Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Curbon7 (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 7 September 2021 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDreamBooks (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indications of meeting WP:NACTOR, but I couldn't find the coverage or evidence of significance to be sure. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Also, the article gives no indication of what roles this person played. Did they receive national notice? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 5 September 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 13:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability issues. I am not sure if the person who appeared on General Hospital is the same "Serah D'Laine" who appears to be promoting themselves.

Regardless of whether this is an article hijacking or a mid-life career change, there does not appear to be a notable biography here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 05:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:53, 31 August 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 List of unidentified murder victims in the United States. plicit 23:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of unidentified murder victims in Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a random very small sampling of unidentified murder victims in Pennsylvania that probably aren't independently notable. It's essentially listcruft. Even the namings of the cases by location are problematic because many of these counties have hundreds if not thousands of Jane and John Does in their cold case files. I'm not seeing how this indiscriminate list benefits the encyclopedia or meets the criteria at WP:NLIST. 4meter4 (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 09:31, 1 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unverified article since it's creation in 2011. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no RS of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NARTIST. 4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:52, 31 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG - quick Google search did not yield any additional notability. -Liancetalk/contribs 22:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -Liancetalk/contribs 22:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:19, 31 August 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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Down Among the Dead Men (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:BAND unfortunately - could not find anything to prove notability after a quick Google search and does not seem to meet notability criteria otherwise. -Liancetalk/contribs 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -Liancetalk/contribs 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:59, 14 September 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. As there has been no assertation that the sources provided in this discussion (as opposed to those in the article) demonstrate reliable, independent, in-depth coverage, consensus is "keep" by strength of argument. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was drawn to my attention by an administrator on Hebrew Wikipedia, who told me that an article on the same subject had been deleted there, and described the English Wikipedia article as "completely marketing", and said that information about Koen's position as a businessman and about the companies he owns is "unclear". I therefore looked into it. The article was deleted at AfD over two years ago. It was restored and userfied at the request of an editor who siad that "it's a matter of time until someone like this person get more news coverage". That editor then returned the page to article space without, in my opinion, making substantial enough changes to justify recreating a deleted article. However, the following is what I found regarding the current version of the article.

There are 20 references, some of which are in Englsih, but many are in either Hebrew, which I don't know, or Russian, of which I have a rudimentary knowledge, but not enough to make a good assessment of the sources, so I was largely dependent on Google translation. Submitting substantial amounts of text to Google translate is slow and tedious, so I looked at only a sample of the cited references, but unless by very bad luck I chose a grossly unrepresentative sample, the results are clear enough. The article tells us that he is a businessman, and the founder of a Jewish community centre. There is precious little to be found about either of those aspects of his life in anything which could be regarded as a reliable independent source. Here is an indication of what is to be found in the cited sources.

  • There are references which don't give significant coverage of Koen, such as a page at The Times Of Israel, which only briefly mentions him, and one on the web site forward.com, which as far as I can see doesn't even mention him at all.
  • There are pages which are clearly not independent sources, such as belev-echad.org/en/about/, which is the "about us" page on the website of an organisation founded by Koen.
  • There are pages such as one at passportnews.co.il and one at bloomberg.com, which are both reports relating to a business deal which Koen was hoping to do. They consist largely of quotes from Koen about his intended deal. It isn't clear to me whether it's an interview, write up of a press release, or what, but it is clear that it is essentially material by Koen, not about him. It is therefore neither substantial coverage of him nor an independent source. (Incidentally, I found from other sources that the business deal never went through, and the news was all about him saying' that he was going to do the deal.)
  • There are references such as kp.ua/life/598561-v-sele-pod-kyevom-lva-derzhat-vmesto-sobaky, and ru.slovoidilo.ua/amp/2018/05/04/novost/obshhestvo/lev-simba-ostalsya-svoim-xozyainom-kozine-obeshhanie-nemirovskogo-zabrat-zhivotnoe, both of which refer to concerns expressed by various people about the conditions in which Koen keeps lions. They are mainly about the lions, and only briefly mention Koen, and by no stretch of the imagination is either of them substantial coverage of him.
  • I did find just one reference which is independent coverage substantially about Koen. It is 13news.co.il/item/news/domestic/articles/questions-around-the-mediator-1175538/. It tells us about a law suit brought against him by his parents, another brought by his uncle, police concerns about him, etc. It is, however, only substantial coverage of a small part of his life, and on its own comes nowhere near to showing notability. There must be vast numbers of people who have been sued on one or more occasions, but who come nowhere near Wikipedia's notability standards. JBW (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Which is the one good source which I mentioned? I thought I had provided reasons why none of them is a good source.
  2. Did you read the page you linked to? Can you tell me which bit of the Wikipedia article it supports? It supports none. It is all about people who question whether Koen is a "legitimate businessman", who claim that he has abandonned his daughter and her mother, and so on. It is all "someone has claimed that..." from start to finish. It does not support any of the article's existing content, and it is questionable whether it could ever be a suitable source for supporting anything in a BLP.
  3. Saying "There is much more" without telling us what and where is of no value at all, and the administrator who closes this discussion should give it no weight at all. Sources which are not verifiable are of no use; otherwise anyone could say "I've seen lots of good sources", and we would have no way of knowing whether that was true. This is essentially similar to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources. JBW (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of that holds any water. As I said before your intro is way too long and unconvincing. Now you're WP:BLUDGEONING under all the opinions that disagree with the nomination. That is thus far... EVERYONE! This is bad practice and behavior you will need to work on. My claim is NOT as you suggest but all and only WP:NEXIST, i.e. the essential and correct way to approach notability. Articles that establish the notability of this person include: [1][2][3][4][5]. Some of these articles also exist in English. You are mixing up the establishment of notability with referencing. Referencing is NOT the purpose of a notability discussion. It is an art that takes place in the article space and can be discussed on an article's talk page. References can and usually will include sources that do not count toward notability. Likewise it is irrelevant if every item in an article will be used in ours. These are just two VERY different processes! gidonb (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm assuming good faith but the opening line of this nomination makes me super-leery. Beyond that, 1. We have no idea what standards might have been applied elsewhere, including other-language Wikipedias, and they might well have set a higher bar for inclusion. 2. The quality of the article is rarely a justification for deletion; the notability of the subject is the issue, not the quality of the article about them. It would seem the subject meets WP:GNG. Any reason to think otherwise? I will say that the nominator's commitment to WP:BEFORE is commendable and their extensive nomination statement is commendable also, which is why I remain solidly in the AGF camp on this one. But I don't think it should be deleted. Stlwart111 10:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111: I am puzzled by your statement that you are assuming good faith. You wouldn't say that unless there were some reason why my good faith might be doubted. Can you please tell me what about what I have said causes the question of whether I am acting in good faith to arise?
Sorry, I evidently failed to make my meaning clear. Not for a moment did I intend my comments about what happened on Hebrew Wikipedia to be a reason for deletion here. Hebrew Wikipedia has very different standards from English Wikipedia, including the fact that their deletion discussions are not discussions at all, but just votes, and I wouldn't rely on them at all. I just thought that knowing that I had been led to investigate the article by an administrator from another Wikipedia who had concerns about the article might be of interest, but probably I was wrong and it would have been better to leave that out,
I don't understand your point number 2. My argument was entirely about the quality of the sources, not the "quality of the article"; the quality of sources is precisely what determines "the notability of the subject".
The reasons you give for keeping are "It would seem the subject meets WP:GNG" and "I don't think it should be deleted". You give no justification or evidence for those statements at all. Simply stating that a topic is notable, without providing sources to substantiate that claim, is of no value. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just notable/Just not notable. JBW (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This article was drawn to my attention by an administrator on Hebrew Wikipedia" ...who is unable to edit the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? And needed someone to nominate the article for deletion? ...who told me that an article on the same subject had been deleted there ...which is irrelevant, as you acknowledge. ...and described the English Wikipedia article as "completely marketing", and said that information about Koen's position as a businessman and about the companies he owns is "unclear" ...which are very much fixable problems and is about the quality of the article, not the quality of the sources. I believe you should have left those bits out, but have no reason to think you weren't acting in good faith when you included them, and you acknowledge you should have left those bits out anyway. So let's leave that at that.
Expressing an opinion about whether or not we think an article should be deleted is exactly why we're here at AFD, so I'm not sure why my expressing an opinion is confusing. But to make it clearer; "being unconvinced by the nomination statement, and taking into account the sources included in the article and highlighted by other editors here, I have come to the conclusion that the subject meets our inclusion criteria and the article should not be deleted". If other editors disagree, they will express their opinion thusly and consensus will form contrary to my view (which is what is weighed up by the closer). Stlwart111 00:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd made this clear, but evidently I failed to do so. The stuff about the Hebrew administrator is irrelevant. I regret having mentioned it. As for saying "And needed someone to nominate the article for deletion?", linking to "meatpuppetry", that is absurd. I never suggested that the nomination was anything other than my own decision, based on my own assessment of the article and its subject. I never dreamt that my casual mention of how I came to look into it would be made such a big deal, or that what I said would be so misinterpreted. JBW (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and it seemed strange. And the question I posed was rhetorical; it wasn't an accusation. I was trying to give an insight into my confusion at what was being presented. But you were equally as confused by my confusion. As I said, let's leave that at that. Just the fact that you're engaging in good faith discussion is more than enough to allay any initial concerns, and then you struck that bit anyway. No hard feelings, I hope. Stlwart111 12:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we ignore the totally irrelevant stuff, such as complaints about the length of the nomination (which may be valid or not, but which have no bearing on whether the file should be deleted), ad hominem comments about the nominator (e.g. innuendo about lack of good faith without any explanation, and the ridiculous accusation of meatpuppetry) and "I just think it's notable" type comments, we are left with the aources in the article us the additional links given above. They aren't reliable independent sources giving substantial coverage of what the article is about. The king of the sun (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not an accusation; more an explanation of what made me leery. For the record, a lot of "what the article is about" should probably go, but that's a matter of editing. Stlwart111 12:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I checked all the sources and found that 3 of them may qualify for notability: Bloomberg, KP.UA and zman. However, Bloomberg and KP are only talking about future plans. I don't think that people get notable for making plans. Assuming that zman is independent, there is only one good source left. Of course, all those articles about the subject's pet-lion are too local. The others are too short, too promo or not focused on the subject. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I provided 5 long, independent, and in-depth sources in Hebrew, all signed by respectable journalists in important Israeli media. We do not have a rule against sources in Hebrew or other languages. NONE of these sources is promotional. On the contrary. They are critical and independent of the subject. I suggest that both users above take a deeper look at the sources and follow our policies. Per WP:NEXIST, this person easily passes the WP:GNG. Opinions solely based on references in the article, that dodge points made by others in this discussion, should be discounted for a lack of depth and inconsistency with policies and guidelines. There is no value to "I just think this is not notable" arguments in AfD discussions, after the references establing the notability of a subject were provided. gidonb (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say that your 5 sources are promotional? Did I say that sources in Hebrew are less valuable than sources in English? Actually I did mention that one of your source in Hebrew is good. It's good because it really covers the subject in depth. Sorry, but the other sources are too shallow, IMO. They are about the subject's business, friends, legal issues, pets and so on. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My writing was a comment, not a direct reaction, after several contributions beforehand and includes also other important points. Sure, if you strip in-depth, independent, and verifiable sources off their biographic content, you could be left with nothing. Depends only on how extreme you want to take such a cancel process. There is no clear basis in our policies and guidelines, however, for doing this. Opinions that mold a virtual reality into being, instead of following the facts and policies, should not be taken all that serious. These only confirm that one has placed a "I just think this is not notable" argument. gidonb (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly true. In fact, the notability criteria for living people are too extreme, IMO. Anyway, my vote is a weak keep. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per gidonb. I'm not seeing a well argued deletion rationale in this discussion from the nominator or the delete voters. In looking at the sources myself, many of them appear to be respected independent publications with named authors. While some of the articles are about future projects or are only tangentially connected to the subject and don't count as RS, others are about past achievements and Naum Koen is the primary subject (such as those highlighted by gidonb above). Ultimately the subject appears to meet WP:GNG with multiple independent sources containing in depth coverage. Unless the delete voters are able to provide a detailed source analysis as to why they think this isn't the case, I don't see a good policy based reason to delete.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 15 September 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. I don't see a clear consensus on whether the sources are sufficiently independent and significant enough to meet WP:GNG. King of ♥ 05:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:FRINGE theory that has barely made a blip in low-quality journals and has not received the independent notice required to justify inclusion as a stand-alone article. Cold fusion true believers tend to think this is serious science but it has not received the marquee notice that we would expect for such an amazing breakthrough. WP:CBALL means that Wikipedia's promotion of this harebrained scheme is not warranted and it is exactly why we have WP:FRINGE in the first place. jps (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep for now. It's fringe yes, but the main paper has about 46 citations (EJPC site) to 109 (Google Scholar). This isn't nothing. Might revisit later. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have access to the full list from Web of Science that Springer uses, but the crossref citations are not particularly remarkable: [6]. Note that there is a lot of churn and self-citation within the walled garden of cold fusion believers. They still put on conferences and seem to write a review article about the amazing new opportunities in cold fusion about every five minutes or so. The key here is that essentially no independent notice (from those who aren't in the cold fusion orbit) is found. jps (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Citations don't count for notability. Citations that come from papers in Physica Scripta or unpublished count even less. This was a stupid idea when it was proposed, and now, 16 years later, it's clear it went nowhere. Tercer (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fringe or not, there is adequate coverage of the theory in multiple third-party sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:NFRINGE, and it is entirely okay to discuss fringe theories in articles exclusively about the fringe theory (whereas mention may be undue in other articles). Coverage includes: --Animalparty! (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Koziol, Michael (28 November 2018). "Scientists in the U.S. and Japan Get Serious About Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions". IEEE Spectrum.
  • Krivit, Steven B.; Ravnitzky, Michael J. (December 7, 2016). "It's Not Cold Fusion... But It's Something". Scientific American Blog Network.
  • Ullrich, George; Toton, Edward (31 March 2010). "Applications of Quantum Mechanics: Black Light Power and the Widom-Larsen Theory of LENR". Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Advanced Systems and Concepts Office.
  • Koziarski, Ed M. (29 July 2010). "A Nuclear Reactor in Every Home?". Chicago Reader.
  • Silberg, Bob (February 19, 2013). "The nuclear reactor in your basement". phys.org.
  • Krivit, Steven B. (2008). "Low energy nuclear reaction research – Global scenario". Current Science. 94 (7): 854–857. JSTOR 24101730.
  • Brooks, Michael (September 2016). "In from the cold". New Scientist. 231 (3091): 34–37. doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(16)31703-1.
These are sources written mostly by cold fusion advocates. This does not indicate broad coverage that we look for according to WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we prohibit articles on beetles written by beetle enthusiasts or entomology advocates? Nothing in WP:FRINGE nor Wikipedia:Independent sources prohibits content written by people with specialized knowledge on a fringe subject. Why are editors afraid of the bare existence fringe topics, even when they can be labeled as fringe? Describing a fringe theory or even a discredited theory is not the same as promoting or advocating said theory. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
is not the same as promoting or advocating said theory only when you have enough reliable sources that cover it critically to achieve a non-fringe article (it seems that here at least some people have discussed it). But notability is also another matter, independently (with the Beetles obviously universally notable)... —PaleoNeonate06:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I just added a New Scientist article that discusses it in context with other theories. Exactly how many of these sources will satisfy you? ::::::--Animalparty! (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And are you asserting that the goal is to "achieve a non-fringe article"? What does this mean? Per the holy writ of WP:FRINGE: "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia." --Animalparty! (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, doesn't mean that it should be removed, but means that it should be described as not accepted by most experts (sources are needed for this of course). I think this is achieved already with this article despite the few sources. The remaining issue and main argument here appears to be notability, an important criterion to determine if an article should be in the encyclopedia (quote: [...] has barely made a blip in low-quality journals and has not received the independent notice required [...]). —PaleoNeonate17:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the entirety of that disucssion:

Another idea was the work of Allan Widom, a theoretical physicist at Northeastern University in Boston, and Lewis Larsen, a theoretical physicist and now CEO of Lattice Energy, a company aiming to create a functioning LENR device. Widom-Larsen theory, as it is known, makes an interesting statement about cold fusion: it isn't fusion.

