Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 12	January 14 >

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 redirect to Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories#History. Sandstein 07:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund O. Schweitzer Jr.

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

This is probably the wrorst sourced article I have ever seen in Wikipedia, except those with no sources. The only source is the Social Security death index, which is a public database in the US that since 1965 or so has included probably over 85% of all deaths in the US. Actually there has to be other unlisted sources, because that database is not the actual source here. The person who created this article also created an article on the subject's son, and the company the son created, and those are all their contributitions. I was going to suggest redirecting to the company he founded, but the article on the company he founded is a redirect to the article on a different company his son founded. My search for information on him came up with no substnative sources, just patent listings, which are primary sources, and by no means is everyone who has been granted a patent notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of them was inducted into the Inventor's Hall of Fame per the two Gnews hits that came up, looks like the son of this guy though. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories#History and merge whatever relevant content to that section. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muonium chloride

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

The article is probably a hoax. Of the citations, one is to the chemical abstracts services, which contains many entries for substances not-yet-synthesized; the other two are to the same document, recommendations to IUPAC for muon-compound nomenclature, which mentions nothing about the compound's actual synthesis. The article was created by User:0123喵喵9876, who translated it from zh Wikipedia, but searching 介子氯化物 (my best Google Translate guess at Chinese for "muonium chloride") turns up no useful articles. Searching ["muonium chloride" on Google Scholar] turns up only the IUPAC recommendations and discussions of muonium formation in chloride-containing substrates (but no muonium chloride sensu strictu). At best, I think this is a translation error; at worst, a willful one. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I agree that the claim in the article about synthesis is not supported by the source. I do see some coverage in theoretical papers, mainly Bondi et al. (1983) "Exact quantum and vibrationally adiabatic quantum, semiclassical and quasiclassical study of the collinear reactions Cl + MuCl, Cl + HCl, Cl + DCl" [1]. It's WP:PRIMARY but I'm mentioning it in case it's helpful for editors trying to search for more sources. Searching for the phrase "氯化緲子" from the Chinese Wikipedia title basically just turns up mirrors/copies of that article and no helpful sources. In any case, even if we do end up with some usable content on muonium chemistry or compounds, I imagine it is probably more usefully put at Muonium rather than in a separate article. Adumbrativus (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum on why I'm thinking to delete rather than merge – I don't see any content in the current muonium chloride article that would actually be worth including in Muonium. My last sentence above was just to say that if someone were to write more content during this AfD it's possible I would reconsider. Adumbrativus (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Muonium article as suggested. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge as suggested above. --Bduke (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence here is not even ordinary. There's not even any content worth merging to muonium. Tercer (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Not notable to have an individual article. It would be better to Merge to the Muonium article. I agree with Bduke & Oaktree b. VincentGod11 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content worth merging. Doing so would introduce factual errors into the target article. The "merge as suggested" !votes seem to have no ultimate root, since the only !vote to which they could refer said that even if better content existed, that hypothetical content would still not merit a stand-alone article. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Maurizio Bragagni"

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, many sources available are not significant coverage, only thing I could find is this which is not much, and highly dubious as to whether that site passes WP:RS Garnarblarnar (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment The quote marks indicate an evasion of some kind...and indeed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurizio Bragagni exists. Outside the new information about the San Marino honorary consolation, it seems likely this is a copy of that, though an admin would have to compare to confirm. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The versions are not similar, specifically there are many new claims to notability from after 2017. Three knighthoods. Geschichte (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...that does make it easier for me. Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely disclosed paid editing. Has COI issues and was previously deleted. Being an honorary consul is an accolade that can bought by wealthy businessmen, but it does not make them more notable. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems more like a WP:RESUME than an article, talking about all the titles the subject has katamari'ed onto it than what they did to deserve all those titles, and the mention of their job is sourced to PR about merely being at COP26; definite COI issues. Nate • (chatter) 21:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article reads more like a WP:RESUME than an article in an encyclopaedia. The subject appears to be an accomplished person, but not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article and so this should be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG does not have encyclopedic knowledge Juggyevil (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to being notable. Being a regular consul is almost never grounds for notability, even if you are a consul general for a major country in one of their major export markets, even being ambassador is not a default grounds for notability. Honorary consuls are basically non-notable for that period, although some are notable for other things. Nothing about this article suggests Bragagni is such a case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Will not pass WP:GNG. VincentGod11 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grass Creek, Wyoming

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

No evidence of an "unincorporated community" here. Older topos show a creek and basin called Grass Creek, and the 1985 edition shows "Grass Creek" marking a cluster of buildings that are revealed by satellite imagery to be an oilfield facility. –dlthewave ☎ 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grass Creek had a post office as late as 1977, a school until 1974, and an airstrip in the 1920s. It also had its own local news section in the Casper Star-Tribune for several years. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per TheCatalyst31. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Passes WP:GNG based on sources brought forth by User:TheCatalyst31. These can be added in to expand the article as well. Frank Anchor 18:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCatalyst31. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per information provided by TheCatalyst31 Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper ref's. (was a proper BEFORE done?).Djflem (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Based primarily on the airstrip article and postmaster stories: the airstrip story is clear coverage of the community and the postmaster story is mostly about the postmaster but I'll give the benefit of the doubt. The "separate news section" is basically society announcements that would have been sourced from the people the one-sentence stories are about and is not independent, reliable, significant coverage of the location. Having a school/post office is neither here nor there - these don't show legal recognition as schools/post offices can be literally anywhere, including outside communities. FOARP (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is significant coverage to warrant its own article. Such-change47 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCatalyst31, significant coverage.--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 11:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GEOLAND and GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Specialist school

