Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 04	March 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was IAR Close‎. Any established editor is welcome to bring this back to AfD if there's merit. Star Mississippi 02:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hamilton Guarino

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

Non-notable author, fails WP:NAUTHOR. Fhektii (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As reviewer noted, the author fails WP:NAUTHOR. Books the author has created are not well-known and are not significant, have brought about major changes in any way.

Antny08 (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Iowa. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment This is one of a series of deletions started by a brand new account that has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. See [1]. Not sure if a procedural close is in order. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:G5 doesn't apply as checkuser hasn't connected them to any master yet. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

As I have said in all the other places you have pasted this comment, G5 is irrelevant. That is a speedy deletion criterion - the opposite of what I am suggesting.

Weak delete. There is some coverage in local press like [2], [3], [4]. If someone here can find book reviews of her books then consider my !vote as keep. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — 84.146.2.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep‎. Nominator blocked indefinitely for socking. No prejudice against a new nomination by any editor in good standing. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 13:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rade Vukmir

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

Non-notable emergency, critical care and neurocritical care physician. Fhektii (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep This is one of a series of deletions started by a brand new account that has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. See [5]. Procedural keep is in order (without prejudice to renomination by good faith edotors). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:G5 doesn't apply as there is no indication that they were blocked before this instance. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
G5 is irrelevant as I am not requesting speedy deletion, I am requesting speedy close of this AfD because it was made by a banned user and because no one has !voted. This is with no prejudice against a user in good standing renominating in the future. Thus a procedural keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are a lot of brief mentions like [6], [7], [8], [9]. This should be judged based on WP:NPROF criteria. WP:GNG is not met. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rapper Chauhan

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

Not yet notable by WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search turns up mainly social media, WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid reporting, and obvious paid coverage in faux-newspaper websites like "Punjab News Express" and "Fox Interviewer". An article on the same person at Hindi WP (hi:रैपर चौहान) has just been nominated for speedy deletion db-spam, but I tried to clean this one up and find some RS to support WP:NACTOR, as one reference here claims he won an award for a film role. That reference claims he played a police officer, but IMDB says it was a "special appearance", so if any editor has seen the film, please let us know if it's anything more than a minor walk-on role. Wikishovel (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Delhi. Wikishovel (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Failed in WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG, also no significant coverage in reliable sources.Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, he will set my heart racing [10] and he lost his instagram handle. I wish him well but I don't see GNG or notability. Music is pretty catchy though. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Does not meet WP:GNG, I only see non rs articles. The one i see on Punjab News Express is a paid article.

Rydex64 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This article shows the person's biography, life-related facts. Information contained in this can solidify references. Link: https://menafn.com/1107941370/Rapper-Chauhan-Age-Career-Birthday-Family-Education-etc Nritya02 (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that doesn't show notability plus It's still a sponsored article. Rydex64 (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Paul Richman

The result was Procedural keep. Nominator (and only supporter of deletion) was blocked indefinitely. No prejudice against re-nomination by anyone in good standing (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 18:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:ZuluKingJoshua and User:TheCaseOfGoliath. Claim that he is a IEEE fellow is not verified. Fails WP:GNG. Fhektii (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Engineering, Japan, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fhekti (talk) indicated that the fact that I am not an IEEE Fellow has not been verified. But, I am an IEEE Fellow. This can be verified by going to the official IEEE website and then clicking on the following IEEE address:

https://services27.ieee.org/fellowsdirectory/getdetailprofile.html?custNum=xTbWPLcTIKa7ynu5J/RRjQ==

It also can be verified because it is also stated in my Who's Who biography/profile:

https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/427197/paul-richman-recognized-by-marquis-whos-who-for-excellence-in-electrical-engineering Richmanpaul (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article also could be deleted via CSD G5 as it became a battleground between different sockfarms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Varun

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-Notable actor and journalist, failed in wikipedia general notability guideline Also, I noticed that this article has been accused of being a 'paid article' before, and the same argument was made in the last nomination as well. So I think now the editors should be allowed to decide. Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, News media, and Bihar. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the deletion discussion about this page is already discussed and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Varun Wikisfrog (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed because the nominator was blocked, not on the merits of the page.— Moriwen (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 8 and 14 are the only ones listed as reliable per Source Highlighter. 8 seems rather promo, telling people how to succeed. 14 is fine, but the rest doesn't add up to notability, only confirming what they've done as a career. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not satisfy WP:NACTOR and the sources are weak. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heart of Midlothian F.C. players. ✗plicit 13:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Tierney

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

I can't see any evidence that this player meets GNG. I can find some routine transfer news but no significant coverage. The subject played a very small number of pro games, so probably never generated much attention. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 11:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 11:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Heart of Midlothian F.C. players per nom. I could only locate routine coverage, nowhere near enough to satisfy GNG. As a player for a first-tier team in Scotland, Mr. Tierney's name is a reasonable search term. While he also played for Airdrie United, that club does not have a "list of players" article and was second-tier during his tenure. Frank Anchor 14:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and above. Anwegmann (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keep arguments are weak here but they are the consensus and I see no support for Deletion other than the proposal by the nominator. Editors are encouraged to help improve this article so it meets Wikipedia's standards for articles on political parties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Democracy and Development (Cameroon)

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

Unrepresented minor political party lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required by WP:ORGCRIT. Has has no secondary sources since creation nearly two decades ago. AusLondonder (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Cameroon. AusLondonder (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The party was represented in the national government in 1991 (this is referenced in the Garga Haman Adji article). (Here it says ADD later changed name to ANDP, albeit I don't see this backed up elsewhere for now.) --Soman (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the party has been represented in the national parliament, it is generally notable. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not right. Garga Haman Adji was a member of the party for one year while a minister during a transition from dictatorship. He was never elected to parliament. AusLondonder (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a political party represented in national government. That should be an easy pass. --Soman (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As long as the party was once represented in the national government, it's an easy pass. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to where it says that in WP:NORG? Thanks AusLondonder (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Skål, 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having representative in the national parliament means that the party has a national outlook and eligible for an entry into Wikipedia. Lokotim (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lokotim: No they weren't represented in parliament at any time. Please see above. AusLondonder (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable political party once were in Cameroon national govt. DIV IN E 04:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nothing definitive has been found to support GNG, therefore the argument analyzing available sources, which finds nomenclature duplicity and nothing supporting GNG for the article topic, is by far the strongest. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Azimov

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

Not notable person according to the WP GNG and WP ANYBIO. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Tajikistan, Russia, England, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Preliminary findings suggest that the subject might meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. However, a more thorough review of the available sources is warranted to ensure all potential coverage has been adequately considered. --149.172.122.230 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article cites two real sources: here and here. The other sources are a company bio, an article on his father, a linkedin page, and a telegram message. Meanwhile, it's full of extremely controversial claims about a living person which are either unsourced or cited to unreliable sources. I don't know Russian and can't confidently evaluate whether there's better coverage out there, but as it stands, the majority of this article needs to be swiftly deleted.— Moriwen (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching for this guy's name in Russian brings up a number of hits. I can't vouch for all of those, but want to err on the side of caution. I agree that there's a bunch of dubious claim in the Criticism section, but that's not an AfD issue. Cortador (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador May you please link some of those hits? They could just be insignifcant listings as far as anyone else knows. Mach61 12:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Search for "Яхьёевич Азимов". Many of the links aren't good sources, but as I said, I'm not able to judge most of them. The Russian article also cites a number of sources, but I'm not familiar with any of those. Cortador (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Of the 6 sources currently in the article, 1 and 3 aren't indipendent, 2 doesn't have SIGCOV of Zafar, 4 is WP:NEWSPRIMARY coverage of a meeting he had, and 5, octagon.media, is a literal Russian propaganda source that should probably be WP:BLPREMOVED . Not a vote, since I haven't run my own search yat, but notability is not indicated so far. Mach61 12:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage under his Russian name is either about an unrelated person who died in 2016, press releases, or derivative of the octagon.media report. Even if octagon.media is situationally reliable (which could be the case, but it's best to be cautious in a BLP), I'm not convinced this amounts to a WP:NBASIC pass. Mach61 13:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Traub

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

This article contains no significant coverage and does not appear to meet GNG. The subject had a very short career in football. There are some more recent interviews with the subject online but again they aren't SIGCOV. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, poorly sourced, poorly written. Anwegmann (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Powerpaste

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

I did a quick search and could not find enough secondary sources to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I only found a trademarked cleaning paste with the same name. At best too soon,. May never be notable, it will need to impact the marketplace first.