Instead, the anomalous heat generation comes about because, when infused with deuterium and possibly other contaminants, a palladium surface generates a varying electromagnetic field that shifts electrons about, in turn releasing neutrons. These are absorbed by other nearby atoms, transmuting them and causing them to release gamma-ray photons that are absorbed by other electrons, which radiate the extra energy as heat. Joseph Zawodny at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia thinks the theory is a "rich concept" that could prove extremely fruitful. "LENR is only one of its applications," he says. It doesn't rely on new physics, and makes some very specific predictions -- not that those predictions have been properly tested yet. Zawodny made his own attempts, but they were "brief and low budget", he admits. The ongoing controversy surrounding Rossi's E-Cat has made getting funding for further experiments difficult, he says.

Besides Zawodny's inconclusive results, Widom and Larsen have graphs that purport to show a match between their theoretical predictions and experimental observations of how quickly various transmutation products are created. But this isn't terribly convincing to critics, because it is "after-the-fact" fitting to data from controversial experiments carried out years ago.

I do not see this as indicating enough independent coverage of the theory to warrant a standalone article. This could easily be inclued at the main cold fusion page in a sentence or two. jps (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, most people with a passing familiarity in nuclear physics who bothered to read the theory article from 15 years ago would find some discussion points absent. Eq. 31 in their paper predicts beta radiation (and a LOT of it), but I see no one discussing that anywhere. Novel theories that gain interest have their entire idea considered by others rather than ignored outright. That's the essence of the problem here. No one thinks it noteworthy enough to even make a passing mention of its details. jps (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are we really taking New Scientist as a reliable source about anything on the fringes of physics? Really? XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability does not imply endorsement. Something can be complete bunk and yet notable for receiving coverage from reliable, independent sources. New Scientist has been deemed a reliable source as per WP:RSP, and per WP:NFRINGE the coverage there is independent, substantial and not of a "silly news" nature. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You consider that treatment above "substantial" coverage? I'm a little concerned about that judgement call. I know some writers who have published in New Scientist. If I call them up and tell them about my latest paper and they put three paragraphs about it in their next article, will that mean we should have an article about that paper in Wikipedia? Maybe you're referring to other coverage as well. I will admit that there are certain cold fusion acolytes who have been fawning over this theory for more than a decade (Krivit, in particular, comes to mind), but considering the moribund state of the topic and the lack of mainstream interest in it beyond noting various scams, I am worried that we are pandering to the grift here by pretending that this is an article on par with any number of other articles we have about ostensibly scientific hypotheses that have been essentially ignored by the relevant community. jps (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An entire article would be "substantial"; I find it hard to argue that three short paragraphs are so. As for WP:RSP, it says to use New Scientist with caution to verify contentious claims. The fringes of science are contentious by nature, so caution is amply warranted here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between verifying the truth of a contentious claim and verifying the existence and notability of one. The fact that you might not approve of a topic covered by a reliable source does not nullify its coverage; if New Scientist's editors found your latest paper newsworthy, then would that most likely qualify as coverage in a reliable source as well. There is deliberately no minimum word count on "substantial," but clearly these are more than offhand mentions.
Once again, coverage is not endorsement, nor is it "pandering to the grift." We have articles on anti-vaxers, racist conspiracy theories, famous hoaxes, newsworthy scammers, etc., not because we approve of them, but because they have been deemed notable through substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources -- whether we like it or not. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between having an article on a subject and mentioning a subject in related articles. I do not see that there is enough material to justify a standalone article and the reason we might not want such a thing is there simply are not enough critical sources that can provide context. This has nothing to do with liking or not liking a topic. This has to do with writing the actual article in a way that readers can get the full picture. The problem with three paragraphs in New Scientist is that while it hints at some of the issues with reception (or lack thereof) of this particular idea, it doesn't give us nearly enough information to write an entire article in proper context, and the remainder of the sources are rather too insulated within the walled garden to provide a means to write a neutral article on the subject. If you can see a way to write an article on this subject, it would be great if you would describe what it is including which sources should be used for which sections (or just work on the article yourself). As it is, I think you are arguing about a principle that cannot be backed up with actual practice and having spent a lot of time working on WP:FRINGE articles at this website, I see this as being a likely dead end. New sources are not forthcoming and by keeping problematic content like this at WP, we are acting more like an advertisement for what cold fusion WP:ADVOCATEs think the world should be paying attention to rather than what is actually being paid attention to in regards to the subject of cold fusion. jps (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly so. I've argued to keep articles on pseudo/fringe science when the documentation existed to show that the topic was significant and that we could write about it in a reasonable way. (I worked to save Pseudomathematics during its AfD, for example.) The trouble in this case is that the documentation is either superficial, published in a venue that encourages sensationalism, or outright advocacy. If New Scientist found any paper of mine newsworthy, I'd resign myself to a surge of crank email, and I'd probably urge Wikipedia editors not to use their story for anything significant. That's never happened to me, but it has happened to physicists I know, so I'm pretty sure of how it would all play out. XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I am not convinced that the sources given above are good enough for a contentious topic, they are mostly journalistic takes and these tend to sensationalize minority viewpoints and often have insufficient expertise to properly weigh the reliability of contestable claims; ergo, they are not good sources for WP:NPOV-challenged topics. I would be wary of using the US government-linked report, as I have no idea how much vetting they make. Headbomb's Google Scholar link has a moderate amount of papers citing the original paper, but most if not all of them are about articles that have similar extraordinary claims of low-energy nuclear reactions - feels like we are falling for a "walled garden" of advocacy sources, there. If this was a viewpoint with any degree of acceptance, I'd expect some mentions in very mainstream publications. And I am not sure that the amount of sources is a lot, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG per Animalparty. It's fringe but perfectly within the guidelines of Wikipedia:Fringe theories. I second that the delete votes essentially boil down WP:IDONTLIKEIT bias.4meter4 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but ... how? I don't think anybody has argued that the page should be deleted just because "it's annoying" or "the 'theory' is so wrong that having an article is shameful". The problem is that the "scientific" citations are coming from a walled garden of fringe enthusiasts, and the "news" sources are press releases (phys.org), superficial mentions in sensationalist venues (New Scientist), and the like. That's not the kind of coverage we need if we want to write an article that's compliant with WP:FRINGE. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I agree that Animalparty has provided evidence of coverage to establish WP:GNG. However, to provide better context for the claims, it might be preferable to merge it into an article such as weak interaction or cold fusion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:21, 19 September 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. Noting the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nicely framed. Advertisement of a Non notable educational website which has no significant coverage with in-depth information and also fails WP:GNG. DJRSD (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DJRSD (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as per nom. fails WP:GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iamrajdeepdas, What is the joke in my contributions? DJRSD (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:28, 31 August 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. Fenix down (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contested PROD, original rationale was "Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. His EFL Trophy appearances were for Aston Villa U21s and do not confer notability." In addition, his Grimsby Town appearance(s) are in non-league so again do not confer notability. GiantSnowman 21:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - best source I can find is this, which falls short on GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Found other sources, at the end of the day professional player, loaned from one professional team to another, regardless of League. Much more notable than others who have articles who maybe played 1 or 2 EFL games then vanished whilst having thread bare articles. Footballgy (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a professional player who has appeared in the EFL Trophy and National League and has a lot of significant coverage following winning the FA Youth Cup this summer also, the page is very well-referenced for an article of this type with 19 sources. Let's use common sense here, I think that the combination of Grimsby being a professional club, Revan being signed to a professional club in Aston Villa and him having represented them in a competitive trophy (albeit for a 'U21 side') against other professional sides including Sunderland, as well as significant coverage in the press means that this page scrapes through notability. Mountaincirquetalk 15:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you share the sources that show significant coverage of him? Preferably WP:THREE if possible. All I can see are match reports/transfer news. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1869523 Yes Yes No Squad list mention No
https://www.avfc.co.uk/ No Aston Villa's own website No No No significant coverage No
https://twitter.com/AVFCOfficial/status/1318158171320582144 No No A tweet No No
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1869523 Yes Yes No Same as #1 No
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2020/09/08/efl-trophy-sunderland/ No No No Squad list for U21 match from club's own site No
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2020/october/EFL-Trophy-Fleetwood-Town-3-0-Aston-Villa/ No No No Barely mentions him No
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2020/november/EFL-Trophy-Carlisle-3-1-Aston-Villa/ No No No Mentioned once No
https://www.avfc.co.uk/news/2021/march/Seb-Revan-signs-pro-deal/ No No No Brief contract renewal announcement from his club's own site No
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12316276/aston-villa-2-1-liverpool-villa-youngsters-win-fa-youth-cup Yes Yes No Mentioned literally once No
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/seb-revan-aston-villa-breaking-21165140 Yes Yes ~ Has a couple of comments about playing style, position etc. ~ Partial
https://www.grimsby-townfc.co.uk/news/2021/july/revan-joins-the-mariners-on-loan/ No Grimsby's own website No No No
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/grimsby-town-aston-villa-revan-5710230 Yes Yes No Routine announcement that uses the same quote as the Birmingham Mail source No
https://www.thenonleaguefootballpaper.com/latest-news/step-1/national-league/394581/grimsby-town-loan-can-rev-up-aston-villa-youngsters-career/ Yes Yes No Another rehashing of the same content used in the three references above No
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-revan-grimsby-town-5752760 Yes Yes ~ Brief coverage of his performance during a match in a local paper ~ Partial
https://nonleaguedaily.com/aston-villa-defender-revan-could-have-attacking-role-at-grimsby/ Yes Yes No Barely anything No
https://www.grimsby-townfc.co.uk/news/2021/august/match-report-for-stockport-county-vs-grimsby-town-on-31-aug-21/ No Club's own site No No No
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aston-villa-loanees-make-debuts-21253683 Yes Yes No Only briefly mentioned No
https://underagaslitlamp.com/2020/10/02/aston-villa-youngsters-called-up-to-england-youth-squads/ No No Villa fan site No Trivial mention No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/seb-revan/605533/ Yes Yes No Stats page No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on assessment: I appreciate the work you've put in here but I disagree with your classifications on quite a few of these, even the couple of articles that are solely about him (as per the SIGCOV guidance they addresses the topic directly and in detail) containing facts, quotes from managers, and details on his position you have tagged as 'trivial' or dismissed as a 'rehash', such as the one in The Non-League Paper which is a real off-line publication that has published a piece on him, as well as the Non League Daily piece which is brief but again all about him, and a few where you've written 'briefly mentioned' when the source itself shows a number of sentences on the subject as well as direct quotes from his manager detailing his style of play/position - for example the Birmingham Mail article near the end of the list.
My WP:THREE would be:
  1. The Non-League Paper - [12]
  2. Grimsby Telegraph - [13]
  3. Birmingham Mail -[14]
I feel that there is (just about enough) significant coverage in these and as you agree, they are all independent and reliable. In terms of completeness, you missed this BBC Sport piece, [15], which while short is high profile, reliable, and independent. He's also mentioned in this piece in the Athletic, [16]. I feel that these combined with Grimsby being a professional club, who will be going into the FA Cup draw next month, that deleting this article now is unjustified. Mountaincirquetalk 11:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mountaincirque, much of the NLP piece is just quotes from an interview with his manager and so does not provide an independent analysis of him. It's basically equivalent to a press release. The Grimsby article is better, but it's also more of a recap of his performance against Alfreton -- I'm also very reluctant to consider a small-town paper truly independent from its home team, especially when it has daily updates from a dedicated Grimsby FC writer. The Birmingham Mail source is pure routine transfer coverage full of quotes from him and his manager, so definitely not independent. The BBC piece is also trivial loan content, and the Athletic barely mentions him. All in all, I'm still not seeing independent and significant coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per other comments Professional player with a pro contract at a pro team on loan to another pro team. Common sense in this case.Finch14 (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only factor that matters here is whether he meets GNG. This is explicitly required in the governing guideline (NSPORT): ...eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. CITEBOMBing with trivial mentions and routine match coverage is not a substitute for GNG sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I totally get the argument that it was raised too early, but it just seems silly to delete it now - only to have to recreate it again in a few months time, most likely. Professional player, on loan to another professional team. Will soon be playing in the FA Cup for Grimsby. Will almost certainly be playing in the EFL next season. I would ask people to just use a little common sense, and if, say the player has not made an appearance fitting the requirements in 12 months time, then we should think about deletion. Bored0stiff (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL - yes, what if he is notable in the future - but also what if he is not? You will be well aware of the number of young players who never make it in the Football League. GiantSnowman 15:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My view is it's better to have this page active now, which is in quite good health relatively, and delete it at a later date if he drops down into non-league football. The page had 1928 views last month, it's obviously of public interest. I hold that he scrapes through notability on coverage and there's a debate to be had on the EFL Trophy games for Villa U21 vs Sunderland (two pro clubs in a competitive trophy) give a claim to notability also. Though that's for another day/debate. Mountaincirquetalk 16:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We often give some leeway to young players who meets NFOOTBALL but might not yet meet GNG. The issue with Revan is that he does not meet NFOOTBALL! (or GNG) GiantSnowman 18:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the hard logic on the notability guidance, I'm just of the opinion that you should be able to take 6/7 smaller pieces of 'notability' and make a common sense judgement. I think what it boils down to for me is why delete this. What service does it do for the public? Why are we spending our time debating deleting an article that two thousand people have read this summer? Seemingly it's because he plays for a club that were just relegated from League Two into a league where a handful of clubs have semi-professional players. I realise we need to have rules but surely this is a fringe case on the boundary between pro/semi-pro. Mountaincirquetalk 09:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could extend that reasoning to any article on a non-notable topic -- why delete it if people are reading it? But the answer to that is in our core policy of what wikipedia is not (a database, fan blog, or promo site) and our principles governing BLPs (which have to be monitored especially closely to prevent vandalism since that can do real damage). Many articles kept on the premise that the subject would soon be notable have now been tagged with notability issues for 12+ years, all the while requiring volunteers assess every single edit. So the inverse question can also be asked: what harm is there in deleting or draftifying an article that would otherwise contain only database-type information but would still have to be watched extensively? JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete run-of-the-mill match coverage does not amount to WP:GNG; and the rest about NFOOTBALL has already been covered so no need to repeat it. If it's a case of WP:TOOSOON, there's nothing that prevents recreation of this (via a request at DRV or with the eventually deleting admin) if (far from being a certainty) and when the situation of this football player changes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify. Mr Revan doesn't meet the subject-specific notability criteria, nor does he (yet) meet WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is a current player in a country with wall-to-wall online football coverage, not someone from the 1920s: if significant independent coverage existed, it shouldn't be difficult to find. But what we have here is routine news and quotes from the player and his manager. Too soon. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GiantSnowman, RandomCanadian, JoelleJay, and the source analysis by Spiderone.4meter4 (talk) 14:28, 8 September 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. Seddon talk 21:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:17, 31 August 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 OCR in Indian languages. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now get this resolved. Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is redirect/merge to Jaipur-Atrauli gharana. This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now get an answer. Would be interesting if anyone who can read Hindi was able to look at it. Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 21:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. @Boleyn: Hindi Wikipedia doesn't have an article about Mohanrao Palekar. I added an English-language reference from Mint that mentions his name as if we should know who we was, but that doesn't provide details. I also added a reference about a vocalist who had been taught by Mohanrao Palekar. Finally, there's the already-existing reference "^ G. K. Nimkar: प्रथम मासिक श्राद्धदिनानिमित्त वाहिलेले परिचयपुष्प - a brief biographical sketch after the first month that might be to a book or perhaps something else, but it looks as if it might be in-depth. I think Mohanrao Palekar is an important culture figure, but I don't read Hindi, and I can't say for sure that there are multiple in-depth references out there. There must be, though, and I would say WP:IAR and keep. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 21:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Angerme. Relevant content can be merged from article history. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Part of a notable group, but not enough coverage to suggest she meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO as an individual. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to band. Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article on her in Japanese Wikipedia seems to have a substantial amount of referencing, as seen here. It would be great if an editor fluent in Japanese could check the quality and depth of those sources. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That article, Netherzone, is a combination of mere lists and the inane. Sample: 食べることが大好きな食いしん坊[16][17]。好きな食べ物はメロン。特技はモノマネ、バトン、早食い。 I.e. "She loves eating [with two sources, one of which is her Twitter account]; the food she likes is melon. Her special skills are doing impersonations, baton-twirling, and eating quickly." (And, as is entirely normal in ja:WP, whose editors are seemingly keen to satisfy the credulous, we are twice told what her blood group is claimed to be; not even a tweet is cited for this.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 21:05, 7 September 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. Seddon talk 21:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now get an answer. Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:13, 31 August 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was closed as no consensus due to poor participation, though both people who commented thought it should be deleted. I couldn't establish that it has the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years - I really hope we can now get the participation to get an answer on this. Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:12, 31 August 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. Seddon talk 21:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Al-Rimawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello all ... Regarding the article, the talent for simple drawing is not noticeable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, and also the references listed are unreliable local and news references, and the person has not achieved any achievement in the field of drawing, and he only draws people in the street, and who has this talent many From people, and the prizes he got are not great prizes, he only got an award from his school! The article does not meet the CV criteria. The article was previously deleted on the Arabic and French Wikipedia. --Osps7 (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 31 August 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 Chabad. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is written like a promotional advertisement. Many of the references are primary and in-house promotion of their programs e.g., suicide prevention, learning of Torah. Nothing to indicate notability outside of Chabad. Whiteguru (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and think it should be left for a while to see how it develops. It definitely needs more work but there are plenty of reliable sources for the information in this page from mainstream press sources outside Chabad.Londoner77 (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page in it's present form needs a lot of work, but there are clearly enough general media references to meet the WP:NOTABILITY standard, as well as merit it's own page. I will try and improve the substance and format when I find some time, but meanwhile feel it should stay. Winchester2313 (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Chabad. This organization has, at best, marginally significant coverage in independent, reliable source. Most of the sources that are independent or reliable are not significant and vice-versa. Some of the significant coverage is in reliable sources that are part of the same or similar movements, making the independence criterion a bit borderline so "Merge" seems the best outcome per WP:ATD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 21 September 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. Seddon talk 21:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Long-lasting promotional article about a site that has long been notorious to those fighting its spam, but not notable in WP:RSes on the evidence. Has been tagged for bad sourcing since 2012; looking through the history, this appears never to have been referenced to RSes well enough to support its claims of notability. Promotional editors have often stopped by to add multiple paragraphs of brochure puffery, though the current version has been cleared of these. A WP:BEFORE does not show independent third-party coverage in RSes that would meet WP:CORP, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline; indeed, there's basically negligible RS coverage to base an article on - lots of press releases, some churnalism and some passing mentions. I'd be happy to be shown wrong with multiple RS coverage, but it'd need to be shown. - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" !voters do not provide a policy-based argument on why notability is met. King of ♥ 05:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talysh Public Council of Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. There are no sources about their work/activities. (except its creation) NMW03 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article reflects the intention of the organisation Talish Public Council of Azerbaijan. The concern was raised regarding the absence of sources of its activities, which is not correct. The author of the article includes the statement issued by the Talysh Public Council, which is an activity and the source of that activity is also provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renat717 (talkcontribs)
NMWO3, your comments and baseless accusation against the article in the Azerbaijani version of Wikipedia makes me believe that you represent the interest of the ruling regime in Azerbaijan. Repeating the same manner in the English version is very surprising and "impressive". 3 days ago, Wikipedia confirmed the connection of the page Talish Public Council of Azerbaijan to the Wikipedia item.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renat717 (talkcontribs)
Renat717, welcome to Wikipedia (you registered 2 hours ago). No, I'm not representative of anyone. I'm editing Wikipedia since 2017 and I'm volunteer just like everyone. There is no "confirmation" of anything in Wikipedia. You cannot present it as an argument. I doubt you are a sockpuppet of Cuxar (the user who said I am racist against Talysh people in azwiki). Please note that this is prohibited per WP:SOCK. If I created AfD discussion for articles you created, that doesn't mean I'm racist against you or article's topic. It means I doubt this article doesn't meet notability criteria(s). So please avoid saying such things. Regards. --NMW03 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 20:56, 7 September 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. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet the higher standard needed for a BLP. Seddon talk 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Isn't notable besides being the first ever female UFC referee, and one of the worst MMA referees ever. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 16:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. "Per nominator" means you agree with the nomination, but your vote is the opposite. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's his way of saying that the topic's '1st ever female' and 'worst ever' statuses, as acknowledged by the nominator, already prove the subject is notable – a lazy and derisive dismissal of the nomination, with no attempt to back his own argument with sources. Avilich (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disregard - this comment was made by a now-blocked editor (for sock-puppetry and disruption) just 1 minute after their comment at a different AFD. They couldn't possibly have conducted a search for sources and their track record suggests an entirely different reason for seeking this article's deletion. Stlwart111 03:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editor was unblocked at the time he voted and is currently unblocked. That's not a valid reason to throw out his vote, though your point about the speed of his vote is worth considering. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being the first woman to serve as a referee of a notable sport is absolutely a solid claim to notability in and of itself. But that - and criticism of her - means there is plenty of significant coverage of her including this, this follow-up to that (and this one), things like this, and various dirt-sheets critical of her work as a referee. Significant coverage doesn't mean "significant positive coverage" and while that is unfortunate for the subject, I don't think notability is in question. Stlwart111 03:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - first woman referee in a very notable sport which is very very male-dominated is notable. And infamy is notable - if we say "one of the best" is notable, then so is "one of the worst". --Xurizuri (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you would think being the first woman referee of MMA would be notable, but there are no reliable sources that cover this in any depth. The sources linked above are horrible. A sensationalised headline in the bleacher report, which is basically a published rant from a dissatisfied fighter. The rest are worse. This is a BLP and we require much better sources than have been presented here to justify holding an article on someone. Not to mention given the nomination statement above it is an article likely to attract numerous BLP violations. Aircorn (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:1E. I also endorse Aircorn's comment above. Most of the sources are fluff except for the last one, fighthype, which, as an interview, is not independent of the subject and is too personal to be considered encyclopedic. Avilich (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, although the argument for deletion looks more convincing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where is the GNG coverage? And especially if the existing coverage is negative we need to have strong sourcing for inclusion of that material in a BLP -- which this bio certainly does not have. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I thought it would be easy to show she's WP notable, but there is a lack of significant independent coverage. My search found lots of comments, overwhelmingly negative, but they're from unreliable or not independent sources. I don't agree with the "first x to do y is notable argument", unless the subject meets WP:GNG--and I don't think that's true in this case. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 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 12:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 18:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eastmain, "in-depth coverage from reliable sources" omits the ORGIND requirement for "Independent Content". Anyway, not sure if you're just pulling our legs but reference 9 has no information whatsoever about the company (has a little about the product but that's not the topic of this article) and relies entirely on an interview with Nien-Ling Wayman, president of Compulink Management Center Inc., who are resellers so not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. So, can you describe for me the content of any of the other two which isn't a quote (from either the company or from Compulink the reseller) or a standard boilerplate company description (which has no in-depth information)? Perhaps you can reconsider your !vote? HighKing++ 21:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NemesisAT, the appropriate guideline is NCORP so both WP:CORPDEPTH *and* WP:ORGIND must be satisfied by each reference used to establish notability. Your first reference from Netword Computing doesn't say anything at all about the company as its a review of three products so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The second reference, similarly, says nothing about the company at all as it is an article about a customer's experience with the product, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Can you reconsider your !vote? HighKing++ 21:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - having seen the "WP:NCORP is Alpha and Omega" argument elsewhere, I'm entirely unconvinced. We're talking about a company whose name is common parlance in particular industries because integration and alignment with their products is the standard for that industry. End users talk about "creating Laserfiche documents" and "converting from Laserfiche" in a manner that suggests that its not just notable among those industries, but well known. Comprehensive coverage of the subject's products, by way of reviews, is an obvious indication of notability and the shortsightedness of WP:NCORP, and the rigid application of that guideline (yes, guideline, not suicide pact), is disingenuous. Let the bludgeoning begin. Stlwart111 11:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic discussion about user conduct
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Nope, it was in the AFD log and I contribute to AFD all the time. Check the time-stamps; I made my comment here before that discussion started. You should probably address your disruptive behaviour before trying to bludgeon more discussions. Stlwart111 05:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 20:52, 7 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Costinha (footballer, born 1985) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His professional football career spans 4+17 minutes, i.e. two substitute appearances, at Vitória. After that he was not a regular player in any team, not even the Spanish fourth tier. He thus fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:17, 31 August 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. plicit 23:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

