Dun & Bradstreet is a very noble organization outside IT world providing commercial data, analytics, and insights for businesses since 1841. All the information below were and are in SER Group article - I have just provided today additional references to Gartner).

Information about similar companies/products like Alfresco Software or Pegasystems are in Wikipedia since long time ago and the article provides only the basic information about similar company. I willing to share my knowledge about this specific, technical "sub-culture".

Basing on this summary I would like to ask kindly about removing "deletion consideration" and "Article as oprhant" badges OR detail, merytoric information what should be changed or updated, so the knowledge may be properly shared.

References

Comment Sorry I have been away. Creator has made their points already. Let's wait for others to comment. This is a discussion and would require others to participate. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment2 Hi Nomadicghumakkad. I took last action on the article a week ago and since then nothing has changed. Now You request others to participate. Did "others" add the "for deletion" badge? If there is any other "group" of people who should "accept"/"approve" the article let me/us know it please - I guess the process should be transparent, so its participants should be known as well, correct? So far, I was thinking that creator of the badge takes responsibility for his own action. Let me know please if there is anything more to do/correct/add/change/delete (I am opened for merytorical discussion) OR remove the badge please. Thank You in advance for Your support to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Akoszlajda (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me start by telling you that I don't appreciate your tone and I basically owe you nothing. I do Wiki voluntarily and can respond or not respond based on my discretion. If you don't receive timely or appropriate response from me, feel free to reach out to others or ask at WP:TEA. I own nothing here. No one does. This is an open collaborative platform. So stop building a pressure on me to respond and pin it on me! I very rarely lose my cool but you are pushing me on the verge. Your desperation clearly reeks of WP:COI so I would recommend to the closing admin that this is draftified and vetted through AFC process before putting it in the main space. Now, coming to the sources,

[43] mentions the subject once. Do you have access to the full report where we can read what's written about the company? I might have assumed good faith and moved on believing that in-depth discussion is present indeed in this report. But I don't think you deserve good faith here. So please provide the entire report so that we can read what exactly is written in the report and we can determine if this would qualify as a source.

[44] - not a reliable source. Complete Promo.

[45] - User generated reviews. Not reliable.

[46] - This is taken from your own website. Please provide original report.

[47] - Company profiling. Neither independent nor reliable.

through out the course of this discussion, even if it is proven that the company is notable; I would prefer this to be drafitfied since it can't be present in mainspace in current state and go through a proper AFC process. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - corporate spam held up by WP:REFBOMBing - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — Per G11, blatant promotional article. Celestina007 (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Awful IT product promotion, made worse by awful English. The latter can be cleaned up, the former ~~should have been~~ sorry, WAS! G11ed... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commment 12VII Akoszlajda (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lads and Gents,

I am pretty sure You know each other (or at least some of You know some others), but I must admit I do not know any of You. This is why I want You to make the table clean and start the topic from the scratch...

I want You to know that I am adding information about the company voluntarily as well and I am not paid for it despite I cooperate with the company (I do not hide it). If somebody doubts my intentions, I am opened to discuss it and to explain the technical nature of my work as I am just IT delivery guy. It seems to me like You are fed up with revising too many marketing articles, but please do not make shortcuts in here and do not treat me as the marketer, because I am not the one!

All the information in the article comes from publicly available sources and it can be verified - please point me out which speciif statement is "too promotional" or incorrect, because I did my best to present just pure facts showing the resources each time. If you complain about the words like "Vistionary" or "Challenger" You need to understand that these things have specific meaning in Gartner's world and You need to dig in a little before making your own opinion - these are not marketing terms as You may read them. If You want to provide other resources I am opened for them. If You want to reshape the whole article reusing the facts listed by me - please propse better version. I like to create things and I am opened for constructive critism, but please think for a while, what would You think when somebody simply would tell You: "I do not like You!" ? The article is not "promo", but set of facts! This article is at the end of the road just a short note about the company and its main product - nothing more. This article is meant to fill in a white spot as Wikipedia contains already similar articles about other IT companies like OpenText and Alfresco. I am wondering now how these arcticles have been created and confirmed in Wikipedia. If the article is "banned" it means in fact non-equal treatment and You should as well remove the articles about OpenText, Alfresco and going further also about IBM and Microsoft BTW, these companies are also listed in mentioned Gartner are Forrester reports.