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro Quebec Hydro Hydrogen Project

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

Too small a snippet of history to be notable enough to have its own article - no objection if someone merges it if they know a suitable article to merge into Chidgk1 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was expecting this to be an easy delete, but on looking for sources: nope, actually there's a ton of stuff out there. I see half a dozen books (e.g.) and dozens of journal articles (e.g.) which discuss it.— Moriwen (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If anything, it needs expansion to make it more substantial, not deletion. Retroity (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against a developed article. Nom nailed it. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Google books search actually provides some pretty substantial coverage including whole chapters on the subject. The nom says that Too small a snippet of history to be notable enough (emphasis mine) but I don't agree that's a very valid argument for deletion. Instead, we have to look for notability and I think this clears the WP:GNG threshold. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen link network

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

Unless anyone plans to broaden the scope to include all H2 infrastructure in the country e.g. https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/102723-netherlands-begins-construction-of-national-hydrogen-pipeline-network pipelines it does not seem to be notable enough to have an article in English Chidgk1 (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Denmark. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be independently notable, and not sure where to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian hydrogen highway partnership

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

Although I found https://newenergy.is/en/portfolio/nordic-hydrogen-partnership/ I doubt there are enough good sources for this to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Iceland. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to its current name, Nordic Hydrogen Partnership (leaving the current title as a redirect). Sources e.g. here, here, here.— Moriwen (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hynor. This article provides almost no context. gidonb (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navneet Dogra

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

Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Biology, India, and New York. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A good start, but way too early . Not close to meeting WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Pop Records

AfDs for this article:

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

unnotable single person operation. written like ad copy. ltb d l (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Oregon. ltb d l (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any significant coverage of the label. Some of the bands have coverage but notability is not inherited. Outside of a few blog posts mentioning it I can't find much else. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the editors who have dug into the article subject believe sources exist to establish notability. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Griner

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

Delete: fails GNG. And what's a "rhythmitician", anyway? Nirva20 (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume a rapper, but this seems to predate that form of music. My best guess is a rhythmic dancer? Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm none the wiser from having read the Russian Wikipedia's article; but so many potted biographies of Гринер, Вера Александровна turn up in a quick Google Books search that I suspect that a proper biographical article is supportable from Russian language sources. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, Germany, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable individual, not sure what their career was to be honest. Name is too common to find anything about this individual. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her field seems to be Dalcroze eurhythmics. PamD 10:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surprising that a thorough WP:BEFORE didn't manage to work out her field: it doesn't seem possible to say someone isn't notable without understanding the article well enough to know what she did. (OK, my school-days study of Russian still allows me to transliterate, even if I've forgotten most of the rest, so when I looked at her ru.wiki article I spotted a link to Ритмическая гимнастика - "Ritmicheskaya gimnastica", approx - and its equivalent in en.wiki was Dalcroze eurhythmics.) PamD 20:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest I suspected "rhythmitician" had something to do with dance (although I had never heard of Dalcroze eurhythmics) but I was surprised whomever created the article would use such an arcane term in the subject description hatnote so I figured I'd mention it at the outset. Article is still a copypaste hagiography that fails GNG and SIGCOV. Nirva20 (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You should put those Russian language skills to work on those potted biographies that I mentioned. Start with ISBN 9785043447104 pages 49–50. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL. I assume this is meant for @PamD. Nirva20 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nirva20That's why it was subtly indented only to the same level as yours, ie to show it was replying to the same point as you were. @Uncle G It was a long time ago - Russian O Level was the only way to drop Latin while doing science subjects, and fascinating at the time but not used since except on one holiday in 1974. And Google Books won't show me those pages, sadly. PamD 15:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Does it show you ISBN 9785457690226 page 131? That's another apparent potted biography. Uncle G (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. failed WP:Artist Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as pointed out by UncleG above, she is included in many book sources in Russian, and is clearly a notable figure in the field of dance / movement / eurythmics. Her Russian Wikipedia article has existed since 2008, edited by multiple editors. This, shown as an External Link and dated 2020, seems to be a close paraphrase of the ru.wiki article, but with an added photo, and was thought worth publishing by a theatrical institute (Teatralnie Institut im B. Shchukina. Uchebnie Teatr) .... ahah: Boris Shchukin Theatre Institute, where, I've just noticed, she taught. Note that the creating editor of the en.wiki article appears to be the creator of the ru.wiki article, and appears to be a Russian-speaker rather than English-speaker, which accounts for some of the clunkiness of this article. It needs improvement, not deletion. PamD 16:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There's in addition to the two aforementioned apparently an entry in ISBN 9785852700995, whose title Русский балет: энциклопедия indicates that it's an encyclopaedia of Russian ballet. There's an entry in an index of Russian and Soviet biography, although I have not found what the index, a separate book, is indexing, and what is on pages 429–430 of it. ISBN 9785898840259 page 476 has a 1-paragraph biography saying Ученица Далькроза which PamD will have to translate for us. Uncle G (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to me a notable figure in Russian eurythmics and there is enough evidence for a general notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep on the merits of the person, and a sort of procedural keep anyway -- a nomination that begins with a denegration of an entire field with research journals and professors, and comments that connect Dalcroze eurhythmics with hip-hop aren't a great way to establish understanding of the norms of a field. (I'm a music prof. with not much enthusiasm for eurhythmics, but I do know that it's a well established field of studies). I'm tempted to go with weak keep because the article is a mess, but, as I've been argued against on supporting for amazing "too-soon" articles, the state of the article not part of the notability criteria. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't think a third relist will generate any more participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Mires

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

This is a resume, not an article with reliable sources and significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Television. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak keep. There's an article about her (Northern Virginia Magazine) and another with substantial info about her (Khaleez Times), plus a few interviews (HuffPost, Gulf News). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - C-SPAN has a video on her work as an Executive Producer on Libya Alhurra TV. "Communicators at Alhurra and Radio Sawa". www.c-span.org. — Maile (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Carrier

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

I am struggling to find any significant coverage of Carrier at all. Only four hits in ProQuest. All the references are churnalism from 2013. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Radio, Armenia, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rather routine career. It would have been interesting to note why she passed away at a young age, but the article has no information on that point. I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b: No RS coverage of her death, but one Instagram post says breast cancer. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh, that's very sad. Oaktree b (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Complete lack of notability WP:NOTMEMORIAL. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Rodriguez (journalist)

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

I am not seeing any actual significant coverage of her that would meet the WP:GNG. Lone ref is a 2010 biography published by her then-employer, and I am not finding much significant chatter about her in the time since. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Florida. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don Carter Lanes shooting

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

Non-notable crime. After the immediate burst of coverage following the event, there has not been WP:SUSTAINED coverage sufficient for notability (only a few local sources, mostly about the trial; this is typical for most crimes and does not indicate notability). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Illinois. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is basically nothing to say besides "it happened" and that is it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable crime with only contemporary news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 18:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uffizio

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to databases and press releases. A search reveals nothing else. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Germany. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, I did a WP:BEFORE search yesterday, and found nothing but what's cited already. Wikishovel (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- promotional. Deb (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i originally CSD G11'd this as it was promotional and did not have any proper sourcing. it seems the author decided to put it in the main space anyways and it is still the same story, just profiles and press release. She was ^afairy 04:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 18:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Masthead (American publishing). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flannel panel

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

See here and here: the same thing as a Masthead (American publishing) Mebigrouxboy (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When a deletion nomination says "same thing as" and points to another article, one knows that the nominator has failed to stop at project:duplicate articles first. Uncle G (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, delete. The article consists of only two sentences. The first is a dictionary definition of only half the term (we are not a dictionary, and were we a dictionary, we'd still need to know about "flannel panel" and not just "flannel", in the same way that "post office" cannot be explained merely by "post"). The second sentence is an inadequately-attributed quote that's obviously one guy's bit of amusing word-fluff, not a serious description of the term. So overall, there's nothing worth merging anywhere, and this article can be deleted either on WP:TNT grounds, or as a WP:DICDEF Elemimele (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: DICDEF, sourcing is basically that. I can't find use of this term otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elemimele, It gives a definition of "Flannel" and then gives an opinion. Then it gives a quote it claims was from a "short-lived magazine".Shadow311 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (probably only the first of the three sentences) to Masthead (American publishing) per DICDEF. Given the state of that article, they both might ultimately be merged to Impressum or Nameplate (publishing), but that discussion is beyond AfD. Cnilep (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 16:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agafonika