First discussion closed as no consensus a month ago. Most sources in the article are about his creation, Gören Duyan. These make the company notable, not him. "Kimdir?" kind of sources are dismissed on trwiki as they are mostly, regardless of the publisher, not independent (explanation). The only source that contributes to notability is the Hürriyet one, which means this person doesn't meet GNG.

Interestingly the article of Gören Duyan and this person have been created across multiple projects by the same user, even in languages they don't speak, a pattern that most of the time points towards a COI. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 18:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed as no consensus, so it doesn't mean it can't be re-nominated. "Meets the notability criteria", no he doesn't. "There are many news on the person", no there aren't. COI declaration when? ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 10:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc.. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Computer Controls, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was tagged for 3 months regarding notability without improvement. Was sent to draft and immediately returned without improvement. Not enough in-depth sourcing from independent sources to meet notability, WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 01:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Asti Spumante Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find significant coverage that demonstrates notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOKS. There's a brief article in USA Today (06/16/2005), though I don't think it really fits NBOOKS criterion 1, but I can't find any further significant reviews or signs of its performance or any plaudits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 14:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails current standard of WP:NCORP. Almost all the information is about financing and routine features. Most of what look like good refs, like BBC, are actually promotional interviews where the founder says what they please. DGG ( talk ) 13:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CORPDEPTH and the appearance of WP:FORUMSHOP. Article has just been kept after a comprehensive and very precise discussion of sources that isn't addressed in the nomination. Instead we're back at generalizations so this nomination is a setback. Specifically, it does not deal with the TWO sources that were found to be in-depth even by one of Wikipedia's most critical and consistent delete sayers from twelve possibly valid sources. The only specific example now is an obvious one and is no longer relevant once valid sources for WP:CORPDEPTH were identified. Moreover it's a returning red herring in nominations of this company. The nomination is atypical for this nominator, who I especially appreciate for his quality contributions and superb work together spanning many many years! gidonb (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gidonb, perhaps you could help by removingt he sources which you think are low quality, leaving only the ones that are.I'm always willing to reconsider DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I do not see a problem with any references. Not all count toward notability but that is the USUAL SITUATION. As long as they can support the data they reference there is NO PROBLEM. Which brings me to the conclusion: if you do not have a case to delete an article – and you clearly don't as notability by WP:CORPDEPTH has been FIRMLY ESTABLISHED – you should not keep an AfD open. If you only seek to clean up an article, as far as I can see under the wrong impression that there might be a problem, then this would be a classic case of WP:WRONGFORUM. 11:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:36, 31 August 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 08:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. .116 in spotify. No fans, no social media. Not a music star. scope_creepTalk 18:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a BLP that was unreferenced, so the content was removed. Post up WP:THREE that are in-depth, independent and WP:SECONDARY that shows she is notable and the Afd can be closed as a keep. Currently there is no references on the article. scope_creepTalk 18:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the stripping, it's entirely unsourced. It's just to provide context for other AfD participants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: I just noticed it was yourself that stripped it down. It really needed it. Some mess. Producers don't do very well on Afd unfortunately, so see how goes. scope_creepTalk 18:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a procedural matter, and the nominator may have simply missed the albums. The albums are not notable just because nobody has yet nominated them for deletion. You could vote here to delete the musician AND the two albums and Admins would take it under consideration. Regardless, the two albums have no reliable reviews that I can find (the AllMusic entries are just empty placeholders) so I have redirected those two articles to the musician's page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Her own releases were largely unnoticed and don't justify their own articles (see my comment above). But for her behind-the-scenes career I agree with Binksternet above. The article needs to have some more reliable sources about her production work but those endeavors seem to have received enough coverage for a basic stub article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The urls references are a Youtube video with 222 views, so it is non-notable, an instagram profile which fails WP:SPS, a blog entry which non-RS, another Youtube video which has 825k but it is another artist. The context is Ainjel Emme did the vocal product, which is a poor references. None of that sastifies WP:SIGCOV nor WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creepTalk 18:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references:

Not one in-depth source has been added that is in-depth, independent and secondary that can satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creepTalk 11:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:27, 31 August 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. Seddon talk 20:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only known because she is married to Notable actor. Princepratap1234 (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:37, 31 August 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. Seddon talk 20:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living former members of the United States Cabinet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is even more WP:INDISCRIMINATE and trivial than the other similar lists under discussion. There's no question that this fails LISTN, and, besides the tables, the rest of the article is pure and unambiguous WP:OR, with statements as fancy as "the earliest last surviving cabinet member" being clearly original deduction which might be true or even obvious but are certainly non-encyclopedic; and there's not a single source used to support anything but some details in the tables, thus also failing WP:V RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an almanac nor a collection of trivia. pburka (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:5, Wikipedia has many features of almanancs and the like. And the content in question is not trivial. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. And the content, truly, is trivial: "There are x former living cabinet members from president y" is nothing but unadorned statistics and original deduction. And there really is no coverage of "former members of the United States Cabinet" as a group. At best the news might cover the current ones as a group, or those of a specific president might be covered as a group not of "former members" but of "Cabinet of president x" (for ex. Cabinet of Donald Trump; Cabinet of Barack Obama; also evidenced by the categorisation scheme, i.e. Category:Members of the Cabinet of the United States by presidential administration). This is redundant to those articles, and provides no encyclopedic information whatsoever, being just basically a database based upon the arbitrary criterion of who's alive amongst those. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me, the distinguishing feature between an almanac and an encyclopedia is permanence. If the contents of a list must be constantly changed over time (i.e. items must be removed to maintain correctness), then it becomes a directory more suitable for an almanac rather than an encyclopedic record of accumulated knowledge. This is closely related to WP:NOTTEMPORARY. pburka (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of our articles require updating as the facts change. For example, I just updated an article to reflect the fact that the subject had died. And all our articles about countries, governments and politicians require regular update to reflect changes in office-holders, elections and so forth. So the reason for deletion is not valid. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adding someone's death to an article is part of the accumulation of knowledge, but we don't delete the person's page when they die! In 80-years' time, if Wikipedia and this list still exist, every single entry in the list will have been replaced. That's not accumulated knowledge: it's a directory or rolodex. Lists of former office holders are encyclopedic; lists of former office holders who intersect with some ephemeral secondary criteria (living, vacationing, imprisoned, etc.) are not. pburka (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fully agree with nom. Edge3 (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living former United Kingdom MPs. Unwieldy list that requires constant maintenance to add and remove members. Ajf773 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The intersection of "has held public office X" and "is still alive" is to my eye self-evidently a WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. Of all possible parameters to list this group of people by, being alive is certainly one of them – but so is being born on a Wednesday. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As someone who created the second list for the article, I recognize that the article lacks verified information and that the article is, in fact, quite disjointed because of my edits, and if it appeases people who want to remove this article, I am therefore willing to separate the two halves of the article into two separate articles. Other than that, I see the article as rather a "lack of references" problem that can be fixed by adding verified references to the existing information. As for those who still want to remove the article despite of that, I think that there is very interesting information in the article and that to remove it will prove a great disservice to those seeking that information, as that is why I created the second list in the first place, as well as the existence of other "compiling information with references" lists on Wikipedia such as "List of last survivors of historical events", as well as the numerous (Births/Deaths) "x" year articles that attest to that. It's all information that people seek but no one has written anything about that for some reason, and considering Wikipedia's wide influence over the internet, I think it should be taken advantage of. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:00, 5 September 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. Feel free to create a redirect if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living life peers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant with List of members of the House of Lords (since this is a subset of that). This information could all be nicely included there (if in the form of individual footnotes or something). Is thus a content-fork and also fails WP:LISTN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 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. Seddon talk 20:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living former United Kingdom MPs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTN; and quite likely is nothing but WP:NOTSTATS (with bland and obvious statistical platitudes of no encyclopedic interest). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an almanac nor a collection of trivia. pburka (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:LISTN. These people are of public interest because they hold special security passes and tend to work as lobbyists. See Revealed, for an example of coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PMs and POTUSes (POTUSi?) are under siege. MPs are way too far down the political food chain for anyone to notice as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while I personally find parts of this interesting, I would agree with the nominator's rationale and the arguments above. Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a useful list for readers who wish to learn about the revolving door. Reywas92Talk 04:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unwieldy list that requires constant maintenance to add and remove members. Ajf773 (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with what others have stated above Edge3 (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The intersection of "has held public office X" and "is still alive" is to my eye self-evidently a WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. Of all possible parameters to list this group of people by, being alive is certainly one of them – but so is being born on a Wednesday. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very useful resource for comparing former MPs and when they served. The argument for "living" being an arbitrary criterion is reasonable, but that could be fixed by changing the scope of the article to include all MPs elected since a certain date. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 02:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists of living former holders of a political office are not the kind of content it's valuable for Wikipedia to maintain. For one thing, they're not necessarily updated promptly (or at all) when people die — when I reviewed (and AFDed) the similar list that formerly existed for Legislative Assembly of Ontario a number of years back, I found four dead people on a spotcheck of just seven entries without even going through the whole list, meaning that it simply wasn't getting updated for accuracy at all. Furthermore, this list depends very heavily on primary sources rather than reliable or notability-building ones; that is, most people's status as still-living is referenced solely to their Hansard biography instead of to any recent news story suggesting a reason why there would be anything significant to be found in the intersection of "former MP" with "not dead yet". If no other sources are discussing the significance of the grouping, such that you have to rely on primary sourcing to compile an original research list of something because other independent sources haven't already done that for you, then that's not a list Wikipedia should be maintaining or curating. And no, applying an arbitrary election date cutoff to separate living former MPs who "belong" in the list from living former MPs who "don't belong" in the list just doesn't solve the problems with it either. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 5 September 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, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting deletion of Gawad Genio Awards due to lack of proper sourcing and notability issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unilimited247 (talkcontribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 21:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:24, 15 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

A blatant and shameless autobiography that does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG either. The only sources provided are this video and this passing mention. A Brazilian search came back with nothing and a Google search only really came back with Rieti Life, which confirms that he recently had a trial with FC Rieti. No sign of notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:43, 31 August 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. Seddon talk 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rejected PROD. Badly fails WP:NCORP: the only reliably sourceable information about this party is that it is registered with Elections Canada, and there are numerous such parties registered which never gain any significant attention at all. There is no other third-party coverage whatsoever to establish that they are a notable political organization beyond simply existing. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I wrote in the (contested) PROD, this subject Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Not all political parties get an article just because they have a leader or a candidate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Hi! I created this stub page only because they have been given a colour and link for wiki, and wanted to remove the red-link from election tables. They appear to have fielded enough candidates for them to get entire columns on the Candidates of the 2021 Canadian federal election page, at least in Québec. I'm neutral, if y'all decide to keep, I was gonna translate their website to add more platform info, etc. If y'all decide to delete, you'll save me the trouble. If you's delete, then the Can poli colour should also be removed. Cheers!! FUNgus guy (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No need to remove the colour if the article is deleted. Just remove the links. Anyway, I was the one who created the links. I figured if it was running candidates in most Quebec ridings, there must be some reliable news stories about them, making the party deserving of an article. I'd imagine they will get some coverage, but barring that, the article probably should be deleted. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2021 Canadian federal election
The 2021 general election will be held on September 20.
Party Candidate Votes % ±%
Free someone
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Didn't find anything better than a series of mentions in lists of "other" candidates. WP:TOOSOON at best. --Finngall talk 21:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it relies on a single primary source and fails WP:NORG. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A search should also be conducted using French terms related to this political party, as the party appears to be based in Quebec. There may be news articles in French-Canadian media. (I performed a cursory search in French and found no sources providing significant coverage.) Mindmatrix 23:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, this is largely a Quebec party. One problem I'm having is that Google is confusing Parti Libre with Parti Libéral and Parti Libertarien. There are some results but they look like press releases to me, such as: [27] [28] [29] [30] - these are all a photo of the local candidate and flowery biographical info, the sort of info you see in campaign flyers, with no real coverage other than what the Party says about itself. I don't think this helps to establish GNG notability. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:43, 2 September 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. Seddon talk 20:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject is not meeting WP:NMUSICIAN. Bapinghosh (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bapinghosh (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. 2A01:4C8:A1:F08E:69AA:AD25:80F8:B9C5 (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus reached is that the article passes WP:GEOLAND via WP:NOTTEMPORARY. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The settlement is only noteworthy through its connection to Hanno the Navigator. It is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and would be adequately described in the article for Hanno. We do not need to create an article for every place of interest described in Hanno's periplus. wikinights talk 16:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. wikinights talk 16:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wikinights talk 16:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep where it is, unless there is some compelling reason why it should only be a footnote to other articles. Is there any likelihood of an article being created for every place of interest described in Hanno's periplus? It seems to me that the article exists because it was a colony, and the categories in which it's included don't give the immediate impression of being overpopulated by unimportant details. The fact that a modern settlement might have been founded on the same site doesn't seem to justify merging it into the article about that place. P Aculeius (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:GEOLAND. Not much more to it than that. If Wikipedia were around in the time of Hanno and we applied our guidelines then as they apply now, it would be considered notable. And notability not being temporary, it stands to reason that it remains notable. Stlwart111 11:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources I found:
Extended content
*Carpenter, Rhys (1966). Beyond the Pillars of Heracles: The Classical World Seen through the Eyes of its Discoverers. p. 98. identifies it around Mehdia's location (not explicitly). When theorizing about the exact location, he prefers Kenitra, however.
  • Cary, Max; Warmington, Eric Herbert (1929). The Ancient Explorers. p. 47. affirmatively identifies it as Mehdia in an unexplained annotation to the translation.
  • Warmington, Brian Herbert (1960). Carthage. p. 65. says Thymiaterion is near the Sebou River, which is true of Mehdia. Given that the settlement has been consistently identified as a port, we may say that Warmington supports the somewhere-around-Mehdia hypothesis.
We only know of Thymiaterion as a city Hanno founded, as described in an intentionally vague account. It would be better to merge this article into Mehdya without a certain identification, so as to avoid the proliferation of permastubs about settlements briefly mentioned in ancient sources. wikinights talk 09:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument seems to be contradictory—you don't want to give the location as though it were certain, yet merging it into a modern location implies that the identification of the two is certain. However, even if we suppose that the modern place is built on the same site, there appears to be no continuity between the two—so it makes sense for the original settlement to have its own article, however brief. That does not preclude mentioning it in the article about the modern location. There is nothing wrong with stub articles; a great many articles, not only in Wikipedia, but most encyclopedias, are stubs. Nor does the fact that the sources currently cited don't have a lot to say mean that there are no other sources currently available with more information, or that the article can never be expanded. And there seems to be little reason to worry about vast numbers of stubs "proliferating" from this source; the categories relating to this source do not indicate such a risk. It seems to be one of a small number of such articles, and so there seems to be no reason to worry about "an article being created for every place of interest described in Hanno's periplus". P Aculeius (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The identification with Mehdia seems to be inference, though assumed by two commentators. The article on Mehdia in fact says nothing of the subject. It ought to contain one sentence that it is thought to be identical to Thymiaterium. As with many things from the ancient world, we probably know no more than stated in the article. If so, the stub tag should be removed: it is an invitation to WP:OR. Indeed it might be best to tag such articles as having {{no scope for much expansion}}. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such template. SpinningSpark 17:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably articles about archaeological sites always have the potential for expansion—even if no digs are currently ongoing, it's entirely possible that historians and archaeologists are currently analyzing the available materials (some of which may not be readily discoverable over the internet), or that new discoveries will be made. That said, a stub tag seems unnecessary if the article contains most of what can conveniently be located at this time—if more is found, nothing prevents it from being expanded in the future. P Aculeius (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Müller who is mentioned in the article (but whose name was misspelt and his work not linked until I added it just now) mentions Thymiaterium on seven seperate pages and Thymiaterion on an eighth. The work is in Latin so I can't do anything with it, but that is at least an indication that there may be more to write than is currently in the article. SpinningSpark 20:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears no definitive source indicating that Thymiaterion is the same location as Mehdya, claims otherwise are original research. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:42, 7 September 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. Seddon talk 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. A WP:BEFORE yielded only unreliable sources such as IMDB and blog posts or trivial passing mentions of the subject. Both references (i.e. the external links) in the article are unreliable sources. While it's clear the subject wrote music from some notable films, without any RS I don't think a viable article is possible here. 4meter4 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:52, 31 August 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. Seddon talk 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Founder of a small company doesn't meet WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. Htanaungg (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 15:28, 31 August 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S8UL Esports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability; they do not appear to have won any major tournaments. ... discospinster talk 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 2A01:4C8:A1:F08E:69AA:AD25:80F8:B9C5 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • S8UL Esports is arguably India's biggest and most popular eSports organization. It was one of the first big Esports organization that got very popular. It's fanbase is the biggest in Indian eSports scenario.
The combined subscribers count (on YouTube) of its content-creators is far more than any other eSports organization in the country, with several of them having a subscriber count of more than a million.
Team 8-Bit, of the two founding members of the S8UL, is the first Indian team to win a international tournament.
Team SouL too has competed in several international tournaments.
As for team S8UL, the game PUBG Mobile was banned for the period September 2020-July 2021 and then was relaunched back as a different game (Battlegrounds Mobile India), so there hasn't been any official tournament, not domestic neither international, for the game. Aaditya.abh (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of that has any real bearing on notability in the Wikipedia sense. You need to explain how they meet the WP:GNG - that's the general standard as to if something should have its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Arguments supporting notability:

"Significant Coverage:" The page includes a wide range of information, such as hitsory as to formation, it's current eSports division, former Division, it's content creation information as this organisation is very prominent in content creation. The page also includes information for its management.


"Reliable Sources:" The sources provided on the page are reliable. All of the sources provided are reputed websites providing Esports and wide variety of general news.


"Independent of the subject:" Every piece of information seen on page are independent of the subject matter, i.e., S8UL Esports. No info on the page includes anything advertised by or affiliated to s8ul eSports.