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

An IP user added a PROD tag to the article. I myself do not want to have the article deleted but they do. Therefore, I replaced the PROD with an AfD nomination as PRODs are for non-contested/controversial deletions. Am I not supposed to do this? If not, how do I resolve the issue? ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2022 (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/2022 January 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if my reading of Talk:Specialist school is correct, this is more of a content dispute than an argument for outright deletion. I don't believe that this article is redundant next to Specialist schools programme, they cover different aspects. At the absolute bare minimum, some sort of WP:ATD should be brought to the table as 'specialist school' is definitely a search term and a likely one. COI: I've taught in a specialist school for most of my adult life. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep No explanation from the nominator as to why the article should be deleted outside boilerplate; please present a reason for deletion. Also going by the article history, it seems there's ownership issues as nominator is also the article creator (not in authorship, but converting from a redirect to article), and using the AfD process to end challenges about their contributed content, which is disallowed. Nate • (chatter) 23:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't add anything to why you want your own article deleted. The IP cannot initiate an AfD discussion, so putting it up for deletion yourself is questionable. Do you find your own content to be non-notable? Or are edits from the IP challenging your content something you're discouraging? Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep As far as I can tell the article is extremely well referenced. Especially for articles about this kind of topic. I can understand why the nominator nominated it though. Since AfD is normally sort of the next step in the process after a PROD is removed. At least there isn't any question about it's notability now and no one will try and nominate it later. At least hopefully not. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this seems to be a content dispute that has spilled over into AfD. There does not seem to be a valid reason for this article to be deleted. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Andrzejewski

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2009 and the verdict was to delete the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Andrzejewski). I have seen nothing in the past twelve years that leads me to believe the subject is notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. See notability for political figures. Mpen320 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When you explicitly state the number of employees of a compony and it is below 200 and the revenu and it is below $25 million post-2000, you are clearly trying to hard. Same with mentioning attending a dinner at the white house, or really anywhere. This guy was a candidate for a gubanatorial nomination, and he came in 5th. Most of the coverage is that or hyper local. His attempts to change the way governments publicize their spending have not gotten the coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 01:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. [[User:Davidoooo123| — Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Consensus is the sourcing doesn't currently support these articles meeting notability standards.. Star Mississippi 23:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Embassy School

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

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

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

Three articles about non-notable schools. The first school which is the namesake of the nomination only has passing mentions and from what I could find the most mentions of it mostly relates to the Devyani Khobragade incident. While the American Embassy School came under controversy from this, it doesn't really pass basic GNG and notability concerning schools. The two other school articles I'm nominating, American International School Chennai and American School of Bombay, also fail GNG with articles available online making passing mentions of them. Even the United States State Department pages for these schools is nothing more than just a basic overview of the curriculum. Nothing about the history of the schools. Although, one would assume the U.S. government page for it would have more details as they normally do for everything else on their website, but unfortunately, they don't. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is one good New York Times reference, but apart from that it really needs more independent reliable sources.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with User:Deathlibrarian, I found some sources that mentions the name of the school or student but those can't be used as reference for this article though.VincentGod11 (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I added media coverage of the school, including an India Times article [2] that states it's one of the most elite private schools in Delhi. This article has also been around for 16 years - so I took a little extra time to hunt for coverage, to see how this might have survived for so long if it wasn't at least somewhat notable. Two things keeping this from being a full keep are that most of the coverage was in the wake of the 2014 visa scandal (1E), and that few of the people listed as famous alumni have coverage of the school in their own articles. But apples to apples, I don't even have to look to see if the most elite secondary school in NY City has an article. Let's go Mets!TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I mean, there's a few references. I'm not to solid on the one from India Today though. Since it's like a few short paragraphs about the school and then veers off into some off topic stuff about relations between India and the United States and embassy or something that has nothing to do with the school. So it seems to be more an article about the embassy where the school is located being told in to shut all commercial activities then it is the school. Which doesn't mean the school is notable because it's mentioned in an article about the embassy. Anymore then an article about a mall closing that mentions which stores went out of business has to do with the businesses. Anyway, I'm on the weak delete side though because there is the other reference and someone could probably argue it's worth keeping based on that and the about two paragraphs that are probably salvageable from the India Today article. It's barely not enough for me though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheetal Cool Products Limited

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

Fails at WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV. May be WP:LISTED but that's not enough to prove entity's encyclopedic value or notability. If not delete, then a draftifcation option is always open. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ––FormalDude ^talk 02:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Before publishing the article I noticed that there are many pages (companies) which don't even have 4 or 5 links. But I have added many links.--PQR01 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PQR01: Kindly link those articles, I'll be happy to nominate them for deletion as well. ––FormalDude ^talk 04:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: These are some pages with less references - AYM Syntex Limited, Atul Auto, Aptech, Amalgamations Group, Amalgamations Group.-PQR01 (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on updated information and I am unable to locate any old analyst reports either. ~~Comment~~ There are not sufficient existing articles to meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability but since this company is listed, there may be analyst reports which meet the criteria. I am unable to locate any but perhaps someone else can? I'm leaning towards Delete but happy to review if better references turn up. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was listed four years ago on BSE SME (not SENSEX as claimed in the article) and now not cooperating with credit raters. None of the big brokerages cover it and I suspect nobody else does too. hemantha (brief) 07:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rayan Al-Harbi (footballer, born 1994)