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

PROD removed. Random name that fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT. No sources found outside of dictionary definitions, databases and baby name websites. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD's so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agafonika is also a river and a titular diocese, as well as a first name for a well-known actress. See these Russian articles: Agafonika Vasilyevna Miropolskaya (1909-1996) - Russian and Soviet theater actress, People's Artist of the RSFSR (1967). titular diocese of Agafonika

[[:ru:https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B0 Agafonikha (tributary of the Chema) Russian Wikisource: https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%91%D0%AD/%D0%92%D0%A2/%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0 (a listing in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia) Here's a search on Russian Wikinews: https://ru-wikinews-org.translate.goog/enwiki/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=%D0%90%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%CC%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0&title=%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F:%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA&ns0=1&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp If you suspect that an article with a Russian name is not notable, you need to look at Russian-language sources, starting with the Russian Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article already has two Russian-language book references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no English language articles as of present. If someone can prove notability of said subjects and say they will create the articles in the near future then I may be content. I know deleting just to potentially undelete and such may increase bureaucracy but if there’s no guarantee that the articles will be written anytime soon then I’d rather not have the page floating around. And the books you speak of are dictionaries, which generally do not show notability alone. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AllTheUsernamesAreInUse There is no requirement sources be in English Mach61 06:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know. My point is that there are no English language articles as of present. The subjects listed by Eastmain may be notable but they have no articles right now. I still don’t think that the Russian sources for the name itself are enough for notability purposes. Even if the articles listed by Eastmain get created, it should probably be converted to a DAB, seeing as we need at least two people to meet WP:NNAME. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Bottom line, we need more than two opinions here or this will close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, name is not notable, pointless to create dab for articles that don't exist (couldn't that be G14'd anyways?) Mach61 07:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even ignoring the contribution of the blocked sock, there is clear consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agafodor

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

PROD removed. Random name that fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT. No sources found outside of dictionary definitions, databases and baby name websites. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the grounds that while Агафодо́р might be notable in Russian, Agafodor isn't in English. Hence, Agafodor isn't warranted here. I also note that there are no notable people on Wikipedia with the first name Agafodor. Klbrain (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The name is the Russian form of Agathodorus and of it:Agatodoro. Agathodorus (Preobrazhensky) ru:Агафодор (Преображенский) (1837–1919), a Russian Orthodox bishop, is the subject of an article in the Russian Wikipedia and seems to be notable by English Wikipedia standards, even if there is no English Wikipedia article about him yet. The Russian page lists three Christian martyrs by that name (Agathodorus, a saint, is the subject of an article in the English Wikipedia) and Agathodor (Markevich), abbot of the Donskoy Monastery from 1991 to 2009 (no article, so I can't readily say that the person is notable). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article already has two Russian-language book references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dictionaries. If an article can be sourced only to dictionaries then I’m pretty sure it’s not likely to be notable. Even if the bishop is notable, we’d need at least two articles to meet WP:NNAME. I’ll look into the other people further when I have access to my computer. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t satisfy notability requirements due to not being notable. Mr Mangina (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, Mr Mangina, you just registered your account today. How did you come to find this AFD discussion on your third edit? Deletion discussions are typically not the first thing new editors participate in. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I do think it should be deleted, I have to agree that this is strange. The argument is essentially "it's not notable because it's not notable". Maybe they saw the AfD and decided to make an account to comment on it? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Fails relevant notability criteria. Certain individual with this name might be notable, but that doesn't make the name itself notable. Yilloslime (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If the bishop is even created then I suppose we could redirect it there. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of SIGCOV that establishes notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Passions ran high in this discussion, and strong arguments were raised by both sides. But in the end, participants could not reach a rough consensus about whether the sources establish sufficient notability to meet our guidelines. Owen× ☎ 23:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zupan's Markets