"Presumed:" Everything provided here is information not presumed facts. Also, for each section of the page, there is not much detailed information available to have it's own separate page.
Aaditya.abh (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing, the india professional eSports organization, Stalwart Esports, which is a much smaller and lesser-known, and also lesser successful than S8UL, still that organization has a notable page on Wikipedia.
    S8UL is a very big thing in India. This organization is credited with practically making Esports popular in the country.
Aaditya.abh (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you'll have to be more specific than that with the sourcing. A five second glance is all it takes to counter the argument that all the sources are reliable. "Call of Duty Wiki" is absolutely not a reliable source per WP:USERG. I'm going to do my own research and wait for some more experienced editors to weigh in before I do. I'm not particularly convinced yet. I've never heard of any of these sources... Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, against Liqupedia wiki of the respective games, better - more reliable sources are needed? On it.
Aaditya.abh (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaditya.abh, Hey Aaditya, Wikipedia doesn't run on popularity. It required secondary reliable sources and, At this point all the references in the article aren't Reliable at all. I Don't think this page at this version is eligible for a wikipedia article. Moreover, you seem to have a COI with S8ul and need to disclose the COI with S8UL on your page, go through the relevant WP Policies. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 15:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. I was providing reliable citations/sources on the page as you sent this message.
2. I don't have any COI with S8UL. I was just scrolling through different eSports related pages on Wikipedia and then I discovered that there wasn't any Esports page of S8UL.
I have interests in Esports and tech, and that is probably the reason I may sound so passionate.
Aaditya.abh (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, i have removed the Call of Duty wiki sources and added more reliable sources. As to said, no sources are reliable, I believe a large proportion of sources link to Sportskeeda, a very reliable (that's for you to determine) source that provides news regarding a lot of sports, including Esports, news.
Aaditya.abh (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abhayesports, first of all thank you sir for understanding my situation here. Secondly, reliable sources as in news by prominent news outlets? Please provide some information as to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaditya.abh (talkcontribs)
This is a response to "Arguments supporting notability" above. "Significant coverage" is not about how well the Wikipedia article covers the subject. It is a requirement that the sources have provided significant coverage of the topic. Have another look at WP:GNG which explains "significant", as well as "presumed" which you also seem to have misunderstood. --bonadea contributions talk 11:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make sure to go through it. Aaditya.abh (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have initiated a discussion regarding having "AFK Gaming" as a reliable source for video games. I believe that website to be reliable.
You can check the discussion and my arguments on the talk page.
Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources
Aaditya.abh (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for catching that. I've warned the editor that it was inappropriate for them to be doing that. They removed my comment without responding. I'm getting the vibe they're getting desperate and trying more underhanded methods since they seem to be failing to garner a legitimate consensus in their favor, both here and there. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the page to my 3rd Sandbox to finalize it with all correct sources and everything. Is there any problem with that?

No, that's fine, as long as you don't attempt to to publish it prematurely again. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sergecross73 Thank you. I have no further arguments. And I will only publish the page again if and when I have sufficient "reliable" sources to back the facts. Aaditya.abh (talk) 04:13, 13 September 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. Seddon talk 20:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER, can't find any RS about her. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Urine deflector. Seddon talk 21:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-urination devices in Norwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Not sure how I got stuck with this weird thing, but here goes.) This topic comes off a previous deletion discussion two months ago, where the general tenor seemed to be "weak specific material but there's a broader topic here, keep and edit". Well, editing was carried out; the broader article now exists at urine deflector. This present article was pruned of irrelevant and background material by Drmies, Levivich and Mighty Antar, leaving us with the only bit relating to Norwich: that single report about a local historian's theory. This cannot sustain an article. My redirecting to urine deflector didn't stick, and the subsequent move to "Theoretical anti-urination devices in Norwich" (undone) is clearly a non-solution that only highlights the weakness of the sourcing. Unless there are well-founded reasons to object to the removal of window-dressing carried out by the above editors (and I don't think there's anything to fault there), the remaining single-sourced stub should be either deleted or, if the history is to be preserved, turned into a redirect with history. It's untenable in its current form.

I would be obliged if we could skip the demands for procedural closure because of too-recent previous AfD etc. Editing has happened, the result needs to be dealt with. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a mess. How are we meant to evaluate whether this article should be kept if it's been reduced to one line?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to quote Serial Number 54129 from the last AfD about whether the source was WP:EXPERTSPS: A retired high school teacher though does not fit the category (in fact his motivation was that he's a little bit cheeky!). Not only is he not an expert, but he also admits that the thing he might be expert on may not actually exist. At this point a number of editors have searched, and the only RS is a local news source reporting on the theory laid out by a retired teacher in a 32-page self-published pamphlet. This is not enough to establish notability under WP:N, which requires multiple sources (among other requirements).
    Colleagues, please don't forget we are here to build an encyclopedia, not play some kind of procedural game. Let's all just step back and reflect on the basic truth that none of us think Wikipedia should have an article about one guy's theory that was reported by the local news one time. That is very obviously below any rational conception of notability. The only question any of us should be asking is: is there a second RS about this? If the answer is "not that we can find", then we must delete this article. Levivich 15:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I am one of at least three editors who redirected the article; in each instance, the redirect was reverted by an IP (different IP with very different geolocation each time, none in Norwich). I find this suspect because none of the IPs edited the article before and no IP editor participated in the first AFD, yet whoever is editing from these IPs apparently has a strong knowledge of the nuance of AFD procedure (based on their edit summaries). I don't believe there are three or four IP editors in the world with a strong knowledge of deletion procedure who never edited this article or participated in the AFD but are willing to revert a post-AfD redirect. IP editors don't have watchlists right? How are they even aware of the redirects? They're checking this article multiple times? I don't buy it. I suspect logged-out editing and/or trolling. Levivich 15:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because we already have a redirect called "Anti-urination device" that redirects to the article "Urine deflector," I don't see the point of having the redirect "Anti-urination devices in Norwich". Anyone typing in "Anti-urination devices in Norwich" will get to "Anti-urination device" before they type in "in Norwich," and any backlinks can easily be updated (tho there don't appear to be any in mainspace). Or to put it another way, because we already have the redirect "Anti-urination device", the redirect "Anti-urination devices in Norwich" would not survive WP:RFD. Levivich 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and PROTECT the redirect Obviously! Now please stop wasting my time. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are the four redirections and the corresponding IP reverts:
    • Redirected at 01:32, 22 July 2021 by Levivich with edit summary (redirect to Anti-urination device - there are no sources in this article about anti-urination devices in Norwich any longer - I see no content to merge)
      • Reverted at 16:35, 25 July 2021 by 107.77.203.50 with edit summary (We just had a discussion on this and it closed as keep, not redirect or no consensus, either appeal at drv, or respect the outcome for 6 months)
    • Redirected at 13:16, 28 July 2021 by Levivich with edit summary (Undid revision 1035429453 by 107.77.203.50 (talk) this article fails WP:V)
      • Reverted at 19:49, 31 July 2021 by 173.3.250.213 with edit summary (If someone thinks an article fails WP:V and should be deleted or redirected it is discussed at afd. We just had the discusion and the community strongly disagreed with you, so stop trying to supervote redirect just because the afd did not go your way, and edit-warring against consensus is poor form. You may always appeal at drv, or clean up the article so that it meets WP:V in your opinion too.)
    • Redirected at 01:38, 6 August 2021 by Drmies with edit summary (this whole thing is ridiculous: it's based on a local newspaper article about a 32-page booklet self-published by some dude.)
      • Reverted at 00:35, 14 August 2021 by 146.168.203.51 with edit summary (Once again, when a redirect has been challenged you must use afd. Edit-warring in a redirect is unacceptable, since this was just at afd you have three options 1-help implement the close (clean up the article) 2-appeal the close (at drv not by edit-warring) 3-walk away)
    • Redirected at 19:05, 26 August 2021 by Elmidae with edit summary (pointless to keep in its current form - we do not have articles on single individuals' private theories. The piecewise removals of unsourced text, unrtelated text, and unrelated sources in the last few days seem entirely well justified, and if this is the result, it can't stay. Redirecting to Urine deflector)

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to urine deflector, doesn't need a separate article. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to urine deflector, as per above. Not enough sourcing for an independent article. While article content does not determine notability, there isn't enough content in reliable, independent sources to meet GNG for a stand alone article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to delete as 1. the article is an WP:ORPHAN so it isn't necessary for navigation 2. It isn't a reasonable search term on Wikipedia as it's too specific (the reasonable search term would be "anti-urination devices"). 3. There's no content in the article to be merged nor any reason to preserve the article's history. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really don't understand why non-notable, fictional facilities in Norwich should be redirected to something that is notable non-fiction? Mighty Antar (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and if the IP editor who's causing confusion feels cheesed-off, get them to put the EDP reference to the bloke who described the Norwich urine-deflectors in Urine deflector. Currently I'm also a bit cheesed off: I thought we'd got all this sorted after the first AfD debate, and the new urine deflector article would completely supplant the Norwich article, extending it to cities at large. But we're now in the situation of a rubbish, one-line Norwich article that mentions the existence of the deflectors but lacks all the genuine information of the original deleted article, but a new general urine-deflectors article that also lacks any mention of the Norwich idea. I can understand the latter: we focussed on the bloke's cheeky personality and self-published booklet, which aren't the stuff of WP. If we'd focussed on the fact a well-respected local newspaper with expertise on Norwich gave him page-space, we could just about justify getting a one-line mention of his work (and maybe one of the pics) into the general Urine-deflectors article, where it wouldn't look out of place. That's honestly the best outcome the IP editor can hope for (I am guessing that this is an outburst of Norwichism; I live here, we've been thumbing our nose at the rest of the universe for centuries and have no intention of stopping now; or maybe someone is trying to prove that WP-AfD can't organise a piss-up in a regional city?). Elemimele (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, I'll ask a very simple question but for the benefit of those who'd rather overlook this I will elaborate. Why is there so much emphasis on creating a redirect for this crap? I have nothing against Norwich, it's many fascinating delights and I have nothing against the concept of a Urine deflector or anti-urination measures. Urine-repellent paint is a real thing. That a local newspaper has published an amusing local story about a quirky local pamphlet is about as notable as if it published a story about the towns skateboarding dog. For reasons of amusement, a fiction has been conjured up by somebody, somewhere that every sloping surface below head height of an architectural nature is obviously a secret urine deflector, the idea that somehow, someway we must defend our buildings against this unmentionable attacker, but nobody must know has taken root. That vent on the side of the Bank of England is an absolutely perfect example. Herbert Baker designed this very expensive and prestigious edifice with dozens of corners and perfect little niches, absolutely wonderful spots I should imagine for urinating if one was to be so inclined, why on earth then did he waste good money sticking a urine deflector in only one corner? Could he not conceive that having been defeated thus, a drunken man stumbling home would move a foot to the right or left or use some other location on this massive site? The whole subject would be really laughable if there didn't seem to be rather a lot of time and effort being made in defending such arrant nonsense. There is a whole wealth of reference material on Georgian and Victorian toilet habits, public sanitation, hygiene improvements, urinary practices, architecture et al. and yet for reasons I find difficult to fathom, some people have convinced themselves that such a scandal might be attached to these devices that they have had to be placed in secret around our public buildings to protect our delicate sensitivities. Now stop wasting time on debating the minutia of unrelated wikipedia protocols and delete this thing! Mighty Antar (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, I guess, since the former article is basically gone to begin with. jp×g 23:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as was done previously, and optionally protect the redirect as Johnbod suggested. In the last discussion, I proposed that the article be kept but its scope expanded beyond Norwich as urine deflector and anti-urination device were both WP:REDLINKS at the time. Instead, what happened was that the urine deflector article was created while the AfD was ongoing, which I thought was a bit disruptive to the discussion (but it did mean that the newly created article was eligible for WP:DYK). The best solution would have been to let the first AfD run its course and then move the article to a different title and broaden the scope. The closest we're going to get to that now (short of a WP:History merge, I suppose) is to redirect (since there's nothing to merge at present). TompaDompa (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will repeat once again, that there was and is nothing whatsoever to redirect. The last AFD was based upon the false assumption that something of substance was written about these mystical devices in Norwich. It was never there. It was a page of waffle based on speculative guesswork about hidden but wholly unsubstantiated fixtures that appears to exist on several blogs around the internet, but nowhere else in the annals of architectural literature unless it's in some hidden chapter we're not allowed to see. I'd happily support a page on the history of public lavatories in Norwich, because I know it could be well sourced and based on factual information, but specious guesswork about tangible items does not belong in Wikipedia.Mighty Antar (talk) 10:10, 3 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No appearances for Roma yet and, even if she had one, it still wouldn't be enough as the Serie A (women's football) is only fully professional as of next season, as per WP:FPL.

Outside of AS Roma's own website and its two main fansites, Voce Giallorossa and Chiesa Di Totti, there is almost zero coverage of Pacioni. The two fansites do not meet our requirements at WP:RS or WP:IS as the content is user-generated and not neutral. Aside from that, the coverage is also not significant coverage in that it does not address Pacioni directly and in depth. Content such as this user page for Pacioni is actually written by User:Dallagente, the creator of this Wikipedia article.

In terms of an actual independent source, I can find nothing better than this very short contract renewal announcement. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:09, 31 August 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 23:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Steel City Wrestling personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Assault Championship Wrestling personnel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former World Xtreme Wrestling personnel. No notable alumni for a very small promotion. Several werestlers are no notable and several of them have no sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Xcitement Wrestling Federation personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Assault Championship Wrestling personnel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former World Xtreme Wrestling personnel. No notable alumni for a very small promotion. Several werestlers are no notable and several of them have no sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite that, several of them has no article. Most of them, have no sources. The promotion was a independent promotion that lasted 4 years. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:59, 14 September 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. Disregarding the argumentless "vote" by Multi7001. Sandstein 08:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NAUTHOR, fails WP:NARTIST, fails WP:ANYBIO. Makes the news regularly on some (same) local papers which is expected of a controversial lawyer; fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sources invariably go "there is this thing in our city/state, and this lawyer said this about it, and by the way, that lawyer was disbarred" or "there is this thing and that lawyer that was disbarred is involved in it too". Not in the article: some local coverage for racist remarks[38] and association with Trump campaign[39], but no WP:SIGCOV. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeps above are talking about news about the subject getting disbarred and subsequent attempts to get reinstated which failed; no dedicated coverage of the battle or the person, just news on the updates: disbarment, appeal, rejection, appeal, rejection, ... None of the sources are SIGCOV, and we need SIGCOV as there is no WP:NLAWYER.
    I would invite editors to consider the subject in the context of an encyclopedia with a selective inclusion criteria. (Even when there is SIGCOV but especially without,) a person is notable for doing something significant or being a major part of something significant, the infamous "best known for" if you will. What is the significant achievement of the subject? "A lawyer who got disbarred and then appealed and appealed all of which failed"? Following the legal recourse provided in every country with a functional justice system does not make one notable, not unless they win in the end and it leads to significant reform with regard to whatever went wrong. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 31 August 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. WP:SNOW keep. JBW (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pale Moon (web browser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Article looks like ot uses only primary resources/references. It uses Pale Moon and Mozilla Pages only. The article needs more resources. Adriem914 (User talk: Adriem914) 12:04 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete The Article does not show a good type of resources, only primary resources. It uses other sources, but it is not enough and good. Adriem914 (User talk: Adriem914) 12:08 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Striking duplicate vote by nominator. Jumpytoo Talk 22:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added AfD template and added to daily log. No comment on the AfD itself at this time. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a nonsense request for deletion. Most likely as a result of heated discussion about licensing of a fork that is occurring on GitHub at the moment and having some very questionable elements attacking developers and the project as a result. Please do not delete the page. The project is long-standing, actively developed and maintained; potential quality improvements to references are not of significant enough level that it warrants deletion. Wolfbeast (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fairly active project that is important enough to be the subject of numerous Internet discussions. It may be true that much of that history is connected with Mozilla and the project itself, but I do not think that fact invalidates the existence of this article. 47.184.130.136 (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disagreeing with the actions of the developers of a software project is not a valid reason to delete the Wikipedia article of said project. 192.24.234.53 (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have already stated, this request appears to be in relation to disputes regarding code under the Mozilla Public License on GitHub[1][2][3][4] and dislike - or possibly an attempt at revenge - is not a credible reason for deletion. ForceLance (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Keep The rationale sounds like a WP:SOFIXIT to me. I'm fine with Basilisk getting deleted or merged to this article, but to delete this one? Nope, not a chance. It's also interesting that this AfD comes right after someone posted a reddit post about Pale Moon devs "abusing" the Mozilla Public License...