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

Not to be confused with Rayan Al-Harbi (footballer, born 1992) aka Rayan Al Harbi (footballer, born 1992). His Kooora page has the wrong DOB and fails to list even one professional appearance. I found him on Soccerway but this has only a trivial professional career, with only 97 mins of professional football recorded, barely more than one single game's worth of time. His cup games for Al-Tai FC occurred when they were not playing in the 2017–18 Saudi Professional League, so don't count for anything either. He was called up to the Saudi Arabia national under-23 football team but failed to play. WP:GNG absolutely needs to be looked at here as the WP:NFOOTBALL pass is not at all significant.

Searches in Google News and DDG failed to yield any obvious significant coverage. Happy to look at sources if anyone can bring anything to this discussion to show that the subject meets GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Giant - really needs more substantial RS... and more than one or two games. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, however admittedly it may be difficult for me to properly locate Saudi Arabian/Arabic sourcing. As such, and per nom, WP:WINNEROUTCOMES consensus leads to deletion. GauchoDude (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rayan Al Harbi (footballer, born 1992)

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

Not to be confused with Rayan Al-Harbi (footballer, born 1994). The 112 minutes of play which constitutes a very weak WP:NFOOTBALL pass (only the unreliable Transfermarkt seems to list this) is insufficient unless there is at least some sign of being able to pass WP:GNG, which is not presented in this article or the Arabic Wikipedia version. His Goalzz profile only lists an U17 game.

Searches in Google News and DDG failed to yield any obvious significant coverage. Happy to look at sources if anyone can bring anything to this discussion to show that the subject meets GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of British people in India

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

This article started under the title British in India, about some aspect of British rule in India [3]. Somehow, at some point, it became a list of "British people who were born in India or lived there at any point", which it still is, and which is clearly not an unencyclopedic topic. Even if we were to limit the scope to just "British people born in India", I don't think that would be a valid list; there are no other "List of X people born in Y" articles.

Perhaps British people in India, i.e. people of British descent currently living in India, could be a notable topic, like British people in Pakistan, but nothing in the current article or its history is useful for that, so in that case it would be better to start over. Scratch that: Anglo-Indian people already covers that topic. Lennart97 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't occur to me when I added the unreferenced tag and requested the move to the current title which the nominator did from RM. However, with that said, the article, Anglo-Indian people is far more detailed than this one and perhaps the better already existing alternative. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assume an infinite list (without some sort of guidelines),and unencyclopedic. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as has been said above no guidelines mean virtually anyone from the UK who has spent time in India could be added, and that is not something that belongs on Wikipedia. The Anglo-Indian people article covers what I suspect this list was aimed at in an encyclopaedic way, so this is really redundant in any case. Dunarc (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST.--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 10:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, but move, which I will do on close. It appears San Haven State Hospital has slightly broader consensus as of the moment. No objection to a rename to San Haven Sanatorium should sourcing support that.. Star Mississippi 23:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Haven, North Dakota

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

This is not a town where there was a sanatorium; it was the sanatorium itself, as one of the references used makes clear. It's not terribly surprising that it had its own post office at one point, but evidence for this surrounding town is completely lacking. The sanatorium itself very well might be notable, but that's a different article; if that's what people agree on, I wouldn't oppose a move to the correct name for it. Mangoe (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the proper name? If it is not the current name then the solution is simply move the page and delete the first line which is the usual inaccurate nonsense from GNIS. SpinningSpark 19:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move (see below)~~Delete~~ - GNIS spam combined with a single-short-para newspaper article saying it has no population, and an entry in a list of post offices. Fails WP:GEOLAND#1 for lack of legal recognition, fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. The real town this is in is Dunseith, North Dakota, a legally-recognised city for which we already have an article (albeit an algorithm-create one by Rambot). This is not an "unincorporated community", it's a wrecked sanatorium which, as the story says, is private property and not occupied. Yet another example of why just having a post-office does not mean there was any kind of community at the site. No point in the redirect as this isn't a likely search term either for the county or for Dunseith. FOARP (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to San Haven Sanatorium. I've now removed the erroneous GNIS information which just leaves an article that is entirely about the sanatorium. SpinningSpark 10:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose move - San Haven Sanatorium fails WP:GNG/WP:CORP due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, failure to meet audience requirements of WP:CORP. The only sources provided are a 38-word mention in a local newspaper (half of which is the meaning of the name) and a passing mention in a list of post offices. At least two instances of significant coverage in reliable sources, one of which must not be local, are needed, but none are presented here. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC) (flip to support move)[reply]