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

Hyper-local niche family owned grocery store with mere three stores in the Portland, Oregon metro area. Fails WP:NCORP Coverages are all routine and hyper-local. Graywalls (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this source, which shows coverage that's more than just hyper-local. Left guide (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This screams sensationalism. Like "10 best affordable tequila"... the best US made tofu... type stuff. That falls far short of Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH and Wikipedia:SIRS. Also, looking at the article creator's edit history, my experience strong suggests it screams public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source looks reliable in accordance with WP:RS criteria, particularly given its editorial policies, thus fulfilling all of the WP:GNG requirements. Also, that publication only chose 12 businesses across the whole country (some of the others are based in Florida and Michigan for example), so it clearly bestows this business with some sort of significance. Do you have any concrete evidence that would discredit the quality of the source? Vague unsupported claims like this screams sensationalism wouldn't be helpful. Lastly, the article creator's edit history has no bearing on the notability of the topic. Left guide (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable in that these are that author's opinions, but reliable vs notable aren't quite the same. Articles in companies and organizations is the highest standard applied for notability test, because they're the most susceptible to promotional article creation. That article certainly wouldn't be something that can be used to support notability of each of 12 businesses. Graywalls (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree, it certainly can be used to support notability for each of those 12 businesses. If it was selecting 12 businesses from the same city block (like the sources we've seen in Carmel-by-the-Sea articles), then that would likely be an indiscriminate source, but this is far different; it's choosing these 12 among thousands in the U.S. Unless there's evidence that this is a WP:COISOURCE (which doesn't appear to be applicable here), I don't see how this source wouldn't count towards notability. In any case, we can wait for input from others. Left guide (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The 12 Best Grocery Store Deli Counters, Ranked" source is from a website that describes itself as "made up of passionate foodies" focused on providing "opinions on which items are worth buying" - so in addition to being an example of trivial coverage according to the WP:NCORP guideline because it is inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, it also appears to be a low-quality website focused on advertising and promotion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide I would say it's comparable to something like these 1 and 2. "Example of trivial coverage" mentioned above describes it well. Please have a look if you haven't had a chance to see their response. Graywalls (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll also chime in and vote for keeping the page alive. Zupan's, at one time, was a larger chain with more locations in/around the Portland metropolitan area. Just because it's hit a rough patch in recent years doesn't mean its Wikipedia page should get erased from existence. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion the sources cited here clear the notability bar. Constablequackers (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nomination, coverage is all routine local business happenings. One location closing. Small family run business, nothing terribly different than any other such commercial enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per GNG and comments above by User:Left guide and User: Constablequackers. I have removed some of the promo philanthropy stuff and added several additional reliable sources published by major outlets. This article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is sufficient for WP:GNG. I also see coverage of Zupan's from Supermarket News (a trade periodical covering the grocers industry). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P-Makoto:, please refer to WP:TRADES with regard to use of trade magazines for notability purposes. Graywalls (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware. The linked story meets the qualifications of a feature story. There is a credited author, independent research, and examples of interviewing multiple subjects to tell a factual story. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:ORGIND - none of the information is sourced from persons unconnected with the company (suppliers, customers, partners, etc are all considered "connected"). HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article I linked falls under independence of the author, I would think. Is there some connection between Supermarket News journalist Barbara Murray and Zupan's Markets that I don't know about? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to the notability guideline, WP:GNG is not the only consideration, and we should also examine the What Wikipedia is not policy; the WP:NCORP guideline incudes a focus on a common issue of advertising and promotion in company articles, and assists with an evaluation of sources by outlining generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. Regardless of editor intent, sources related to companies can tend to be promotional, and if an article is primarily built from such sources and lacks the significant coverage described in the WP:NCORP guideline, it can be excluded according to the notability guideline and WP:NOT policy. For example, this article includes several bizjournals.com sources - which is American City Business Journals, a source that describes itself as "the premier media platform for companies strategically targeting business decision-makers," so this does not appear to be the type of independent content that helps support company notability. There are also several news reports related to the death of the founder; announcements of store openings and closings and products (examples of trivial coverage); several reports about donating food boxes (see WP:ORGTRIV); and references to various books (cited without page numbers) used to support limited content in the article. The WP:SIRS coverage needed to support a standalone article does not seem to be available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I concur with Beccaynr's analysis above. In order to establish notability, references must meet both WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND (among others) and nothing I can find appears to do so. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Part of the problem appears to be that the article currently overfocuses on the Portland grocery stores owned by Zupan's Markets. In the 1990s, Zupan's Markets was based in Vancouver, Washington, and operated many other stores in both Washington and Oregon, including Food World and Food Pavilion stores. The 1994 opening of the Food World in Cascade Park to much fanfare (as a Costco-like store without membership with rollerskating staff...in the midst of a grocery workers' strike), followed by its closure one year later and subsequent sale to Safeway, is interesting and well covered by the business section of local newspapers. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means it still appears to be of hyper-local interest. Do you have any independent, reliable, significant source that is not local? per WP:AUD and WP:NCORP you would suggest as notability supporting pillars? These hello and goodbye announcements are ok for confirming closure and opening but they're not contributing anything to asserting notability. Graywalls (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good find!, thanks for sharing. This entry should be expanded with more detail about Food World and Food Pavilion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage of local franchise openings and business closures are examples of trivial coverage according to the WP:NCORP guideline, and the first source also appears to be substantially dependent on statements from the store spokesman, e.g. what he says about the timing, his expectation for turnout, his description of the concept, his mention about commercial accounts, and his general promotion of the store; while some of this source could be used to expand the article, it does not seem to help support notability, including because of the promotional aspect. I can't access the second source ("This clipping has been marked as not public") but it appears to be local coverage from The Columbian. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cielquiparle and Another Believer have added additional content and citations to bulk up the article. I urge those who voted "Delete" to have another look at it and see if that's still their stance. Constablequackers (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Constablequackers Don't hold your breath. Up to 47 sources, but I doubt anyone would want to revisit or take the time to put together a source assessment table. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, hang in there. The deletionists and overthinkers around here have discouraged me from working on no less than a dozen Portland related pages. Wanted to create a few, update others, etc. It's a total drag. Such a shame that so many editors are more interested in being pedantic and bickering over incredibly minute nuances of wiki-regulations with the passion of a lawyer in the final chapters of a John Grisham novel instead of, you know, sharing knowledge with the world, which is what this site is supposed to be all about. Unbelievably tedious. Constablequackers (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after additional content and citation added. We're now up to 36 references in the article and not a single one provides in-depth independent content about the company. For example, this article from The Columbian was added, described as an "in-depth article interviewing ~6 sources" but equally acknowledging the sources are "all connected in some way". So none of this is Independent Content, fails ORGIND. None of the stuff about openings/closings is relevant for the purposes of establishing notability as those articles inevitably all rely, entirely, on the announcement/PR from the company and therefore has no Independent Content, also failing ORGIND. If Another Believer or Cielquiparle believe there are a couple of particular sources which meet NCORP, please point them out here and also point out which pages/paragraphs in particular they believe meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. While I disagree with Beccaynr's analysis, I am tired of the AfD game where deletionists (too often a handful of the same editors) refuse to change their NCORP vote no matter how many quality journalistic sources are provided. Waste of my time. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the advice to content creators from the closer of the Seattle Coffee Works AfD may be helpful to consider here: it doesn't help save an article to include every mention of the article subject. Quality, not quantity helps both those wanting to preserve an article and those who are advocating Delete. Beccaynr (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr It's not cool to discourage article improvement at AfD, even if you believe it's futile. I have admired your work in improving numerous articles at AfD. It takes a while to sift through tons of coverage like Zupan's Markets has over its nearly 50 years of operation. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your follow up, Cielquiparle, because my intention is not to discourage article improvement at AfD; I linked to the Seattle Coffee Works AfD as a way to echo and emphasize HighKing's request for SIRS coverage to be identified in this discussion, because in that past AfD, it did take a long while to sift through the sources that continued to be added during the discussion.
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask editors who are improving an article and advocating keep during an AfD to identify multiple sources to support the article according to the NCORP guideline. I think it is unreasonable to add dozens of sources, suggest notability-supporting coverage is somewhere in the midst of the additions, and other participants should review all of the new sources to determine whether they agree with this assertion of notability. These discussions are collaborative, not a battleground.
And I also admire your article improvement work, and think your comment below is an example of collaborative AfD participation (e.g. identifying sources for evaluation) that can help further develop the discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr Per WP:WHATABOUTX, linking to other discussions as though they are somehow indicative of policy is discouraged. Each article needs to be considered on its own merits. Frankly I am disappointed to see so much WP:WALLOFTEXT. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link is not presented as though it is about the other article, it is about the discussion. My hope is for this discussion to collaboratively focus on the sources, guidelines, and policies that apply to this article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that if Another Believer could genuinely point to any part of the so-called "quality journalistic sources" which met NCORP, he would do so. Inundating an article with references might show "coverage" but doesn't establish notability. We've all the same objectives - to ensure WP has high-quality well-sourced articles on notable topics. This isn't the Yellow Pages or some sort of alternative marketing platform. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't assume I'm avoiding jumping through hoops. I'm just choosing not to jump through all the hoops because I don't care enough. There's a difference. I've cast my vote and I'm moving on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lean towards deletion of the page; no sufficient reliable sources + the lack of general notability. --Rodgers V (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Per their Talk page, the above user was blocked indefinitely for promotional editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic
Striking comment by blocked editor. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Another Believer, what is the guideline or policy basis for striking the comment and !vote? Beccaynr (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I thought this was common at AfD. Feel free to remove the strike. Who cares. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and WP:HEY. I actually agree with a lot of the analysis above, poking holes in various corporate press release-driven media coverage as sources establishing notability, although I think some of the categorical statements are too broad brush and extreme. Obviously this article and the sources cited have changed a lot over the course of the discussion, and by now it's clear that Zupan's Markets are not "just" an obscure family-owned business that no one has ever heard of outside of Portland. In fact, it got a lot of nationwide media attention in 2012 when it was the location for the "No Grocery Bag" sketch on Portlandia, and was even mentioned in TIME magazine. Going back to the 1990s, Zupan's Markets' practice of offering fresh fruit samples to customers was considered unusual (and "exciting"), earning it a favorable mention in Supermarket News. In terms of independent analysis of Zupan's Markets, that seeks to provide a "balanced" view, I would point to the 2017 Oregon Business article, "Zupan's departure dismays local businesses"; it assesses the impact of Zupan's Markets in the Belmont district over time as a catalyst for mixed-use development in a high-poverty neighborhood, and includes the opinion of other businesses in the neighborhood, with zero commentary from Zupan's. Another piece of significant coverage that seeks to take an independent, balanced view of Zupan's Markets is the 1999 Business Journal article "Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions"; although it includes quotes from John Zupan and his lawyer, it also includes other quotes from the Portland City Council and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. If this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you feel that only national chains like Safeway, Albertson's, Trader Joe's, and Whole Foods deserve Wikipedia articles, there is nothing I can do; but if your objection is to the gushingly positive descriptions of Zupan's or the "gentrification" of the food industry, I've tried to include some critique of Zupan's to balance out the otherwise rather favorable descriptions of the business. (But I fully expect it might not stand.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The objections have nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT or requiring "gushingly positive descriptions" and it isn't helpful to include comments such as these. We require a minimum of two references which have in-depth "Independent Content". That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. None of those references come even close. The "Shock Departure" tells us almost nothing about the company other than they're a supermarket that didn't renew their lease. It certainly does not "assess the impact" of anything, it includes commentary from dismayed locals. Nor does one article which you've described as "significant coverage" concerning being cited four times for selling alcohol to minors include anything resembling significant in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here to Cielquiparle's comments below so as not to mess up the formatting and subsequent discussion. In a nutshell, you're trying to dominate the discussion, repeating the same sources but not materially addressing the criticism, instead throwing shade at editors who point out why those sources fail to meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines and accusing them of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or seeking a "Platonic level" of coverage which you say doesn't exist in the real world (despite the vast number of topics that meet the guidelines). This is not helpful to the process. If you genuinely want to "let other people make up their minds", then step back from the discussion yourself. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing Agree (with the last part). Trying to step away. Only keep coming back since pinged. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most in-depth articles on Zupan's Markets include two feature articles: "John Zupan runs grocery business at full throttle" which appeared in the Portland Business Journal in 1996, and "FRESH THINKING: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level" which appeared in The Columbian in Vancouver, Washington, in 2003; here is the continuation of that article on Page 2. In addition, there are numerous articles about John Zupan and Zupan's Markets after his death in 2011, like "John Zupan, Portland grocery 'maverick,' dies at 66" in The Oregonian in 2011. The obvious WP:ATD is to merge or more accurately, split, this article about Zupan's Markets into two biographical articles about John Zupan and Michael Zupan, since the notability threshold for articles about people is much lower than the threshold for organizations. That said, I do not believe this is the best outcome from a Wikipedia point of view; both individuals are mostly notable in the context of how they ran their family-owned business over a 50-year period, and I still maintain that the article satisfies WP:NCORP on the basis of these and additional articles provided in the earlier Keep paragraph above (for which I deliberately looked for non-feature articles focusing on a specific question about the company that didn't rely heavily on interviews with the founders) and that to dismiss all of it completely in pursuit of a Platonic ideal of coverage that doesn't exist in the real world misses the forest for the trees. I understand that HighKing and Beccaynr do not agree with this view, so please do not keep repeating that you do not agree and it is not good enough because it only serves to discourage further thoughtful participation in this discussion by other editors due to WP:TL;DR. We differ in opinion. Let other people make up their own minds. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources have been identified and an ATD suggested, so in the spirit of a collaborative discussion, and because we operate from a baseline assumption of good faith, including that editors can change their minds based on new evidence and ideas, I considered the sources and the suggested ATD.