    SeaMonkey also has a lot of primary sources. Why don't you go AfD it? Oh, you can't, because it's a notable part of Mozilla's history. But this can't be the case for Pale Moon? Come on. --pandakekok9 (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:20, 31 August 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) Kstern (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a notable topic. All sources reference a single incident that is not notable in itself. Kstern (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator New content added by Cabrils makes the subject of this article appear notable. Kstern (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:24, 31 August 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

It exists, and noe of its several founders is notable. Merge/redirect to him as an WP:ATD might give the impression he was the only founder though, rather than on a term. Doesn't appear to have the coverage/significance to meet WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now get the question answered. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/likely delete A little confused. Is the nom meant to read "it no longer exists"? I note the Editor in Chief's affiliation misspells "Ithaca" ;) Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see any evidence of this being even borderline notable, I don't see any notability at all... Please see WP:ILIKEIT. The Category:Herpetology journals currently has 11 entries (and there's probably more journals that have no article). Should that all be listed in a "journals" section in the herpetology article? Or should that section only contain non-notable journals, with the notable one listed under "see also"? (Just to be clear, I oppose a merge, too). --Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete I'm on the fence, not even sure that a mention in a Journals section in Herpetology article would be worth it. In any event, this page should go. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if we accept that journals aren't automatically notable, then surely this one falls below any notability line we would draw? If their website's index is comprehensive, then the journal published just 23 papers in its 10-year existence. It isn't mentioned anywhere else that I can find. Mentioning it at Herpetology#Journals seems seriously undue, since this must be the several hundredth most important journal in the field (though I, of course, am not a herpetologist, so what do I know). If folks want to maintain mention of it on a Wikipedia page, maybe someone should start a List of herpetology journals? Otherwise I can't think of an obvious place to host more information on the journal, even if we can find it. Ajpolino (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Randykitty. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 11 September 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE TICE CUBE) 14:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The Wired article contains less than one hundred words of content dedicated to the subject. The Twin City Live source is a permanently dead video with less written prose than the Wired article. The Star Tribune article is mostly WP:INTERVIEW material and is therefore a primary source. Searching for sources that aren’t already being cited yields trivial mentions from NBC News, BusinessInsider (WP:BI), and Space.com but there are no in-depth sources that would demonstrate WP:SIGCOV or even provide useful information for writing an Encyclopedia article without WP:ORIGINAL research. The Space Frontier source says that the subject received the “2010 Best Presentation of Space Award”. The Space Frontier Foundation does have a Wikipedia page, but it only contains bare URLs to sources that, at a glance, don’t appear to demonstrate WP:N. I don’t think this article would qualify for WP:WEBCRIT despite the award, but either way WEBCRIT states that “In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for content meeting one or both of these criteria,” and I’m not seeing independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability. Jami Higginbotham, Cariann Higginbotham, Jared Head, and Ryan Caton don't have Wikipedia articles so there isn't really a place to merge the content. It's also worth noting that even if the hosts or guests were notable this show doesn't WP:INHERIT that notability. If someone is able to scrounge up some sources or if the award is notable enough to save the article it needs some cleanup considering only two out of the fifteen paragraphs in the body of the article even contain references. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:14, 31 August 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 13:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and was rejected at AFC earlier. Can't see any indepth reliable coverage about the subject. Riteboke (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Riteboke (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Taggart. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded with no helpful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). At best we can consider redirecting this to Taggart. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 09:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Taggart#Main - The current article is entirely ploy synopsis, and there are no sources being used. Searching for sources brings up some mentions of the character, either in plot summaries or mentioning it as one of the prominent roles of Blythe Duff, but there isn't any coverage I am seeing that would justify this as a spinout article. Rorshacma (talk) 20:51, 31 August 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 13:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shootfighter: Fight to the Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. That two of the actors appeared in Karate Kid does nothing to establish notability. Paradoctor (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography#1950s. The sources provided by the keep !voters have been questioned and largely rejected by the consensus of participants. Consensus is that this subject does not warrant a separate article. Hog Farm Talk 04:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dopey Dick the Pink Whale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded with "No evidence this passes GNG/NFILM. BEFORE fails to find any coverage. The cited source is just a passing mention.". PROD removed with the request for AFD, so here we go. Please note that the cited The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons (I used the newer edition from 2009) only mentions the subject in passing, in a list of Woody Woodpecker animations, and doesn't discuss the topic at all. The other cited source is a website of dubious reliability which also does not contain any discussion of this topic other than just listing it [41]. I suggest redirecting to Woody_Woodpecker_filmography#1950s and doing the same with dozens of similar catalogue-like entries listed there that have no need for a stand-alone article (failing GNG/NFILM/etc.) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:34, 1 September 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 Nomination withdrawn. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Gerardnico (see related discussion at User talk:Gerardnico). While I appreciate Gerardnico's interest, I am afraid they failed to either read or understand the cited policies (GNG, NSOFT). The article still fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject, and no evidence of such notability has been presented in the discussion (I am honestly not sure what the spreadsheet Gerardnico created is supposed to demonstrate). The best alternative to deletion I can offer is to suggest draftificaiton of this article in Gerardnico's userspace, but I have serious concern this article will be ever ready to return back to our mainspace as the odds of something happening and making this notable are, IMHO, slim but arguably not zero...). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Analytics

The spreadsheet based on a Google Search is supposed to demonstrate the Wikipedia:General notability guideline points (ie Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject, Presumed).

A Search engine is independent by nature because it ranks the page mostly by popularity. It means that a page is ranked based on the external links that it gets. That's how th Internet is voting. Nobody can influence the result and are then by nature `independent` and `reliable`.

This analytics shows/adds further the following points:

  • a signifiant coverage - ALL articles are talking about Dokuwiki
  • sources (listed in the sheet)

I don't know how to respond in a discussion in Wikipedia, I have then created this section. User:Gerardnico

The sources cited don't appear to be reliable (blogs, niche portals like https://geekflare.com/self-hosted-wiki-software/ with no evidence of editorial control), etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral:(Recusing from discussion with intent to be permanent and intend would re-enter if have added non-trial sources to article, and thinking unlikelty to re-enter even then Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)):Keep:Delete: Disagree with the passing mentions on the books front. I am mentally collapsing on stuff coming through at AfD at the moment ... but I suppose I will end up having to give a detailed defence here as the onus is on the keepers who may have to put in one hell of lot of effort compared to the nominators. There goes my RL and the summer ... this one merits a keep. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to delete per considerations of SELinux jockey experiment until I recheck due to social science guinea-pig considerations. Article CTIEBOMBed already. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Fairly large userbase in SoHo and departmental systems. As Alien life form points out there is a book published about it. It is included in many Linux distros. One of the key WP policies is WP:RF, and with that base/exposure there will be regular views actually using WP as an encyclopedia. In the last 20 days there have been 1688 views, the 90 day total is 8852, so that's a sustained readership of around 80 per day. The article is therefore needed. It is capable of improvement, and needs better referencing to keep deletionists at bay. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)--Bvdbos (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can someone please clerk this discussion into order. The good faith contribution by Gerardnico is a tad messy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I extended the page with more content and references in the hopes to highlight the relevance. I hope this matches Wikipedia's requirements. Let me know if/how the page can be improved. --Andreas Gohr (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added some page content as well indicating a popular use case for this software with what I believe to be a reliable source according to the WP guidelines. --Grumbly-Payphone-Exchange (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not only is dokuwiki important for mediawiki's own history and is mentioned and linked in the article itself, it is a commonly used tool in science, humanities and by the general public, especially in the German speaking world (even for disaster relief). It has entries in Clarivate WebOfScience going back to 2009, showing how long a variety of fields from computer science, humanities, library science to Astronomy and Physics have mentioned it in their research papers. In Elsevier's ScienceDirect it is similar. In Wiley Online Library, it is mentioned in articles and books from a variety of fields. It has over 200 entries in WorldCat. It is regularly mentioned in bachelor thesis, so students need it as well and it also is the topic of dissertations. Comment: I really do not feel that this is the best use of the deletion "nuclear" option in this case - much better to expand an article people might find useful. If you need books with chapters covering DokuWiki, there are e.g. ISBN 3936546282, a variety of books by O'Reilly like Kali Linux, Wikis for Dummies and Practical Open Source Software for Libraries as sources which include recommendations after reviewing their respective topics just to mention 3 in English. And there are more, some in Hindi, Chinese, French or Spanish. English book on DokuWiki from 2018 ISBN 193091166 has been mentioned, there are also some in german e.g. ISBN 3110352532 and other languages. --Gegohouse (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)- gegohouse[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's the second largest wiki-software, after Mediawiki, it's actively maintained and it has an active userbase. The article may need to be updated/extended but it's much more relevant then other articles about abandoned wiki software-packages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvdbos (talkcontribs) 05:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I returned to the discussion because there was a possible good faith minor WP:CANVAS attempt to persuade some comments to change to keep !votes. A good closer would account for that anywaay; and it would be hard at this moment to establsih any concensus to delete. I have always not wanted to get heavily involved in this as this was pretty well certainly always going to be a stonewall keep, and I dont want to get into hunting specific sources if I have to, I'm time limited. I do note of significance gegohouse presented significant and sufficient sources for RS consideration on 9:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC). Failure to challenge those within what is now nearly is surely a minimum for a keep no-consensus, and probably sufficient for a keep result. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. No delete votes remain, a book was found, this is probably good enough to close as keep. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Thanks for withdrawing. To state the somewhat obvious I had been immediately per the book of Vermeulen, an SElinux jockey,(jokingly SElinux people in general are at least one of awesome, sadists or geeks, mainly on the basis enforcing early versions of SElinux could probably damage one's health and one's organisation). So from my angle it was a always going to be keep from one end of the day to the other. BHG had been recently blocked, I came late to that party, and hadn't read everything on that dispute, but likely feel her cause was just and probably right. It seemed a bit topic=tt related so I'm inclined to recuse on those. You're a socialogist, eloquent, and therefore there's a possibly realize your style will might lure people into a WP:SEALION situation. Me, I'm sort of paranoid in some senses. To cut a long story short we have history, much history, and my !vote changes above were to prevent a speedy to teach the old lesson as this seemed to me a poor BEFORE and could have been a SEALION baiter for my zone, perhaps in particular for me. I've kind of just served my time in Ravenswood for the disruption, have had the injection, and are reviewing elements of my style thereafter. Sourcing keeps taken time and energy I don't really have so I mainly leave AfD's for other and will do minimum necessary for a no-concensus keep on others. One thing is certain to me, this AfD and the blocking of BHG contributed to the outburst that got me blocked. But all said and done, thanks for withdrawing, I've only really returned when "team keep" (I actually confirm I have no collusion with then) did a minor canvas which might have been an issue. But again, thankyou for choosing to withdraw and in good faith I believe you might have done so sooner if that was not possible by my !vote change. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark This is a bit off topic, but I had no idea you got blocked, nor did I see (nor see now) any connection of this AfD to BHG incident. In either case, I indeed couldn't withdraw it with a delete vote in force, but now as I said I am fine with the community consensus, although for the record, I find the existence of highly specialized textbooks about a particular work not always sufficient for notability (some of them are very low quality and have very low impact). But taking all arguments together, ok, let this stay, it was reviewed and found not lacking (much). Thank you to all who participated, doubly to anyone who improved the article in question. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 2 September 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 Toby Gard. WP:ATD czar 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. HighKing++ 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 20:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:04, 31 August 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. Seddon talk 20:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Government Science College, Matale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note:The page was created by an IP editor as a talk page, to get round the requirement for autoconfirmed status to create an article, and it was then moved to mainspace by Dan arndt. It might have been speedily deleted from talk page space, but now that it's subject to this discussion it's probably better to leave it where it is and let the discussion run its course. JBW (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @JBW: thanks - I'm fairly certain that this article was previously deleted via a PROD earlier in the year - which is why it was on my watchlist. As a result I thought that an AfD was more appropriate as if the article is deleted via that process and then subsequently re-created it could potentially be dealt with as speedy delete - G4. Dan arndt (talk) 01:20, 1 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purple economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cultural footprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The articles for Purple economy and Cultural footprint should be deleted as they are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. I have found no evidence that either topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Both concepts are promoted by Diversum, the French organisation which started the Prix Versailles and the articles were created and maintained by single purpose accounts also linked to the Prix Versailles. Ten of the accounts promoting the Prix Versailles and the Purple economy across sixteen different language Wikipedias have been confirmed as sockpuppets.