Well, there's North Dakota's Fight Against the White Plague: The History of Tuberculosis and San Haven: the North Dakota Tuberculosis Sanatorium, although it's unclear who the publisher is. SpinningSpark 10:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a LOT of web coverage, particular regarding its reputation for ghosts [4][5][6][7][8]. This is as much about an abandoned structure as about an organisation. SpinningSpark 11:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A manuscript/archival material according to WorldCat, with no ISBN. Looks like self-published. There’s an obituary online for a Scott Wagar who looks like they might have been the author (lived in North Dakota), but it doesn’t mentioned any published books. Need something more than this. FOARP (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re the web sources - Hot 97 probably just qualifies as a WP:Newsorg but what about the others? FOARP (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article in the Bismarck Tribune. That should count as reliable. SpinningSpark 12:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that isn't actually a story about it though - it's a photo from an interview with the authors of an apparently self-published book about haunted places in North Dakota. The article does feature some information about the sanatorium (less than 100 words on it, of which most can be summarised as "it's spooky") but I don't think it rises to the level of WP:SIGCOV. It does say that the North Dakota State Historical Society has provided some information about it, so maybe there's some information there? I think this is close but not quite there yet. FOARP (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... searching for "San Haven State Hospital" brings up this report and this story that at least appears to have been run in news papers. OK, I support the move.FOARP (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to ~~San Haven Sanatorium~~ or San Haven State Hospital, recasting lead, per https://www.history.nd.gov/archives/stateagencies/sanhaven.html Djflem (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GRT Jewellers

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

pure advertising. The references consist of pr and promotional interviews. Fails NCORP, but would have failed out standards even in 2011. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The company does not have any notability and it sounds like its a paid article. HelpingWorld (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Hindu is a very reputable newspaper in India per its RSP entry, and it does look like the subject has significant coverage in one of the sources from that newspaper (this one). However, the Wikipedia article we're looking at here is quite poorly-written, promotional in tone, and doesn't really seem like it has a lot going for it in terms of notability, so it's hard to get really stoked about keeping it. jp×g 03:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free Neuropathology

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

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation too soon." Article dePRODed without reason given. See also this exchange on talk page of article creator. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. See also Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals): it fails to meet the criteria suggested there.-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG easily, and NJournals. Not notable and not independently covered. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 23:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kris-Zaga

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

Subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Princess of Ara 17:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 17:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article by UPE editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article not promotional, keep to encourage new editors, still being developed and similar to many (over 64k) ^[1] underdeveloped, not notable and or promotional articles in english wikipedia,(nigeria). Most of the cited articles below does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. example are but not limited to ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19] Aspaman (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see WP:ATA, Princess of Ara 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ orphaned
^ Chime_Tsnare
^ Mr_2Kay
^ DJ_Big_N
^ DJ_Caise
^ Idahams
^ Mary_Uranta
^ Bola_Are
^ Dunni_Olanrewaju
^ A-Q
^ Afro_Candy
^ Ali_Jita
^ Dice_Ailes
^ Emeka_Nwokedi
^ /May7ven
^ Mr_Real
^ Mr_Raw
^ Ruby_Gyang
^ Yung6ix

Princess of Ara Thank you; As you recommend references i read and learn more, so much to learn and understand plus school works, This is my first ever article and i want to be a long time contributor here and i am pleading or begging everyone making a contribution to see this deletion process as a last resort, to give a chance for improvement, some subjects may not be notable when pages are created, as time goes on they might meet notability requirements and this is how many orphaned articles that i have seen on english wikipedia gets improved. I understand this process now, please do me a big favour to keep the article. Aspaman — Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. The argument that we keep articles because someone might become notable later is ludicrous as policy explicitly states that we should delete in these situations. There is a reason why reviewers declined a draft on this subject three times. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 -- what is the main reason why all the articles referenced above and over 64k orphaned articles still remained and not being considered for deletion? i've been studying these articles referenced; from the standards you mentioned, none of them meets notability. the recommendation for deletion is BIAS. please explain further and try to look at the referenced articles thanks. Also reviewers declined the draft for this article because it was not well written, secondly, copyright issues and these are good reasons. That is also to show you that this is a learning process; i believe an experienced editor may write it better and it be accepted just like the rest as referenced above. I am interested in understanding why some articles without notability get to stay and some that have been placed on others permanent watch list gets to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspaman (talk • contribs) 06:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that an article being orphaned has literally nothing to do with notability right? Also please know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for an article not to be deleted and failing notability standards was cited when each of the three different reviewers (JavaHurricane, Princess of Ara, and Dan arndt) declined the draft article. GPL93 (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP:Orphan has nothing to do with notability and orphaned tag was placed on it after draft was declined and the article was created again. The reference for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is clear and its summary to my understanding indicates that editors make the decision to leave articles or it is not noticed. Moreso, here is a background of why this subject or article was noticed and recommended for deletion by Princess of Ara (JavaHurricane,Dan arndt) did not recommend deletion. And deletion policy according to Wikipedia should be seen as last resort.

Background::

The article was started by another editor and did not pass approval but they did not recommend deletion. When I signed up to be an editor I was looking to see where to start and I saw this draft and decided to make corrections to help the editor, after first and second submission for approval, it was decline and at no point did they recommend deletion, the words were to look for reliable sources, improve and if no reliable sources the subject was not suitable for Wikipedia. This is standard and has been seen on several articles on english wikipedia which notifies all editors of improvements and reliable sources.