Source review

As to new sources presented:

the TIME magazine mention is not substantial coverage of the company, this is a brief mention in a report about Oregon politics and Portlandia
the 1996 mention in Progressive Grocer about having fruit samples is an example listed by a produce merchandiser and is one sentence about Zupan's, so also not substantial coverage
the 2017 Oregon Business source is not significant coverage of the company itself, but instead a brief report that seems more focused on the building, the neighborhood, and new development
I agree with HighKing that the 1999 Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions source about an upcoming liquor license administrative hearing, with substantial quotes from Zupan's attorney is not substantial coverage to support notability per NCORP; we're not looking for a platonic ideal of coverage, but instead a level of depth and independence to allow us to develop encyclopedic content that is not advertising or a directory entry
Eater Seattle quoting a commenter in a brief post about Zupan's is also not significant coverage of the company
the 1996 Portland Business Journal is a bizjournals.com source that I discussed in a comment above; a promotional publication, and this source is substantially based on what John Zupan says about himself, what a "Business associate and racing buddy" says, what a close friend of Zupan's says, what Mike Zupan Zupan, etc - not independent content that can support notability
the Columbian "Fresh Thinking: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level" source is substantially based on statements from Michael Zupan, John Zupan, the landlord of one of the stores, and an architect who works with Zupan's - this is not independent content that can support notability
there are several sources related to the crash that killed John Zupan, including related criminal proceedings that do not support notability for the company, and the Oregonian source noted in this discussion is substantially based on quotes from people connected to John Zupan, and has some biographical content - even if this was substantially independent, the company does not inherit notability from an owner.

As to the suggested ATD, while WP:BASIC anticipates significant coverage could be developed by a combination of independent, reliable, secondary sources, this does not seem supported because the same challenge for developing encyclopedic content on this company and biographies of its owners appears to be the limited and often promotional sourcing that is available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) - updated comment to fix typo, expand source review Beccaynr (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

@Beccaynr:, I too consiedered ATD, but with company articles, unless there's a parent company, finding the appropriate merge target isn't always possible. Graywalls (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls OK, it makes sense that it's difficult to merge to an article that doesn't exist, so I've created the article John Zupan as a possible merge target for consideration per WP:ATD. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle:, To me, that seems like content forking to ~~game the system to~~ retain a CORP article that may not pass NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls I would ask that you WP:AGF. It is a sincere attempt to offer a solution for those that think Zupan's Markets should be deleted. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls To confirm, if the article is merged and redirected to John Zupan, it should not be retained in its full form. Another alternative would be to merge and redirect to John and Mike Zupan, but in my experience, many editors struggle with the existence of double biographies even when they are siblings or married couples. In this case, it would be a BLP-plus-non-BLP. IMO of the two, John Zupan seems more notable (plus he's the eponymous founder). Cielquiparle (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't agree with creating an "anchor" bio article to be used to retain a company article that may not pass NCORP. I am also not certain John Zupan merits meets WP:ANYBIO. I've not put time into investigating. Graywalls (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls As I said in an above paragraph, I'm OK with redirecting John Zupan to Zupan's Markets. Maybe there is no need to have two separate articles. I just thought it was helpful to "see" it so we could decide accordingly. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle:I have looked at your addition about plastic bag. This is tangential mention of Zupan's and pure fluff of no real substance.Graywalls (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls Yes exactly! I wasn't putting it forward as evidence of in-depth coverage. I was simply presenting the TIME magazine mention as evidence that it's not true that no one has ever heard of Zupan's Markets outside Portland. While the Belmont store was still open, many travel guides (and the travel section of the Arizona Daily Star for example) specifically mentioned it as the "real location" of that Portlandia TV sketch too. By itself, it wouldn't justify keeping the article, no. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not making patties. No amount of trimmings that can be ground up replaces a large thick piece of steak even though they might be able to make large hamburger patties. Graywalls (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Frank, Gerry (2012). Gerry Frank's Oregon. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Guide Book. p. 71. ISBN 978-1-879333-23-9. Retrieved 2024-03-26 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Founded by the late John Zupan in 1975, Zupan's is a locally-and family-owned market that serves Portland's food-loving community. Likened to farmers markets, Zupan's focuses on quality, selling everything from the best meats and wines to the freshest produce, baked goods, gourmet deli products, specialty foods, flowers and more. Touting a unique grocery shopping experience, Zupan's stores are meant to indulge the senses, inviting customers to see, smell, taste and learn. Regularly scheduled beer, wine and cheese tastings are among customer favorites. Full-service floral departments (Burnside, Boones Ferry and Macadam locations) have beautiful fresh-cut flowers year-round and provide custom design, wedding and event services. The deli features handmade, home-style items with grab-n-go meals, gourmet sandwiches and catering. Bakery items are delivered from 35 of the best bakeries around the Portland area."
2. Fehrenbacher, Gretchen (2003-06-15). "Fresh Thinking: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level". The Columbian. Archived from the original on 2024-03-26. Retrieved 2024-03-26.
  The source contains quotes from the subject but there is sufficient independent reporting to amount to significant coverage. The article notes: "Zupan's, with headquarters in Vancouver by no means has the lock on specialty groceries and prepared foods. Among the most prominent are Nature's, Whole Food Markets and New Seasons. Trader Joe's, ... Zupan's stores are 15,000 to 20,000 square feet, compared to the 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of the traditional supermarket. ... At one time, there were eight stores, including one store in Battle Ground and two in Vancouver with one on Mill Plain Boulevard and another in Salmon Creek. They were operated as Zupan's Food Pavilion, and, in the case of the Mill Plain store, Food World. Today, there are no Clark County locations. The first two stores in Vancouver were bought in 1989 and sold in the mid-90s."
3. Giegerich, Andy (1999-09-17). "Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions". The Business Journal. Vol. 16, no. 30. p. 1. ProQuest 225384612.
  The article notes: "Imagine the bustling, hip Southeast Belmont business district without Zupan's Market. Belmont residents don't want to think about it. But it could happen if the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, the Portland City Council and the Portland Police Bureau revoke the store's liquor license."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zupan's Markets to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you well know by now, "sufficient coverage" is not the criteria for establishing notability. None of those meet the Primary Criteria once you apply the tests (which you ignore) outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, something that has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions in the past. Of the sources you've listed, the first is a tourist guidebook which includes a summary which has been copied for the most part from Zupan's website at that time, fails ORGIND. The others have been explained as failing NCORP above. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ORGIND: For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO. In other words, it's OK if the SIGCOV focuses on a specific aspect of the company, or a specific milestone, or a specific event, as long as it does so in-depth and in a meaningful way. Nowhere does it say that every piece of SIGCOV we are counting for notability must be totally comprehensive about every aspect of the company. For this reason, I stand by my original argument that multiple sources exist to satisfy WP:NCORP. (I accept that travel guides tend to be somewhat problematic though.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is suggesting NCORP says "every piece of SIGCOV we are counting for notability must be totally comprehensive about every aspect of the company." In my first comment, I mentioned NCORP has source assessment standards to help apply the second prong of the notability guideline, specifically that Wikipedia is not advertising and promotion; the three sources listed above all seem to be contrary to NOT policy - a promotional guide, a local feature substantially based on promotion by people connected to the company, and a promotional publication with a substantial focus on what the company's attorney says about an upcoming local administrative hearing. Beccaynr (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M1NT