The purple economy article is about cultural aspects of the economy, while the phrase is also used to refer to caring aspects. See also

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the motion by User:Spiderone upon reading the investigation the COI affecting the aforementioned articles as well as the articles themselves. Purple economy is a promising topic but I think it is best for it to be red-linked and recreated by an impartial author (especially seeing how the article is badly organized and hard-to-read as is). --A. C. Santacruz Talk 16:09, 26 August 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) 12:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is well-established and has been the subject of varied and serious references. The concept has been endorsed by Eric Maskin, Edmund Phelps, Christopher Pissarides, among others. These credentials take this to the highest level in economics. It would make no sense to delete the article. I myself do not know enough to expand on it, but I can try to re-work it. I will trial it on the article's talk page. Lagoyan (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC) This account was opened on 30 August, after the start of this AfD discussion. TSventon (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is TNT case. Looking all the socks that have been blocked, they have completed by far the majority of work, apart from that IP address editor in the last few days. On top of that I can't find any academic sources confirm it is a genuine concept. I lack confidence in saying it is notable from that aspect. Certainly there is many sites that seem to have latched onto it. But certainly, if notable, then it needs a COI free new article and it is clear case for WP:TNT. scope_creepTalk 12:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
scope creep, the IP editor is another single purpose account so I have added them to the COI discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Prix Versailles update. TSventon (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: It is super suspect, coming in like that. It is so obvious. Well done, getting all this sorted. Remember to notify them. scope_creepTalk 12:41, 4 September 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) 23:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean State Green Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. For an organization to be considered notable for an article on Wikipedia, it first needs to receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There are none of those in the article, and my own search didn't return enough to satisfy the notability criteria. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 09:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:52, 23 August 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) 12:30, 31 August 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 08:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Carlson-Wee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With reference to WP:NOTCV, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at our formal rules for sourcing: 40 under 40 etc. is a pure promotional gimmick, in all of its many permutations. An alumni magazine is not usually a RS. Ref 7 he seems to have dictated himself. 4 & 2 have suspicious similar titles--that usually means they were written from the same press release. No article referring to someone's "native brilliance" should be even considered as a RS. -- But this does leave open at least the possibility that 1 is a real source--has anyone read it? DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DGG For the first paragraph: This is your personal opinion and assumptions. Let's stick with the formal rules and policies.
* I agree that 40 under 40 and 30 under 30, etc, are probably promotional. But still, we do have articles on them, that make them notable. In fact, I added that after realizing the list has an article here. I see some irony there. No objection, just saying.
* Alumni magazine link is used to support the content and not to prove the notability.
* Ref 7 is an interview and is used to support the information and not to be considered as RS. Used to support the content and not to prove the notability.
* I have some concerns rejecting the 4 & 2. Isn't how the news industry works? Somebody breaks a news and everybody else follows when they find it newsworthy? There are at least 20+ articles on news websites about this with almost the same title with a simple search. Or maybe you are right, I don't know and I don't make assumptions. - The9Man (Talk) 09:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
of course everything I say is my personal opinion. That's the purpose of makign comments at AfD. I'm making comments, not decisions. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 17:21, 23 August 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) 12:29, 31 August 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) Curbon7 (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insufficient substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, not press releases or blogs or postings or mere notices sources that meet WP:NCORP. See the more promotional earlier version in the page history. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated article and added many new sources. Please check again and also do a search in Google news for more citations. Webmaster862 (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. I'm changing my vote because the article has had significant changes since being nominated. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 23:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Seems the page was vandalized in October 2020 by an IP editor and major portions removed. He cited marketing language. I am bringing back some portions that don't sound promotional and re-adding some old citations.Webmaster862 (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 09:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to have sufficient sources that meet the criteria for notability. For example, Gartner have provided independent analysis based on vetted customer reviews. Forrester have also provided analysis. I've removed the section on the "fund" as it was unnecessary and promotional, especially to list the companies which were funded. Otherwise, Topic meet NCORP. HighKing++ 13:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gartner provides directory information and aggregated customer reviews, not analysis. They have exactly he same reliability as Yelp. The Forrester review was commissioned by the company. We shouldn't just glance at the sources--but read them, looking for the tell-tale indicators that they are not independent. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well yes, the link I provided is to the analysis based on aggregated reviews which I accept not everyone will see that it meets ORGIND and CORPDEPTH but Gartner have also included the company in research reports on "Talent Management Suites" for years and included in their 2020 research report on Content Service Platforms. And while the Forrester report was commissioned by the topic company, page 4 of the report makes it clear that Forrester maintained editorial control over the study and its findings. There are many other research firms that have included this topic company in their research and analysis and the topic company includes this list on their website. HighKing++ 19:40, 26 August 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) 12:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Sweden Twenty20 International cricketers. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC point 2. StickyWicket (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 31 August 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. Seddon talk 23:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

A thorough fail of WP:GNG means that a technical pass of the relevant SNG (subordinate to GNG, as it only offers a rebuttable presumption) is entirely irrelevant; since you can't presume something which does not exist. The sum of all coverage on the subject that I can find in reliable, independent sources is essentially result listings and database entries. Suggest merging/redirecting (as a plausible search term) to List of Japanese sportspeople. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider.) 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has won an individual medal and a team medal at the Asian Games, has represented Japan twice at the Olympics and has won several national championships. I see that the nomination is focused on the sources but, by itself, I think this qualifies as more than a database entry athlete (and thus a biography that we should aim to have)? - Simeon (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As nominated, the article was a sub-stub. It has since been improved with sourcing demonstrating that Iwamoto is a two-time medalist at the Asian games and has been competing at an international level for 13 years. I also suspect that Google searches are not sufficiently comprehensive to find newspaper and other sources from Japan. Cbl62 (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a search of his name in Japanese (岩元 勝平) turns up a fair amount of news coverage but I am not able to read to verify how deep the coverage is. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Obvious POINTy nomination that just serves to defeat nominator's point based on subsequent developments. Stop wasting everyone's time with this discussion when we could be improving the article further and speedy/snow/whatever you want to call it close this thing. I'm somewhat curious what nom expects coverage of an athlete to be other than of their athletic performances. In fact, if such coverage of unrelated matters could be found, primarily focusing on it would violate WP:UNDUE. Smartyllama (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In about five minutes, I was able to find multiple sources including [50] (an English translation can apparently be found here though I don't know how reliable it is), [51] (possibly unreliable translation here), [52], [53], and more. All are coverage of the athlete's performance, results, selection to the team, etc. but of course they are because he's an athlete and that's what athletes are going to get coverage for. That's absolutely not routine. Smartyllama (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And that was without looking up his Japanese name. Looking up that, I got [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], and a whole lot more that I'm not going to go into because this is more than enough already. But if nom thinks it isn't, they're welcome to do more thorough WP:BEFORE and look at the numerous other news stories I could find with a two second Google search for his Kanji name. Smartyllama (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • [59] is clearly, very clearly, a transcript from a press conference (with the athlete quoted at length); [60] only trivially names ("Shohei Iwamoto finished 12th with 1361 points.") and an unremarkable quote from the subject (no biographic information whatsoever which could be used to write an article about the subject); and the final links only has The Rio de Janeiro Olympics held a bonus round of fencing at the Deodoro Swimming Center on the 20th of the 16th day of the Games at the Deodoro Swimming Center, and Tomoya Miguchi (Self-Defense Forces) finished 8th with a total of 553 points, Shohei Iwamoto ( The same) was ranked 35th with 469 points. Trivial coverage. So the previous looks like a poor NOTABILITY-CITEBOMB which actually shows that, unlike what it's poster claims, there is no significant coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Care to comment on the other seven sources I cited or are you just going to cherry-pick? Smartyllama (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also found [61] which appears to cover him in-depth as well. And I'll ask again - if coverage of his athletic performances is "routine", and feature articles about him don't count because they have too many quotes from him (as would be expected in a feature article about anyone), what would count towards GNG? Be specific, don't just count the policy verbatim, I can look it up myself. Smartyllama (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Articles which only mention him and his results in an event without giving any further details (such as the above) are not enough for us to write an encyclopedia article; unless you want it to just be stringed-together "Participated in X, achieved Y". The first of the sources in your latest post (no. 8) I've already given my two cents about. There's one article which you've linked three times, the criticism for the once of it applies to all three instances. As for the others, again [62] contains no useful encyclopedic information about the subject - the first part only trivially mentions him in the course of giving results; the rest is clearly bits from an interview (and not even the interview provides actual bibliographic information on which to write an encyclopedia article). I've looked through the rest and they're very similar. An example of what significant, independent coverage looks like is this or this, which both give plenty of details about the specific athlete's career in broader lines and more stuff to write an encyclopedia article on that just "X participated in Y". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems like a WP:POINTY nomination when done in the middle of the general discussion about notability of Olympians. It has been expanded, and the nominator looks only to have used Google search, which is generally useless for foreign language sources. The fact that someone else has found a Japanese language source makes me believe that more exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reviewing the refs linked above, I am in agreement with RC that the subject lacks in-depth coverage sufficient for GNG. Routine results reports, "features" derived largely from interviews, and database listings are not adequate for establishing notability regardless of the language; plenty of athletes are profiled by independent reporters with a level of detail and breadth well beyond merely recounting match/season performance and without relying on block quotes from the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the discussions above I have expanded the article a bit further, providing a few more sources. These include a detailed report from the 2017 Japan championship focusing on the winner, which was Iwamoto ([63]), media coverage/presentations before the Tokyo Olympics (a courtesy visit to a governor, [64]), and an extensive interview ([65]). Oceanh (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not understand the stressing from the nominator that interviews do not count at all (or as put in this edit summary: [66]). Maybe they could clarify whether their opinion is based in policy or whether it is just an opinion. I could find nothing in the WP:GNG to explicitly support this view. On the contrary, according to WP:Interviews (which is not a policy or guideline, but a related essay), "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." The essay concludes, "Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary. But the material the interviewer brought to the table is secondary and independent and contributes to the claim that the subject has meet the requirements laid out in the general notability guideline." Oceanh (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oceanh, per GNG primary material cannot contribute to notability. Editors have long held that content from an interview is primary -- it has not undergone the independent analysis that would demonstrate unaffiliated third parties consider the info important. That's what the end of the essay is referring to -- if coverage is significant only because the subject is quoted extensively, the coverage doesn't count towards notability. But if the interviewer provides background material or analysis not derived from the interview that has sufficient depth to meet SIGCOV, then that source can be considered for notability.
      The problem with most of the sources in our article is that they are either primary (interviews where the interviewer only provides basic info or recaps some event results -- such as your third new source) or not independent (your first new source is from 自衛隊体育学校, which is a program he works for). Your second source might have been good enough, but I can't find a byline for it and that's explicitly required for newsblogs. JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 7 September 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

No sources given in the article. I did not find anything after searching on google also. Non-notable person. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete no sources, no content. No interest in over 6 years in adding any content to the article. In its current state, nothing is lost if the article is deleted. Pretty clear delete. --hroest 15:24, 31 August 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. Seddon talk 20:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails notability test -- insufficient independent reliable sources that are about this topic itself. Seems largely to be a promotion for Dragonchain; note that the Bloomberg "article" cited is actually a Dragonchain press release. Another cited source, "provably.com" seems to be a website devoted to promoting the idea of provably fair gambling. And so on. -- The Anome (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this originated as a neologism in cryptocurrency gambling; no usage I could find outside crypto gambling - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the author, I didn't think much about the notability, as I had encountered its concepts a few years before its use in cryptocurrency. I would remind people that "crypto" has its roots in ... "crypto," as in this link to a 2005 crypto book that covers "provably fair" in connection to the "zero-knowledge proof" that forms a foundation for certain cryptocurrency blockchains, and has some relevancy for nearly all of them. In my ignorance 6 years ago, some of this wasn't known. The article's poor state now is due to a lack of competent editors, not due to any notoriety of the topic. Look at the ZKP article, read the History section, which starts out as, "Zero-knowledge proofs were first conceived in 1985 (...)" Provably fair is just a subset of the ZKP. See This citation. It appears the article needs to get an infusion of that sort of fundamental and less of the hodl community. And finally, scholarly research such as this seems to be interested in virtually the same provably fair algorithms in the oversight of governments and their programming, like running a "provably accountable" visa lottery. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the moment it's a WP:TNT. I note also that as started by you, it was cited to a single bitcoin site - rather than being a high-quality article wrecked by bad editors as you posit, there's no evidence that this article was ever of acceptable quality in the past six years. This strongly suggests there is no reasonable prospect of organic improvement. If you could rebuild the hypothetical good article you posit using the claimed good and non-crypto-blog/non-press-release sources, that would be a start - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:13, 31 August 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. Seddon talk 20:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

NN journalist, no claim of notability. I couldn't find in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG; the single link in the article talks about how the subject saw the Argentinian President on a vacation in a hotel, and wrote on twitter about it. RetiredDuke (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 31 August 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. Seddon talk 20:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Wood (Christian apologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not establish the notability of the subject. It fails WP:ANYBIO. Some of the references mentioned here are from blogs and YouTube, those are not allowed. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 10:10, 31 August 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. Fenix down (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can't find any coverage of Jurado that isn't completely routine. Article was mass produced in 2012 along with hundreds and hundreds of others. Jurado played entirely during the semi-pro era and there is no assertion of notability. I have attempted numerous searches including ones in conjunction with the clubs that she played for such as this. The best three sources that I found were Magazine Oviedista, Huelva Ya and Ahora Alcalá. The first was a match report squad list, the second was a very brief contract renewal announcement and the last was a routine transfer announcement about her signing for a very low-level amateur side. None of these show the significant coverage required for WP:GNG.

While borderline cases like Raquel Pinel and Alba Pomares should be given the benefit of the doubt, I'm not seeing enough here to actually build a biography. If GNG coverage is found, please let me know. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:FPL, the Primera División is now professional but it wasn't when Jurado was around. This discrepancy exists in numerous countries, for example, the Kategoria Superiore is fully professional but the female equivalent, the Albanian Women's National Championship, is not. It would be inappropriate to create any articles for players in the latter unless they have caps or pass GNG. Even players that pass NFOOTBALL are still required to pass GNG. Also worth noting that lots of Primera División players do pass GNG (e.g. Sara Mérida and María López Hidalgo) but Jurado doesn't seem to be even a borderline case. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A very strange !vote from @MrsSnoozyTurtle: particularly given their 'delete' !vote at this AFD of a female footballer. GiantSnowman 11:37, 31 August 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Badly sourced BLP on a footballer that played prior to Primera División being professional. Best source currently used is a contract renewal announcement from her club's own website, which does not confer notability. Best sources I can find are AS, Plaza Deportiva and Marca, all of which mention her only once and in passing. These verify that she exists but don't establish a passing of WP:GNG.