I am not a perfect person - nobody is, but to be honest I was and I am waiting for the support to make this article better or at least acceptable. This is why I will try again to answer merytorically on the issues mentioned above by You:

I am "Get The Things Done" type of the guy and this is why I am willing to get to the end of this discusssion in whatever way it will finish

Once a day I am checking updates - I do not expect it from You, but I would like to know at least when/from whom I will get the response and how the whole communicatio will work. I have double checked my previous post and I did not notice any impropriate tone in my writing - I just do not know how the process works and I am willing to find it out. I want also to close the topic efficiently, especially that I spend my private time on it ;)

3 sources - 5 linkages comment: As I have mentioned, noble and well-known in IT-world reports from Gartner and Forrester are paid, so I can not share them with You. FYI, Even if 10, 20 or 30 people except You will write below that Gartner and Forrester are not reliable source of information... this will not change anything and it will be still false information.

These are so strong brands on IT market that I do not need to prove it - they prove themselves. Simple technical question... Do You know how many companies world-wide Gartner report covers in specific categories each year? It is not 1000, it is not 100, it just about 20 and among this number You will find most often brands well known to You like Oracle, Microsoft, IBM. These reports are prepared by these agencies since many years, by very professional IT analysts (no, I do not know any of them personally). You can also easily find out how they select these companies and other details of their process - they provide full transparency in this matter.

Despite this, I have spent some time to find for You indepent extract from mentioned report (resource 1). If You do not trust it, You can make the research on Your own and check, if Gartner and Forrester mention the company or not AND what means being in specific quadrant. You will find out for example that "Visionary" does not mean the best in breed. Small tip in here: Open Google and see what images can be found after looking for the phrase like "Gartner Magic Quadrant 2020 Content Services Platforms" This type of pictures are very often shared in many various IT articles and IT blogs. "Gartner Magic Quadrant" is well known term among IT advisory experts. If Your treat source 2 & 3 (Gartner) as non-reliable and promo source... I would love to see You making this statement at some IT conference ;)

Source 4... The link point to german newspaper "pressserrade.de" - I do not understand why You claim this is "my web site". If You do not trust it please do the similar research as suggested for Gartner. For example: look at Google images for: "Forrester Wave ™: Content Platforms, Q2 2021"

Source 5... This was meant to be as-dry-as-possible source information about the company from non-IT world prooving just basic facts about the Company Profile. I did it mainly to limit any space for interpretation. Dun&Bradstreet... there is an article in Wikipedia about the company. Have You read it? Have You checked there since when the company exists, how many employees it has and how big is its revenue? (No, I do not know any employee from this company and I have never contacted them - it sounded to me just like a reliable source of information found on internet). I am really asthonished how easily You claim that such company is not independent and is not relaiable - can You provide some prooves/analysis for such a statement?

If English is "awful" please help me to improve it. I admit I am not native-speaker, but still it does not sound like a constructive argument. Please provide correction suggestions - I am opened for them especially that this is not a long article.
If I am providing too many sources help me to limit them.

BTW, If I would provide less sources then I would get probably the argument that there is too little resources. BTW2, I was asked about providing TOP 3 resources and I did it above, so I do not understand where from "bombing" argument comes

If there is argument that this is "IT product promotion" please show me exact phrase where I provide "promo" or false facts? I was trying to avoid in the article any adjectives except sources titles.

Except this I try to use simple language where most info comes from various pages and as mentioned above just 3 out of 36 sources comes from company web page. The document is also formatted in such a way that this is very easy to dispute about specific bullet and statement. If You have better idea how to shape this information - please propose the alternative version.