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much in terms of refs on the page, nothing much other than run-of-the-mill opening/closing announcements found JMWt (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and England. JMWt (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage, mostly PR bits. I don't think closing an outlet in Shanghai makes them notable. The last AfD a dozen years ago doesn't seem to make sense now... Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "A-listers club together to make a mint". The Daily Telegraph. 2005-11-13. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Investors include Steve Coogan, the comedian, Mark Blundell, the Formula 1 driver, Ilaria Bulgari, scion of the fashion empire, Robin Saunders, the banker, Sebastian Sainsbury, a member of the supermarket dynasty, and nine of London's 44 resident billionaires. The net worth of individuals on the share register is a whopping £38bn. Non-shareholding members include Val Kilmer, Liz Hurley, the actors, Shane Warne and Kevin Pietersen, the cricketers, Bruce Buck, the chairman of Chelsea Football Club, Laura Parker Bowles, the step-daughter of Prince Charles, and David Reid, the chairman of Tesco. Most are keen to invest. Prince William has also reportedly expressed an interest in investing although his exact status is a well-kept secret. And Lachlan and James Murdoch, the sons of media tycoon Rupert, are known to have made several bookings at the club."
2. He, Min 何敏 (2008-11-12). "异想天开的富豪俱乐部" [The whimsical rich club]. 名牌 [Mangazine] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24 – via Sina Corporation.
  This is an extensive profile of M1NT. The article notes: "这就是香港的M1NT俱乐部，推门进去便是高达九米的、由施华洛世奇水晶制成的枝形吊灯，如一束光的瀑布倾泄而下，昂贵的艺术品装饰了墙壁和玄关，恰到好处的Jazz，身价不菲的香槟和烈酒，还有精致美貌的女子婆娑其间……M1NT的夜晚是香港社交圈的缩影，李泽楷、霍启山、万宝宝等人都是M1NT香港的股东及会员，在M1NT开幕的时候曾经亲临现场，并且出手阔绰。显然，M1NT的“投资式富豪俱乐部”的理念更能吸引年轻的“富二代”，以李泽楷为代表的香港及大陆的名门巨贾都喜欢来这个外表低调、内里奢华，同时又能表达自己的主人身份的俱乐部。"
  From Google Translate: "This is the M1NT club in Hong Kong. When you push the door, you will see a nine-meter-high chandelier made of Swarovski crystals, pouring down like a waterfall of light. Expensive artworks decorate the walls and entrance, which is just right. Jazz, expensive champagne and spirits, as well as exquisite and beautiful women... M1NT's night is the epitome of Hong Kong's social circle. Richard Li, Eric Fok [zh], Wan Baobao [zh] and others are all shareholders and members of M1NT Hong Kong. I was there in person when M1NT opened and spent a lot of money. Obviously, M1NT's "investment-style rich club" concept is more attractive to the young "rich second generation". Rich and wealthy businessmen from Hong Kong and mainland China, represented by Richard Li, like to come to this club with a low-key appearance and luxurious interior, where they can express themselves at the same time. The owner of the club."
3. Mccord, Mark (2006-05-17). "Exclusive club would have Bond shaken and stirred". Mail & Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "As the drinks are served the back wall lifts slowly to reveal a huge aquarium dominated by a hammerhead shark. It’s no accident that the prospect of a night at M1NT, the exclusive members’ bar due to open in Hong Kong in September, sounds uncannily like a night in the high-tech lair of one of movie spy James Bond’s villains. ... With 25-million Hong Kong dollars (more than $3-million) earmarked for the project on the fringe of the downtown business district, M1NT Hong Kong promises to be the most technologically dazzling bar in Asia."
4. McCahill, Timothy (2008-04-25). "Making a M1NT in Shanghai". W. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Three years ago, the members-only club M1NT was London’s talk of the town. Billed as the world’s first club in which members could own shares, M1NT quickly became known as the place where nouveau riche and old money rubbed shoulders, with members reportedly including Val Kilmer and Laura Parker Bowles. ... But the club persevered, relocating to Mayfair and more recently opening locations in Hong Kong and Cannes."
5. Crawford, Barclay (2009-12-19). "Conflicting versions of the reason for departure of M1NT entrepreneur". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Nightclub entrepreneur Alistair Paton, who once battled celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey over his London establishment, has left Hong Kong for good. Paton (pictured, far right) arrived in the city and launched members club M1NT on Hollywood Road, Sheung Wan, with Andrew Lewis (also pictured) in November 2006. But those close to the club say relations between Paton and others involved in M1NT, including many members and shareholders, have soured over the months. 'It was a business decision,' one of them said."
6. Tacon, Dave (2014-06-22). "Nothing exceeds like excess". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2014-06-27. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "The Shanghai Club's modern incarnation is M1NT, launched in 2009 on the 24th floor of a building just back from the Bund. Founded by Australian former merchant banker Alistair Paton (who also opened and closed M1NT venues in London and Hong Kong under controversial circumstances), M1NT proclaimed itself "the world's first shareholder's club". ... With about 15,000 customers per week and partnerships with numerous luxury brands – the club had a formula one racing car delivered by crane to hang from its ceiling for one event – M1NT had navigated the treacherous waters of China's hospitality industry with little trouble. That was until Paton made it known that the club was for sale earlier this year."
7. Ryan, Colleen (2008-12-30). "Let's get this party started". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Paton has brought his formula for a private member-shareholder club, M1NT, across the South China Sea from Hong Kong and spent more than $8 million turning the top floor of a new office building near the Bund into a club the size of four soccer fields. Within a few weeks of opening, M1NT had launched the new Ferrari and showcased the Porsche 911. Both times, cars were taken by crane 24 storeys up to be displayed in the middle of the club. The Mayor of Shanghai turned up for the opening night, a rare distinction for a Western nightclub in this city. ... Paton failed with his first club in London but has been enormously successful in Hong Kong, where M1NT is Krug champagne's biggest customer in Asia."
8. Cavaliere, Patrizio (2020-08-07). "Opulent Shanghai Hotspot M1NT Mysteriously Shuts Down. Pandemic related economic challenges are a likely cause, but does this signify the end or a new beginning?". Mixmag. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "The club was originally opened by Alistair Paton in 2004, who opened the first M1NT in London's mega-affluent Knightsbridge. It was acquired by the Hong Kong-based Sino Group in 2014, who operate an array of venues across China, so there is a distinct possibility that M1NT will return in one incarnation or another."
9. Crawford, Barclay (2008-04-20). "M1NT's HK investors fret after London axe". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "M1NT London opened in a blaze of publicity in 2005, claiming a long list of celebrities as members. The original venue closed after a dispute between Mr Paton, the young Australian founder, and celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey. Hong Kong's M1NT opened in November 2006, with rumours of a prominent celebrity shareholding and membership. Mr Paton has claimed the closure of the London club was due to his landlord going into liquidation and the firm's decision to focus on Asia."
10. "Alistair Paton, making a Mint in Shanghai". Shanghai Daily. 2009-01-04. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Paton, 30, is the driving force behind the entity's restaurant and club facilities on the 24th floor of its own branded high-rise building on Fuzhou Road. It is the newest business in a global group with operations also in Hong Kong, Cannes and Beijing. Mint Shanghai has been trading for six weeks from a standing start on May 16, which is why Paton is exhausted."