There has only been one request not 3 as you suggested for deletion. That occurred because I copied and pasted information from the subjects website instead of writing in my own words as suggested by princess of Ara. Princess of Ara immediately requested for the article’s speedy deletion while also recommending to re- write the article which I did and removed all copyright materials but still the deletion was done. When deletion occurred in draft I read about it as a new editor and Wikipedia says you can create the article again, hence I created it again and bearing in mind all changes that has been requested to be made. After draft, I studied why similar articles were left to stay and others don’t and I came across WP:Orphan and I saw this article meets that criteria. So it was tag as orphaned article. Soon after, same editors who were against it came back, suggesting the article was paid for amidst other issues just like many other articles on Wikipedia then After a week, Princess of Ara immediately put it up for deletion. All over Wikipedia it says deletion is last resort, various conditions are given to allow articles to stay WP:Orphan and I believe this article meets that criteria; also Wikipedia has suggested most orphaned articles can be improved and the orphaned tags removed, WP:DEORPHAN it is not ridiculous that i seem to make suggestions to leave articles until the subject becomes notable; it is a fact WP:DEORPHAN articles and suggestions on Wikipedia. Same treatment and discretions given to similar articles should be asserted for fairness. Aspaman (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think that this article is at the point of last resort? You submitted this as a draft 3 times, it was rejected 3 times with not meeting notability standards cited each time. You decided to ignore them and one of the reviewers nominated the article for deletion when you tried to game the system and bypass the draft review process. They didn't recommend deletion previously because it was a draft and not an article in the main space. GPL93 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspaman, I concur with everything @GPL93 has said above. Your accusation of bias above is a Personal attack which I’m politely requesting that you strike through. Princess of Ara 20:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93 No i submitted it twice and @ Princess of Ara then nominated it for deletion because of copyright which i acknowledge she is right to do so. This also shows you how much struggle i have in trying to develop just one article and before i sleep and wake up it is deleted that is how i felt. meanwhile, other editors suggested to improve the article, Should we no longer try and improve articles? This is a learning process for me there is no gaming here unless what i read is not is obtainable simply maybe some editors have consensus over others?. @GPL93 are you trying to suggest that WP:Orphan is a way to game the system? If so, Every editor also has the right to publish an article as an WP:Orphan and can make improvement then WP:DEORPHAN according to wikipedia policy. @ Princess of Ara I sincerely apologize for calling your nomination bias; sincerely. Like i said in your talk page, i do believe it is done in good faith; I just want to be heard. Otherwise i will loose interest in contributing on here. personally, I need someone to educate me why some articles get to stay! despite not meeting notability. "editors do not notice them for nomination deletion" is hard for me to graps. WP:Orphan. Imagine in a world where all disabled people are completely eliminated and only perfectly born persons get to live and enjoy the world. Aspaman (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspaman (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Doesn’t meet NMUSIC, GNG, or BASIC. No, I do not believe I’m seeing anything of imperative encyclopedic value and notability is very shaky, I’m sorry, but I fail to see how this is mainspace worthy, I do however wish them the best in their career path. Celestina007 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO / WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep – redirects are not within AfD's scope. I'll fix the double redirect; any further issues can go to RfD. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banfield Light Rail

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

Double redirect; page renamed to "Banfield Light Rail Project", which redirects to MAX Blue Line. truflip99 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep AfD is not the venue for this, but instead RfD; however, this double redirect should be auto-corrected by a bot, so you probably don't need to take it to RfD either. (see 2R) TartarTorte 16:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think a bot should take care of the double redirect. We should keep this redirect as a plausible search term. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are weak. They invoke WP:DIVERSE, but that is a necessary, not a sufficient criterium for inclusion of an article about an event. They don't address the other reasons for deletion (NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL, BLP1E, WP:MILL). Sandstein 09:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Barel Hadaria Shmueli

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL a soldier was killed (and yes Israeli "Border Police" are soldiers actively engaged in military operations) during an ongoing conflict. Utterly non-notable. Nableezy 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Nableezy 16:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID Its only half year passed but its already meet WP:DIVERSE [9],[10],[11],[12] also there is some developments [13] --Shrike (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The development being that the Hebrew Wikipedia deleted the article for being non-notable? Ok ... nableezy - 18:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge/redirect to 2018–2019 Gaza border protests - My condolences, and I'm not saying that it's not an unfortunate and tragic event. While the content can be verified using decent sources, individual border skirmish incidents making the news isn't necessarily always article-worthy per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:1E, WP:NOTOBITUARY, etc. If there were more sources directly about the person's life and career, a more complete and general WP:BLP article could be written including the circumstances of his death. If may be WP:DUE for mention at the more general article and a redirect from the name would satisfy search results. As for WP-related criticism because the article was deleted on one of the projects it doesn't change much to this, most people are unaware of how WP really works, I'm not particularly familiar with the policies of other language wikis myself. —Paleo Neonate – 19:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I fail to see that a soldier on duty being killed is notable, (if it is, then we lack some thousand (million?) articles). Merge to 2018–2019 Gaza border protests anything noteworthy, Huldra (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"On August 21, 2021, Barel Hadaria Shmueli, an Israel Border Police sergeant, was shot in the head during the 2018–2019 Gaza border protests."