If anyone finds any substantial coverage of her, then please ping me and I will expand the article accordingly. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that is substantial coverage of her? It is not. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically just a squad listing so no better than the sources mentioned in my nomination statement. I think it's clear that she had a few passing mentions in the big Spanish newspapers but there's no evidence that any of it was ever in depth. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:38, 7 September 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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

self published author. 3 meaningless awards by a book distributor. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "self-published" or not, this nomination implicitly assumes lack of coverage in reliable third party sources. There may not be enough material to write a John Muir length biography, but there appears to be enough coverage in reliable third-party sources to make a brief but complete and policy-compliant encyclopedic entry. Nationally broadcast NPR program Morning Edition calls Thayer "a leader in efforts to revive the ancient art of foraging"[1] and Mountain Home magazine calls him "one of the nation's leading experts on foraging for wild edibles".[2] Additional biographical coverage is found in outlets such as Duluth News Tribune,[3] PBS Wisconsin,[4] Isthmus alternative newspaper,[5] Civil Eats,[6] The Salt (NPR),[7] Wisconsin Natural Resources Magazine,[8] and Wisconsin Life.[9] Several other sources simply include Thayer's books as recommended resources, such as The Atlantic,[10] The Austin Chronicle,[11] and The Herald Journal,[12]
Since there are multiple reliable sources, spanning well over a decade, that give non-trivial overage of Thayer's accomplishments and biography, invoking no original research, Thayer meets basic notability criteria for biographies as well as the general notability guideline. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Schute, Nancy (April 18, 2011). "Foraging The Weeds For Wild, Healthy Greens". Morning Edition. National Public Radio.
  2. ^ O'Reilly, David (September 1, 2020). "Into the Woods". Mountain Home.
  3. ^ Renalls, Candace (January 24, 2007). "Wild diet". Duluth News Tribune.
  4. ^ "Living off the Land". In Wisconsin. PBS Wisconsin. February 17, 2011.
  5. ^ Hardee, Howard (20 September 2018). "More Than Weeds". Isthmus. Madison, Wisconsin.
  6. ^ Hay, Mark E. (July 9, 2020). "Interest in Foraging Is Booming. Here's How to Do it Right". Civil Eats.
  7. ^ Martell, Nevin (September 28, 2013). "Birch For Breakfast? Meet Maple Syrup's Long-Lost Cousins". NPR.org.
  8. ^ Sheridan, Megan (Spring 2001). "Find Your Food". Wisconsin Natural Resources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
  9. ^ Schultz, Zac (November 26, 2015). "Professional Forager Teaches People To Find Nutrition In Nature". Wisconsin Life. Wisconsin Public Radio & PBS Wisconsin.
  10. ^ Shaw, Hank (28 June 2010). "A Wild Foods Library: 11 Books for Foragers". The Atlantic. June 28, 2010. A modern forager, Samuel Thayer, has done an excellent job with the images in his self-published Nature's Garden... an excellent book if you live east of the Great Plains
  11. ^ Cape, Jessi (April 4, 2014). "Take a Walk on the Wild Side". The Austin Chronicle.
  12. ^ DeMoss, Jeffrey (October 22, 2015). "Harvesting nature's bounty in Cache Valley". The Herald Journal.

8'd say out of aour 5 + million articles, ant least a few percent are meaningless, or have no sigificance except fo the subject.The MIPC is appropriate for an article, and has one. The article gives no indi=cation thqta its awards are 1notable or erecognized. It's awards , however, are paid promotionalism for mostly self-published authors. There's one evieww in a national souce, but its one of 1 in a group review..`.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 15:26, 8 September 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 13:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kept by no consensus at AfD in 2012 (2 arguments for redirect, 2 for delete, none for a straight keep). I've not found any sources which indicate that Kavalsky is actually a variation of "Kowalski", so redirecting in my opinion is not suitable. Not suitable for use as a disambig either as there are no article titles containing "Kavalsky". ♠PMC(talk) 01:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC(talk) 01:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC(talk) 01:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though Wikipedia has an extraordinarily low bar for articles about surnames (or lists of people with particular surnames), this one has no sources, seems to be based on guesswork/speculation, neither are there any notable Kavalskys with articles on any Wikipedia that I can see. Sionk (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ 08:38, 31 August 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 08:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Panties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but the coverage and significance are not enough to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a pretty old article, and the webcomic's been running since 2001 -- which means it means my personal standard of whether I think something is notable. Whether Wikipedia thinks it's notable is a different question. I'm going to look for some sources -- so far, I've found some from Buzzymag, Comic Strip Fan, and SPBURKE. I haven't heard of these websites before, so I don't know about their reliability. jp×g 08:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also got Bleedingcool. There is a Kotaku article, which I know is well-regarded, but I'm not sure if it has SIGCOV (not the primary subject of the article). jp×g 08:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buzzymag and SPBURKE are interviews and not independent. ComicStripFan is a fan site, not reliable. Bleeding Cool and Kotaku are not substantial.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ 08:36, 31 August 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Article that continued to be puffed/npov. Refs are a mess and the first three are interviews. scope_creepTalk 08:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Russian wiki has enough articles. He is quite famous and very controversial figure. He is more showman than historian. Now his wiki-article is misleading and present him as an autority. -GorgonaJS (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not pass NPROF, however searching for sources in Russian (Евгений Понасенков) yields significant coverage in Russian media (and some occasional quotes in English media), such as (unsure of reliability of each one, but there are many diverse sources in the Google News results): [68][69][70][71] and a whole lot more. Appears to be notable as video blogger and commentator.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorgonaJS: @Eostrix: Combined with the interviews references and a couple of others in the ref list that I discovered and look reasonably decent, is more than enough for a keep. The question remains how to describe him. In the article is describes him as a historian, journalist, theater director, television host, actor and singer, at one time before it was copyedited quite drastically. Hows would you describe him? Definently not a theater director, television host, actor and singer. I don't see any evidence for being a journalist? I don't see any evidence describing him as a historian. Publicist and commentator? scope_creepTalk 10:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Russian wiki describes him as "publicist specializing in historical revisionism, video blogger, TV presenter and director of a number of performances. He played episodic roles in films and TV series, was an organizer of cultural events; author of publications on the history of the Napoleonic wars, which caused a negative reaction from the scientific and historical community" -GorgonaJS (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, British media did describe him as a "scholar" in 2019 ([72][73] in coverage on Oleg Sokolov), so I'm not sure that's entirely inaccurate though it certainly isn't his claim to notability.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eostrix: What is his claim to notability? Would it be accurate to see he is a publicist and author specializing in historical revisionism. Are any books written, do they have any reviews? scope_creepTalk 22:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding he's notable for being a publicist / media personality. His book on 1812 has a ruwiki entry - Первая научная история войны 1812 года which is not favorable (many negative reviews). The book probably passes NBOOK on enwiki should anyone want to work through the Russian. I would be careful with using the revisionist label myself, as I don't know enough here and this requires going through the Russian sources carefully.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yip. I don't have much experience with NBOOK but plan to put up a bunch of books at some point, so I guess it is a good time to start. I think publicist and media personality is better. It seems to chime with what is there. scope_creepTalk 14:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Perspectives on Political Economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It exists, but doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economy-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC(talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. FII, Makers, Women'sRepublic etc are not reliable. Even if they were reliable, they are all interviews. There is not a single non-interview source meeting WP:SIGCOV. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that you don't decide what "shall" happen here. A consensus of editors does, and you seem to be making a habit of mischaracterising sources to try to achieve your desired result. The Wikipedia article you cited is completely unrelated to whatever point you thought you were making. The marketing (industry, not advertising) section of the India Times is not an "advertisement". The Yahoo articles are perfectly valid content, and you've completely mischaracterised the organisation involved in the "collaboration". Feminism in India which seems to be a well-established digital media website on par with others we use all the time, and labelling it a "glorified community-blog" just seems to be a baseless attempt to dismiss it. It's also plainly evident that there is more material in WP:RS that is easily available for further expansion, including regarding aspects of her career not even mentioned here. There is some sort of weird attempt here to hold this woman to a higher standard than would generally be the case for any other screenwriter of a major Netflix series, and I can only speculate given the subject matter of said series. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, bad AfD. This is a discussion about the validity of sources, but no discussion has occurred on the article's talk page, which would be the correct first step prior to nomination for deletion. A discussion has started regarding this on the reliable sources noticeboard, so two parallel discussions are occurring which are essentially the same. This would not prevent for any future deletion discussion resulting from a consensus that the sources were not reliable. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any policy that states interviews do not constitute significant coverage, might be wrong though. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given there isn't going to be a speedy keep, my view is keep, the sources questioned by TrangaBellam seem valid and provide enough coverage to satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which are the multiple sources covering them (not sure about pronoun) in a significant fashion? WP:GNG
    The India Today and Indian Express articles about casting couch? Or the one-paragraph reviews of the episode, she screen-wrote? Or the reproduction of IMDB summary by SheThePeople? The entire series already has a separate entry at our encyc. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Multiple independent and reliable sources indicate her pronoun is "she." All of the sources listed in my comment above support WP:BASIC notability, which states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability is the part that follows.
  • It is strange to argue that reviews of her episode adds to her notability; otherwise for every Netflix series, the entire cast will deserve articles. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more coverage of Chatterjee than the coverage of her work on the Netflix series, including several articles noted above that focus entirely on her; the reviews are also clearly nontrivial and add to her notability because they each provide WP:SECONDARY commentary that is specifically about her and her work. Beccaynr (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a significant writer. Yet. No significant coverage of the said person except about her being a writer of a Netflix show. Few brand-promo interview articles. Someone pointed out about her casting couch incident though no mention of it in her Wikipedia article. Someone credited her as an actor and director, though no mention of it in the Wikipedia article. It’s because they are confusing her with the TV actress Sulagna Chatterjee. Completely different person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEFCON5 (talkcontribs) 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to be an argument based on wikipedia's policies. A person can have done absolutely nothing of any value in their lives and satisfy wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Point 3 of WP:ARTIST. According to me her body of work is not very significant yet. Her only notable credit is being writer of one episode of a Netflix show.defcon5 (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Above the guidelines you cite it states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." She satisfies WP:GNG, and that's that. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per DEFCON5. The subject is potentially notable, being a pioneering LGBT screenwriter of India. But I agree that the body of work is not substantial. Neither do I see significant coverage in mainstream news sources to warrant a Wikipedia page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete concur with others above that the significance threshold is not met. While I respect the Indian Films task force has their own opinions on sourcing... I just don't agree with them (and I note that the page itself admits their own valuation of sources is outside the mainstream WP:RSN-derived consensus.) It just can't be used as defense of sourcing without more rigorous consensus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete One episode of six short films, stated in an interview, one month ago. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Probably early days. scope_creepTalk 09:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or Draftify. There is some RS here, but not enough to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:SIGCOV. The nominator is correct that interviews are not counted towards RS as they are not independent. With the exclusion of the interviews, there really isn't enough to justify an article... at least not yet. This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. I think draftify may be the best option for now, as it's possible more quality RS will emerge later as she continues in her career which will allow the subject to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 15 September 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. Seddon talk 23:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IFIT Health & Fitness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, with pseudo-references that are PR pieces and/or passing mentions. I note the declaration by a paid editor in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and they have contributed via edit requests. . (I seem to have made a mistake; it was not edited by the same editor a the other article. ). But still it's fundamentally an advertisement. Please see also. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFit (brand) DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further at this and relate articles, what we really need is a selective merge, but Im not sure even under what name it should be, Maybe some volunteer editor without coi but interested in the subject area might want to do this. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that prior to a month or so ago, the company's name was ICON Health & Fitness; therefore Google searches for significant coverage should include that and also "ICON Health and Fitness" since some media renders it that way. I am in favor of keeping the article, especially considering the company's ownership of NordicTrack and other brands, and its manufacture of Gold's Gym–branded products. I see significant independent reliable coverage online (especially the ICON name) once one scrolls past the ubiquitous shopping sites that end up at the top of Google. (Note that although Icon Health & Fitness has been listed as a COI on my userpage since December, I never ended up editing this article or making any edit requests. In February I made an edit request on the talkpage of the subsidiary iFit (brand) for the founding date in its infobox to be corrected; an editor implemented that in March [74], but that was my only involvement with that article.) TerryBG (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage about the merger, financial restructuring, and brand name change to demonstrate notability. Multi7001 (talk) 18:32, 3 September 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 03:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page is based on paid PR articles [[75]] [[76]] [[77]] and other sources are not having significant coverage about the subject. So, a clear promotion/advertising article. - Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 03:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 03:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:47, 31 August 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. The majority of this discussion surrounds the best way to organize all of this information (i.e. separate articles vs. including it all in one table). There was some minimal discussion about whether or not the individual subjects of each list are notable enough for a standalone list, but no strong agreement on that. Overall, there are slightly more delete votes than keep votes (10-8), but I don't think that there is strong enough agreement in the discussion to justify deleting four articles.

My personal opinion would be to discuss this further as part of a merge discussion rather than an AfD (where the stakes are higher), and perhaps investigate whether all of these various list articles about New Zealand PM birth/death statistics could be combined into a single List of prime ministers of New Zealand by birth/death statistics, or something along those lines. That might assuage the concerns about the main New Zealand PM list article becoming too bloated if this information were all included in it. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of prime ministers of New Zealand by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of prime ministers of New Zealand by place of birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of burial places of New Zealand prime ministers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Batch nomination: This is all information which could without difficulty be included in the List of prime ministers of New Zealand (via a sortable table or something); without the need for all of these single-issue content forks (for most of which the information is already included in the main list anyway; the rest might as well be trivia). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. All non-trivial content could be included on the List of prime ministers of New Zealand article. Ajf773 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Adding the information in these articles to List of prime ministers of New Zealand is possible, but the table in that article is already quite wide, and in particular the images of burial places would be unbalancing. I am no great expert on tables, but given that the table contains sections for Colonial Secretaries, Premiers and Prime Ministers, and the Government column in many cases spans more than one prime minister, I don't think adding the ability to sort by column is going to work. If my misgivings are justified, then this is effectively a proposal to delete this content rather than merge it.-gadfium 04:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm curious why these would be considered trivial while the same such articles about UK Prime Ministers are not. And US Presidents have a million different list articles about them, there's an article about their facial hair for goodness sake. --Pokelova (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 23:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep passes WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. 2001:8003:24AF:6E00:242B:FC1:449A:FDFD (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)2001:8003:24AF:6E00:242B:FC1:449A:FDFD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Struck as duplicate vote by editor logging in with a different IP. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:13, 16 September 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 deletion. Canley (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral Atlas of New South Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The wording of the article is written like a foreword and initial chapters for the publication The Electoral Atlas of New South Wales, which is the subject of the article, so it seems likely it could be a WP:COPYVIO from the publication itself (according to Antony Green—one of the editors—only 800 copies were printed so it seems unlikely to meet any notability requirements for third-party coverage). The article creator's account name is the same name as one of the cartographers listed in the credits section, so possible WP:COI issues as well, and article creator has not been active since 2007. As has been mentioned in the edit comments, the content could be useful as an electoral history of the New South Wales colony/state with the book itself as one of the references, but I think due to the COPYVIO and COI concerns it should be deleted. Unfortunately due to the small print run the book is difficult to find for verifying either the copyvio question or for use as a reference. Canley (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 03:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 01:58, 31 August 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. plicit 03:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unref blp advert. Created in 2005 by an IP, first major contributor has a username indicating it's an autobiography. Claims to notability are unverified; I couldn't establish that he meets WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He does have some coverage in the Morgunblaðið which is a major Icelandic newspaper, for instance [78][79][80], but he would also need significant coverage from other publications to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 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.