11. Wozniak, Lara (2006-05-12). "Club M1NT invites Hong Kong's hippest to invest". FinanceAsia. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Consider the original M1NT London. Opened 18 months ago, it is billed as "the hottest and most successful private members club in London, which counts celebrities, billionaires and royalty among its members". Do a Google Search and you'll find pictures featured in OK! magazine of beautiful people. The Financial Times more sedately described it as ôAn indulgence that will make you money". The Hong Kong version is opening in September in a 4,500 square-foot venue on Hollywood Road. M1NT Hong Kong has secured a ten-year-lease on the property from Henderson Land Development who will announce the actual location in about one month. But expect 14-metre ceilings, a mezzanine and water-motifs that will feature oh-so-appropriately for Hong Kong, a shark tank. There's already a 1,200-person-long list of applicants. Most will be turned away."
12. Walsh, Dominic (2006-07-12). "Gordon Ramsay shuts club over rent arrears". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "M1NT, the trendy Knightsbridge club that claims its membership includes “nine billionaires alongside Hollywood’s A-list”, has been abruptly shut down by Gordon Ramsay, its equally famous landlord."
13. Armistead, Louise, ed. (2006-06-18). "Prufrock: A Mint that keeps suffering losses". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-12-12. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "Intrigued, I did some more digging and found that Paton has a reputation for exaggerating. Several people close to Mint said few of the celebs connected to the club are actually members, and the profits are smaller than reported. One insider said: “The list I saw has nobody of note. They may have been sent the marketing literature, but they didn’t join.” Separately, I’ve heard Gordon Ramsay, the feisty chef who owns the club’s leasehold, has fallen out with Paton over alleged rent arrears."
14. A new high-class club opens in Shanghai (Video journalism). Associated Press. 2015-07-21. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24 – via YouTube.
  The video notes: "This is club M1NT which recently opened in Shanghai."
15. "名家筆陣：夜場高風險" [Famous writers: high risk in nightclubs]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2014-01-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "那些年，一家名為M1NT的夜店在○四年於倫敦開幕。創業家Alistair Paton曾在澳洲悉尼當外匯交易員，幾經轉折變了夜總會班主，由倫敦轉戰亞洲，○六年在荷里活道街尾，一個優皮一族屋苑樓下，開了家為中環人而設的會籍制夜總會M1NT，賣點之一是內裏有個很大的鯊魚缸可供欣賞，也有貌美接待員。"
  From Google Translate: "In those years, a nightclub called M1NT opened in London in 2004. Entrepreneur Alistair Paton once worked as a foreign exchange trader in Sydney, Australia. After several twists and turns, he became a nightclub owner. He moved from London to Asia. In 2006, he opened a restaurant in Central at the end of Hollywood Road, downstairs of a Yuppie housing estate. One of the selling points of M1NT, a membership-based nightclub designed for people, is that there is a large shark tank for viewing and there is also a beautiful receptionist."
16. Greene, Lucie (2006-05-14). "Private Clubs: Cocktail empire: The British are coming. From NYC to Cannes, who better to run a venue where exclusivity is mixed with snobbery and style? Lucie Greene on the clubs luring stars to the bars". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2008-05-07. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "THE vibe: money. Indeed the whole Mint enterprise (or M1NT, as they say) is based on cash. The first 250 memberships bought shares in the club which made the buyers the owners. The same masterstroke is taking place in Hong Kong. It has been said that among the first Chelsea members there were nine billionaires. You can also expect to see lots of glam women. Well, maybe we'll join after all. They also achieved some publicity by turning down an application from the Beckhams."
17. "M1NT上海顶级私人俱乐部 (1)" [M1NT Shanghai top private club (1)]. Vogue (in Chinese). 2010-08-18. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article notes: "M1NT将这个模式在香港和戛纳成功推广，其中2006年在香港开幕的M1NT俱乐部获得了巨大成功，全年收入超过财政预期，股东分得了15％的分红，股价在第一年内上涨了80％.而2007年的M1NT戛纳俱乐部聪明地选择了在5月的戛纳电影节开幕，好莱坞明星和导演等1500多人参与了这场盛会。"
  From Google Translate: "M1NT successfully promoted this model in Hong Kong and Cannes. The M1NT club opened in Hong Kong in 2006 was a huge success. The full-year revenue exceeded financial expectations, shareholders received a 15% dividend, and the stock price rose by 80% in the first year. The 2007 M1NT Cannes Club wisely chose to open at the Cannes Film Festival in May. More than 1,500 people including Hollywood stars and directors participated in this event."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow M1NT to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, time to assess some new sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. This AfD has been refbombed with 17 references where selected quotes are displayed but notably, omitting the parts which show that the article is either based on interview/quotations or merely commentary about the club or owner and not the company. Not a single reference meets NCORP, they are all based on regurgitating company announcements and PR. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources contain plenty of independent reporting about M1NT including critical analysis:
1. Crawford, Barclay (2007-01-07). "M1NT conditions". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-29. Retrieved 2024-02-29.
  The article contains a lot of critical coverage of M1NT. The article notes: "While the club opened to a rush of publicity in November - including speculation about possible celebrity shareholders and members - the city's sparkle may have faded slightly for the 28-year-old Australian following accusations from several of his investors he has kept them in the dark, barred a billionaire for being too old and even mistreated nine black-tipped sharks.
  The article further notes: "M1NT in Hollywood Road may have been open for only two months but already senior staff have quit, including the membership manager, lounge manager and Mr Paton's executive assistant. ... There has been a lack of big-name celebrities or prominent businessmen signing up. Staff of PCCW chairman Richard Li Tzar-kai at one time frantically hit the phones to try to get the Chinese papers to retract the claim their boss was a member. There has also been criticism of the club's feature of a tank with nine black-tipped sharks, which are subjected nightly to booming music. ... Shareholders' concern about the flow of financial information stems from the fact many are far from the wealthy elite M1NT claims to attract."
2. Armistead, Louise, ed. (2006-06-18). "Prufrock: A Mint that keeps suffering losses". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-12-12. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article contains critical coverage of M1NT. The columnist discusses the loss of three chairmen in under a year because each was said to be "uncomfortable with Paton's management style". The columnist said Paton "needs to get on with those he hires" to manage M1NT. The columnist includes critical commentary about the club, "Intrigued, I did some more digging and found that Paton has a reputation for exaggerating. Several people close to Mint said few of the celebs connected to the club are actually members, and the profits are smaller than reported."
3. McCahill, Timothy (2008-04-25). "Making a M1NT in Shanghai". W. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  The article includes negative coverage of M1NT, "But not all went smoothly for M1NT and its brash young founder, former trader Alistair Paton. The club’s original location, on Sloane Street, closed in summer 2006 after the building’s landlord (a company owned by Gordon Ramsay) claimed M1NT had fallen behind on its rent. And some of the boldface names identified as M1NT members—Elizabeth Hurley among them—told the press they’d never set foot in the place."
4. Mixmag, a British magazine, discussed how the Shanghai nightclub M1NT closed. The article discusses the club's history and characteristics and notes that the club closed. The article notes, "We reached out for an interview but so far haven't received a response".
The Wikipedia article's topic is the M1NT nightclubs in London and Shanghai, not the company M1NT Global Holdings that once owned the nightclubs.
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response The topic is the business, the company, and the topic is described about it being a nightclub business. You're familiar with GNG/NCORP requirements already. Looking at the references you've listed just now:

South China Morning Post article relies entirely on information provided by Alistair Paton and what he refers to as a "whispering campaign" by anonymous sources and town gossip and contains next to zero information about the company and certainly nothing that can be considered as in-depth. The "critical coverage" you're referring to in the article concerns, for the most part, the gossip/rumours about Mr. Paton and elements of the club. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
Times article is a total of 10 sentences and is also relying on unidentified "moles" and is nothing but gossip. This is not in-depth information or any type of analysis for the purposes of establishing notability, fails NCORP and ORGIND
W Magazine reference is also only 10 sentences and is also mostly gossip about members and reasons for relocation and relies on quotes from Paton. Not in-depth, not about the company, also fails NCORP.
Mixmag reference is yet another 10 sentence piece, mostly speculation about why the Shanghai club closed. There is no in-depth information on the company, no analysis/fact checking/whatever and is useless for the purposes of establishing notability. Fails CORPDEPTH.

"Coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability, nor mentions in gossip columns, nor articles based on unidentified "moles" nor articles regurgitating Mr. Paton. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you love WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources above that found by Cunard are really sinificant sources contain plenty of independent reporting about the subject. How much do you need. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per sources found by respected editor Cunard. No matter how WP:IDONTLIKE (Redacted) here. I choose you keep. Thanks 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your contributions to topics at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China, including your detailed research at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liuyang fireworks. Regarding this AfD, you have made strong arguments about how the sources are significant and independent. I recommend focusing on discussing the sources instead of editors since the closer will give sourcing-based arguments much greater weight. Cunard (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources notes: "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." The sources I quoted above are not "gossip". They show "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking". That the articles include quotations from people affiliated with M1NT does not render the entire articles non-independent. There is enough independent research and analysis to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience notes: "The source's audience must also be considered. Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability."
The M1NT nightclubs in Hong Kong, London, and Shanghai received international coverage:
1. Australia: Australian Financial Review and The Sydney Morning Herald
2. China: Shanghai Daily, Vogue Chinese, and 名牌 [Mangazine]
  - Hong Kong: FinanceAsia, Oriental Daily News, and South China Morning Post
3. South Africa: Mail & Guardian
4. United Kingdom: The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, Mixmag, and The Times
5. United States: Associated Press and W
Non-notable nightclubs do not receive significant coverage in five countries.

The sources were published in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2020. Non-notable nightclubs do not receive sustained significant coverage over a period of 15 years.

Cunard (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In order to meet the criteria for establishing notability, the *topic company* must be the subject of in-depth reporting. The *topic company* is not any of the nightclubs. None of the references pointed out by Cunard meets the requirements as set out in GNG/WP:NCORP for the simple reasons that they're either not about the topic company, or they are unsubstantiated rumours or they rely on information provided by the people connected with the company. This is very obvious to anyone who reads any of the references. Notability is not derived from a quantity of poor gossip-driven coverage over a sustained period of time. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well said!! Who care? 1.46.91.225 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy business opens, then closes during the pandemic. Initial burst of coverage, then they closed. I don't see long-term notability, sourcing is mostly primary as above, or non-notable business things. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, leaning towards delete. Seems to be a flash in the pan, with only rumors and primary info serving as sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are publications from five countries. The sources were published in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2020. This is over a period of 15 years. How is this "a flash in the plan"? How is this not "long-term notability"? Cunard (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said by @HighKing, the sources you provided are either not about their company, but rather their clubs, or about rumors. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in my analysis of the sources presented, I don't think this meets the the notability threshold for WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I'm relying on guidance from WP:Identifying and using primary sources and I'd want to point to § Examples of news reports as primary sources. Given the coverage and the over-reliance on interviews or simple coverage of business events as oppose to the business itself in-depth vs the location in others, put together, I don't think this passes muster. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XVidCap

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

All of the references are primary sources. I also can't find any secondary sources that are reliable enough to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluefish (software)

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

I can't find any reliable sources that cover this software. Three of the sources on the article are primary, and the fourth is written by Mihai Marinof, whose credentials are unknown. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it seems somewhat notable enough to warrant inclusion. Wouldn't be opposed to draftify/merge. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 01:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What establishes notability here? "Somewhat notable enough" isn't persuasive. If the article doesn't meet notability guidelines, it shouldn't be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading WP:NSOFTWARE, I'll change my !vote to Weak Delete, as per Marquisate. Still would not be opposed to draftify. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per our software notability guidelines. The Marinof source is the only one that appears to satisfy any of the available criteria for inclusion. Not overly enthusiastic about recommending deletion, given the evident significance of the software from a quick Google search, but nothing seems to exist that satisfies our guidelines and moreover, nothing beyond the one article comes close to providing a substantive, reliable-source discussion of the topic. Marquisate (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CudaText

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

I can't find any reliable secondary sources, both within and outside of the article, that would establish notability. Most of the secondary sources I could find are by people with unknown credentials. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deleting this as it's clearly a very active project (note the forum) with some history. I know people that use it. Okay it's no notepad++ popularity wise. I also see no gain from CudaText's side as it's open source and my adblocker kicked in only for the github link (to those that don't know GitHub is a VERY popular code hosting site and this is very normal). The article is also being kept up to date. 86.140.41.40 (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The activity of its forum or the number of people that you know that use the software has nothing to do with whether this should be a Wikipedia article. Please read WP: N. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Their own website, SourceForce, Github, then discussion boards. I don't see any sites reviewing this software, or any mention of it in media we'd use as a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with no independent sources providing SIGCOV, this fails NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 10:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PyRoom

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

All of the sources in the article are primary. I can't find any secondary sources on the subject, let alone ones that would be reliable enough to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The sourcing for this software page is not ideal. However, there might be some coverage in older geek books or magazines similar to CHIP. Old-AgedKid (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RocketCake

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

None of the sources in the article establish notability. I can't find any other sources that are reliable enough to establish notability either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor sources and general notability problems. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwrite

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

There are no sources that would establish notability, and a quick Google search doesn't reveal anything else that could establish notability either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I find are social media and download sites, not seeing anything for software notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "incomplete" comment in the 2017 PROD may have been a bit unfair, in that it is not uncommon for text editing software to be released then improved, but while there are occasional mentions of gsoft text editor in Linux forums etc., I am not seeing coverage to demonstrate attained notability, nor an appropriate target. AllyD (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artisteer

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

The current sources do not establish notability. The only two secondary sources I could find were this and this, neither of which are reliable sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was written by a user named "Artisteer", and their only contributions to Wikipedia were on this article. There may be a WP: COI, but given that their last edits were many years ago, I'm not sure what can be done about that now. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find some software blogs saying it was abandoned about 10 yrs ago, then this [11], neither of which is RS. I don't see any reliable sources we'd use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Al-Ansari

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Advert. UPE. Refs are passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 00:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Finance, Politics, Saudi Arabia, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tehonk (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lionel Cristiano^? 06:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PBM (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Per former nominations. Since the former deletion, there is no source for passing WP: GNG and WP: NMUSIC. Otuọcha (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Michigan. Otuọcha (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per former nominations and deletions via AFD. I commend WP: SALT Otuọcha (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT if necessary. I voted to delete in the 2020 AfD for this band and my reasoning is exactly the same now. They have indeed released several albums and played many shows, but the reliable music media simply has not noticed. And again, "shared the stage with prominent musicians" is irrelevant if it was at large festivals or if they were the cost-saving local opening act. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Otuọcha and Doomsdayer: this band lacks significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources (WP:GNG is not met); and it doesn't approach any of the alternative criteria at WP:NMUSIC. However, this is only the first recreation after deletion, which occurred over 4 years ago. I'm not sure this namespace is problematic enough to require WP:SALT. JFHJr (㊟) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, and I made some improvements. Eastview2018 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistiing to assess content changes since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: AllMusic reviews are iffy for reliability, the rest are promotional pieces. This is the only mention of them I can find [12], I suppose it's a RS. I don't see much of anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: strong delete, I can't find any real coverage of this band from reliable outlets online. InDimensional (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Utomo

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 00:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Indonesia, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tehonk (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafique Mohamed Ali

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

Not yet notable per WP:NFILMMAKER: I can find only passing mentions of him in film reviews and film credits, with no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. Wikishovel (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No significant coverage yet. As Wikishovel mentioned, there's just credits in films. Rydex64 (talk)

citations on his movie contributions from reputed news sources included. AbscondingAlibi (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, As per nom, no significant notability found. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 01:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: spam. Tehonk (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G11 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Eren Balıkel

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

Not notable, COI promo spam, it seems it was already deleted as G11 once, I see it was also deleted from trwiki as not notable, see AfD with all delete votes: tr:Vikipedi:Silinmeye_aday_sayfalar/Ali_Eren_Balıkel Tehonk (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Turkey, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Clearly promotional, WP:G11. Aintabli (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Promotional Shadow311 (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Lionel Cristiano^? 06:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Active Training and Education Trust

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

I could not find any significant coverage under its name or "Superweeks". Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Rachiteleva

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

It is content without encyclopedic value. Azerbaijan handball team has no success in history. There were only three teams in this competition. So he'll still get a medal. Redivy (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Redivy (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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