There is something wrong here. My point is that no, that doesn't seem like the right target article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, re-worded, though I would prefer retitling the original target as the protests never really stopped. nableezy - 19:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021 as merge/redirect perhaps? According to ru-WP there were consequences. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would work for a merge target if it needs to be merged. nableezy - 19:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a WP:BLP1E and it isn't a particularly notable single event. Zero^talk 23:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:DIVERSE. DgwTalk 19:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The coverage about the incident is still ongoing [14] a half year after the incident --Shrike (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So an inquiry took 6 months to complete. That's normal for a military death and doesn't add notability. Zero^talk 13:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its add notability because it reported by WP:RS Shrike (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an independent inquiry. I did not write it in the article. Briefly, the medic who took care of the victim was post-traumatic, there were no stretcher nor helicopter, although it was in the area of Israel, not in Gaza. The ride to the hospital took 1:45 hours instead of 50 minutes regularly. DgwTalk 14:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already explained by others WP:DIVERSE.Tritomex (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete soldier doing his job? Plenty of those, poor buggers. SN54129 05:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe event is a death that occurred 9 days after wounding in a border incident when it received routine and diverse coverage on the day of death but otherwise is of no "enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect". WP is not here to record everyday events, even if newsworthy, or to memorialize the death of a non notable person. Selfstudier (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an I/P regular, but this seems to be WP:NOTNEWS, lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (maybe?) to 2018–2019 Gaza border protests , arguments for such a merge are convincing. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella "On August 21, 2021..."? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shmueli was one of the only Israeli victims of the highly publicized border riots. His death was extensively covered by a number of reliable sources as it was heavily politicized in Israeli. The military and many politicians faced major public backlash and criticism from activists and right-wing lawmakers. Protocols for responding to riots have been changed (personnel will now be stationed further back in safer shooting positions) Bennet agreed to advance a proposed law allowing family members to use the sperm of dead relatives has received after Shmueli's mother. (apologies for formatting, I am editing this in a rush as I haven't been able to respond to the AfD, and it will be deleted soon) Mooonswimmer 13:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Overwhelming early consensus to keep the article as well as a nom withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Walker (fencer)

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

No evidence of any notability found. A redirect to Fencing at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Women's foil was reverted, so an AfD can decide what to do. The only source we have is the very short bio at Olympedia[15]. Looking for more information didn't reveal a single source. At the time Walker was active, women's fencing was hardly a popular sport, and it looks as if she got little to no attention. I'm happy to change my position if better sources are presented! Fram (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete our new guidelines in place I believe since last October are quite clear, unless someone medals at the Olympics they are not default notable for that. The sourcing here is a very expansive source of the type that our guidelines explicitly state does not lead towards passing GNG. Searches have not identified other sources. This is a clear case of an article that does not meet inclusion criteria and should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two-time national champion and the vice-chair person of nationals sports' body. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep British Champion - so national champion (twice!), is surely notable? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on our own determination of what level of sports success makes someone notable, it is supposed to be built on comprehensive secondary sources. Even if the one added source is in-depth enough to pass GNG, which I cannot tell for sure when the whole reference to the subject is on one page, GNG requires multiple sources, and that has not been met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that she was a national champion and also a member of the governing body, I'd be very surprised if there aren't many more sources to be found off-line. pburka (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no less notable than the many sportspersons articles already on Wikipedia and has three sources so meets WP:GNG. Skyerise (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