If You have checked me.. have You checked something else except one of many companies with which I am cooperating right now? I admit I am not a young person and I work in IT for over 20 years in various companies - this is a major reason, why I want to share my knowledge - I feel old ;) I have published so far in Poland 2 technical books about various IT delivery aspects like Project Management. In the past I have provided the input to Wikipedia EN to other IT articles and I was just willing to come back to the same river ;), but I see that many things have changed. I repeat: "I am willing to share my knowledge" and so far I was a great fan of Wikipedia. Please be merytorical, spend the fraction of the time, which I have spend preparing this article and help me to keep the faith in the original concept of Wikipedia, which is sharing the knowledge. For now many articles related to ECM and BPM are quite obsolote in Wikipedia EN and I am looking for the person(s) with whom I can refresh the information starting with this (I thought simple) article.

It is possible that the shape of the information could be better - I am not a journalist and I am opened to work out better version of the article, however I need a help if this is the issue. From this point I see following options: a) Somebody will delete this article - this action will be in my opinion unfair, if the other, similar companies have articles about them in Wikipedia b) There is one or many persons who will rewrite this article without me - I am fine with it as far as new version will not present false information. I may even promise You to stop my engagement in this topic for some period of time if I know somebody else tekes it over and my work is not waisted. c) There is one or many persons willing to work on this article with me - in such a case I would like only to know who leads the topic to manage communication better d) There is one or many persons who will let me know what needs to be done so the "for deletion" badge is removed - in such a case I would like to know who is the main person sending these annotations as I do not want to be bombarded and I have experience with such communication knowing that very soon I may find mutually exlusive suggestions - somebody will have to take the decision then, which one is proper (eg. above too many/too little sources) e) The "deletion badge" is simply removed and any further improvements are done afterwards as it happens for many other articles in Wikipedia, which starts to live their own lives.

So... Please do not kill this topics so easily and as You are not the one who spent 24+ hours on preparing it. Let me know please how can we close this discussion quickly in this or in the other way. I am opened for any "tea", "teleconference" or any other collaboration plan which help to find compromise quickly and efficiently for all of us, the best in couple of next days. Let me know if this is possible to talk with You in a little bit more on-line version than Talk page. I am using Tesms, SkyPe and GoToMeeting, but we may use any other on-line tool.

Please don't play coy when you see you are losing the discussion. These tacts won't work. You not reading the guidelines and jumping to create a page and spending 24 hours is not our problem. When it was speedy deleted, did you consult anyone before recreation? Also read WP:OTHER. My suggestion (if you will pay any attention to it at all) - let this discussion be completed. If deleted, start a draft (not in mainspace) and ask help from others to write the draft appropriately since there is a clear COI. Please read all important policies like WP:RS, WP:VER, WP:NPOV and familiarise yourself with those. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the contributions. I'm wondering if this username login was cracked or something - David Gerard (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commment 13VII Akoszlajda (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read carefully Your answers. I have different opinion, but... this discussion seems to take us nowhere as You start using personal arguments ("don't play coy", "I'm wondering if this username login was cracked or something")... Do not count on the same from my side ;) In one of the Wiki articles about Talk I have read that we should stay objective and positive :) If You have some constructive proposition please let me know it - I do not count providing next set of general guidelines as constructive proposition, because... If in a good will I will edit the article right now, You will contest it anyway. If Your major argument is COI, it seems to me that the only way how we can get to something positive is through the collaborative work, but so far none of You have engaged in editing article itself, so... If You do not have any constructive proposition please remove the article OR move it to the other "better place" :) If You decide to delete it, maybe the topic will come back in future as You suggest as "a draft (not in the mainspace)" OR maybe not. BTW, Is there anybody who would help me to edit this article in this or in the other place? :D (I guess I know the answer and I bet a beer or two on it, which the most probably I will drink with my friends sharing our opinion about Wikipedia :D).