has three sources so meets WP:GNG ??? Two of the three sources are generic database entries. They don't contribute to significant coverage, Skyerise. Silver seren^C 19:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren:I find people who continually argue their case against every opposing !vote to be annoying and overzealous. Don't expect any change in my !vote because you choose to pester everyone who disagrees with you. Skyerise (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources are an old database which is no longer active, and the successor site of that same database, so in fact the same source. And the third source reads in total "Alice Walker (no age given)"... Fram (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Same goes for you. See above. Skyerise (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this was my only reply to any keep vote here, in this discussion, your post hardly applies. If you don't want your opinion to be the subject of discussion and criticism, then please don't bother posting. Fram (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. State your case in your own !vote. If you have more to say, add it to your !vote. In the future, all comments placed under my !vote will be moved out to first level with Comment prepended. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Skyerise, but that is not how AFD discussions are conducted and formatted. See WP:AFDFORMAT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean where it says "If you want to expand on your own comments, add further text to your existing comments in preference to creating a new section." Skyerise (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: No, where it says "If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say I can't move it after they put it there. Skyerise (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as was done before the revert. I have sympathy for the "sources are likely to be offline, not online" argument, but that in itself isn't a reasonable argument in favour of keep, especially when the article is a stub with such an obvious redirect target. If someone finds those offline sources in the future, they can then easily restart the standalone for her. For anyone motivated to do a deeper dig for sources, I'd like to point out that (at least according to our own article on it), the 1924 Summer Olympics was the first women's Olympic fencing competition. A book on the history of Olympic women's fencing might have useful details that aren't coming up just by looking for her name. (The book currently cited in the article is just a passing mention.) The other keep arguments are either not based on policy at all or appear to misunderstand WP:GNG's requirement of significant coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks solved, so keep it is. -- asilvering (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or Redirect~~ Keep As what is stated in WP:NSPORTS, presumed notability to meeting the WP:GNG (the only notability requirement that actually matters) only remain presumed so long as it isn't actively challenged. I am challenging that presumption now. If significant coverage in multiple reliable sources can't be found after an exhaustive search for said sources, then the presumption of notability is lost. As a national champion, you should be able to easily actually showcase those sources, right? Unless being a national champion at that time is not something that anyone in the media or other sourced coverage actually cared about, which would in itself then denote non-notability. I'm fully open to changing my vote here if proper source coverage can be found and presented. Otherwise, the closing admin should ignore any claims about presumed notability, as that isn't a proper keep argument. Silver seren^C 19:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I just wanted sources to be found and they have been. Good job, changing my vote. Silver seren^C 20:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some significant coverage in several newspapers (via British Newspaper Archive) and have expanded the article accordingly with some biographical details. Note: since other sources do little more than confirm what is already cited, I haven't added them as I don't find refboming particularly helpful. Anyway, seems like there is enough to pass GNG here, and I'd also say it's probable that further coverage exists with more additional information. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Wjemather, do any of those other sources cover the material that's currently being cited with Olympedia and Sports-Reference? Since those two aren't very good sources at all and would be best replaced with proper news articles if you have them for that material. Silver seren^C 20:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't spot anything, but that could be due to my fairly restrictive search parameters. I'll look again when I get more time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any reasonable person would surely guess that the article's pre-nomination state, with only database sources, was that way only because of the difficulty of searching for 100-year-old news coverage of her accomplishments and not because of the nonexistence of sources. And that has now been borne out by the addition of better sources to the article. Also-competed at the Olympics may no longer be cause for automatic notability, but it is also not a reason for deletion when there is coverage of her efforts there and where she had other significant accomplishments including two-time national champion. Now that sourcing of those accomplishments has been found, there is no longer any excuse for this nomination to proceed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book 'A Proper Spectacle: Women Olympians 1900 to 1936'^[1] also provides details and a team photo of the four women on the 1924 British fencing team. Citation is now in the text. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Daniels, Stephanie (2000). 'A proper spectacle' : women Olympians 1900-1936. Internet Archive. Houghton Conquest, Bedforshire : ZeNaNA Press ; Petersham, NSW : Walla Walla Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-9537645-0-1.

Keep, I think it's likely there is sufficient coverage on the British Newspaper Archive to satisfy the necessary criteria here. Very little on newspapers.com and the like which I guess isn't too unexpected, given they are more suited (but not exclusively) for non-England coverage. I have changed the ref to BNA template, added preview links to verify the sources and found an additional mention of a competition win which I added. I don't have subscription access to BNA so can't easily find further info. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw with thanks to those who found the British newspaper coverage. I can't close this (still a delete vote, plus too complicated to do while mobile editing). Fram (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks to everyone for helping with sourcing here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Yelin

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

Not notable as an artist, doesn't have significant coverage. Not notable as a scientist, just five scientific publications. Mvqr (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was a stone's throw from nominating this myself a moment ago, until twinkle notified me it had already been. Not seeing evidence for a pass of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NCREATIVE. Those looking for sources might want to use an alternate name (derived from a couple of publications) "Laura Yelin-Bekerman" ASUKITE 15:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROMO draft was just deleted. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Loksmythe (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, seems like someone created a page to advertise themself. Seungri400 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've speedied this twice, and I've asked the editor if they have a conflict of interest, no response just another recreation. Not directlt relevant, but this user's other contributions make for interesting viewing! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image is a copyright violation, nominated for SD at Commons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sources: books^[1]

any independant reviews though? -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as doesn't seem to meet WP:NARTIST, and certainly doesn't meet WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Laura Yelin-Bekerman". Google Books.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as well as everything else outlined above. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient notability for inclusion. Such-change47 (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The subject does not satisfy any criteria for notability. ZanciD (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and does not have significant coverage.Juggyevil (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ASUKITE 15:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is against the existence of these articles. Star Mississippi 22:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in New York City

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

We do not normally consider it notable to cover the events of a specific city in a year and this article is terribly incomplete as well. Delete for failure of LISTN TartarTorte 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also

2020 in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2021 in New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TartarTorte 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Added two more in the set, TartarTorte. Yes New York City is larger than many countries, but I really don't think we should have such individual city/year articles that will be left wildly incomplete. Major events belong at Timeline of New York City, and there are respective categories for this as well. Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions! TartarTorte 15:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:2018_in_New_York_City each year has a category already. Not sure how you could make that into a proper list article though. Dream Focus 15:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No need per Reywas. Azuredivay (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom User:Reywas92's comments. Frank Anchor 18:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument that he articles are incomple imply there is the posiblity of adding signicant content to them. If we are not doingthis for about 10 cities of similar importance, we should. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, unnecessary level of detail. Geschichte (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator. 777burger ^{user talk} ^contribs 17:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MetalJesusRocks

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

Non-notable YouTuber, the only good source I could find was this article in Shacknews, everything I found was either unreliable, in passing or an interview. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. To be honest, while we can't find that many sources, I think he deserves a stub. If this article was much longer then that might be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seungri400 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes zero sense. You didn't even cite a reason. Sergecross73