Delete. Barely disguised promotional material.Citing (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commment 14VII Akoszlajda (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I give it one more try and I have just significantly refactored the article. The content of the article is right now as-fact-based-as-possible and I do not see the space to make it more fact-based ;) Again... any further suggestions are warmly welcomed, however I appreciate more concreate suggestions than generic statements, which are impossible for me to be handled precisely. Again2... I am happy to see anybody else co-editing this article.

The problem with the article is not that it was a bulleted list but that it is a promotional pamphlet and not an encyclopedia article. It is a list of the company's products, services, awards, and clients, with only the barest details about the company itself. This content can't be salvaged without starting from new.Citing (talk) 13:47, 14 July 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) 02:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Manchester, New Hampshire municipal election

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

No need for an article dedicated to the entire 2009 Manchester, NH municipal elections.

The more important component of the municipal election (the mayoral election) has all the information now located in a subsection of the new article Mayoral elections in Manchester, New Hampshire. It fits comfortably there, and does not need to be spun-off.

Whereas the content about the aldermanic election (not included in the new article) does not appear to be notable itself. No indication that those aldermanic races were notable.

I think that it should be a full deletion, rather than a redirect, as its title is an unlikely search term for those looking for just the mayoral election. SecretName101 (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The mayoral election section is already merged and a redirect now exists at 2009 (etc etc) mayoral election. Title is unsearchable and mostly irrelevant to the content of the new article, so no redirect is necessary. Curbon7 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just as an update. The content adapted about the mayoral election has now been relocated to Mayoral elections in Manchester, New Hampshire in the 21st century, as the bulk of the content of Mayoral elections in Manchester, New Hampshire was just spun-off into three articles, each covering a century. SecretName101 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 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. ✗plicit 02:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Snowboarding

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

While attempting to clean up Peter Line, I was unable to find any sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT to support this page on Forum Snowboarding. Fails WP:NCORP. CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 8 July 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 02:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airlock, or How to Say Goodbye in Space

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

Non-notable short film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 00:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or How to Not Create a Wikipedia Article. I was skeptical to vote that due to its notable leads, but holy Moses is coverage hard to find on this. It is listed on Michael Sheen's official website [48], and GNews search gives you a /Film article recommending the film to Ad Astra viewers, but that's too little to satisfy GNG. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to point out, [49] is not Michael Sheen's official website, it is "fansite, made by fans for fans and it is not affiliated in any way with Michael Sheen". BOVINEBOY2008 12:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The article from /Film is even a list, and ideally a full article would be better. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FAILS WP:GNG

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

[1] ttps://www.policeprofessional.com/news/game-changing-centre-of-forensic-excellence-opens-at-cranfield/

[2] ttps://archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/le-catillon-ii.htm

[3] ttps://www.businessweekly.co.uk/news/academia-research/forensic-sleuths-boosted-cranfield-millions

[4] ttps://www.archaeology.org/news/5046-161129-egypt-mesopotamia-glass

[5] ttps://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170629085013.htm

[6] ttps://phys.org/news/2017-06-x-ray-technique-ancient-artifacts.html

[7] ttps://www.economist.com/prospero/2018/01/15/is-art-connoisseur-yet-another-job-threatened-by-technology

[8] ttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5853383/Jacket-worn-Thomas-Noel-Harris-durin-battle-Waterloo-confirmed-real-thing.html

[9] ttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/16/waterloo-red-jacket-kept-family-200-years-proves-ancestor-british/

[10] ttps://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/how-stella-got-her-groove-back-review-movie-1998-1231716/

[SERGroupGartner2020_workfloworg-11] SER Group a Visionary in the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Content Services Platforms 2020, workfloworg

[SERGroupGartner2020-12] Gartner Magic Quadrant for Content Services Platforms, Gartner

[SERGroupGartnerReviews-13] SER Group Reviews, Gartner

[SERGroupByForrester2021-14] The Forrester Wave™: Content Platforms, Q2 2021, The 14 Providers That Matter Most And How They Stack Up, June 14, 2021, Forrester

[SERGroupAtDnB-15] About SER Group, Dun & Bradstreet

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]