While I am trying to find at least some sources about his work, there just aren't any. I believe he is one of those individuals who has excellent work on video game collecting and the retro gaming scene. There are a number of video games related personalities we cannot find any cite-able sources about their work. However their contributions are so important that they deserve an entry here. One such example I can think of right now is bruce dawson of original xbox team, whose work in writing a virtual machine of the original xbox for the new Xbox 360 deserves to be documented. But there is no mention of him/his work.User:N013i

That's not how it works on Wikipedia. Reliables sources are a non-negotiable requirement, especially for a WP:BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some of his works which were reported by some news sites. Please forgive my dialect as English is not my first language and If my sentences are not coherent User:N013i--~Nabeel~N013i 18:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC) .[reply]

Most of those sources would not be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. The two exceptions are Vice and Ars Technica...but those sources are mostly small passing mentions in articles largely not focused on him. Not really the type of stuff you can write a whole article around. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable youtuber. Article does not have any reliable sources. HelpingWorld (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced WP:BLP. Sergecross73 msg me 04:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Based on the current revision of the article's quality and sources. However, there is a decent amount of coverage found on Google News. I am not sure if the this subject meets GNG or not. RoseCherry64 (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No reliable sources or in-depth coverage...--Assyrtiko (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a fan of MetalJesusRocks, but the sourcing just isn't there. -- Mike 🗩 15:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced article not meeting GNG or NBIO. -Cupper52^Discuss! 16:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Simen Aanerud. Star Mississippi 23:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aanerud Industries

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

Promo stub with no reliable sources FossLimi (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering a redirect to Simen Aanerud, although that page has sourcing problems. Geschichte (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Simen Aanerud, despite the poor spourcing. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sivvi.com

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

After 7.5 years no sign of improvement by anyone. Lacks RS, notability, etc. FossLimi (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from the sources already cited in the article which are just passing mentions,I found a few more sources [16] (which reads like an advert) ,[17] (which states that Sivvi was bought out by another company and nothing more) and [18] (which also is some what of an advert). Bingobro (Chat) 15:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient sourcing - fails WP:GNG. If parent Noon had an article [[19]], this would be an easy merge and redirect vote. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Canada at the 1936 Summer Olympics#Rowing. Consensus is he is not notable enough for a standalone article, and this seemed to be the preferred target. Star Mississippi 23:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Matteson (rower)

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

The basic reason for this is that in October of 2021 it was decided that only medalist in the Olympics are default notable for that, other people need to pass other criteria and in general meet GNG. First off the two sources here are one that is so broad and ultra-inclusive that it cannot be used to add towards notability, and another that is far as I can tell a blog. In that particular blog the one mention of this person is buried and mentions he died. Here is their earlier blurb on this person [(Charles Matteson, pictured fourth from the left, in the August 6, 1936 edition of The Calgary Herald) Charles Matteson – Member of Canada’s coxed eights squad at the 1936 Berlin Olympics We know very little of Charles “Tiny” Matteson, born June 8, 1913, who represented Canada in the coxed eights at the 1936 Berlin Games and was eliminated in the semifinals. Aside from the fact that he was a member of the Leander Boat Club of Hamilton, we have no leads on his later life or when and where he might have died.] I did the search of google, google books, google scholar, google news and google news archives and was not able to find any more information and unable to find even one source on Matteson that would lead to his passing GNG. There are several other Charles Matteson's, at least one of whom was notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just being a member of a crew is not enough. I agree with discussion above. --Bduke (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Rowing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's eight or Canada at the 1936 Summer Olympics#Rowing as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canada at the 1936 Summer Olympics#Rowing. Olympian from 1936, which is notable. There is going to be hardly (if any) info from back then. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- First, Olympians are not inherently notable. Second, claiming that it's unlikely that significant coverage will ever be found is not a convincing rationale for keeping an article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant to say redirect, I copied over the wrong vote. It has been updated. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any significant coverage, so fails GNG. Redirecting to an event article that contains virtually no information about the subject serves no purpose; and if coverage can be found, it is unlikely that one unremarkable Olympic appearance would be his crowning achievement as a rower. A valid ATD would be merge/redirect to an appropriate list, e.g. List of Canadian rowers or List of Canadian Olympic rowers, but such no lists exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the expansion done by Wjemather. Or worst case, redirect per Joseph2302 and Sportsfan, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear (for those who cannot view it), the source I added does not contain any significant coverage - it is nothing more than a photo of the crew (with a caption which states they were from the Leander club). Exactly the same detail appears in a couple of newspapers, but it is pretty much the limit of coverage I found on Newspapers.com. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe English

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

Not enough RS. It also fails to pass WP:GNG FossLimi (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I call BS! Forbes 30 Under 30 is enough to establish notability! Stop wasting my time with spurious RFDs. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 14:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article should be improved and lengthened, not deleted. As the other user said, Forbes 30 Under 30 is enough to establish notability. Seungri400 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not sure if Forbes 30 under 30 is enough notability. Where did you get it? --FossLimi (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be well covered in the fashion news, and received a 2021 honor of 'Leaders of Change' award from the British Fashion Council ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]. I added some of these to the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

evident problems with WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. What are the three best references that clearly connote notability per the mentioned guidelines? --FossLimi (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She meets WP:ARTIST criteria #4d ("been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"). She has received recognition for her creative work (see citations in awards section of page). DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, any notable museums/galleries holding her work? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she has four pieces in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Citations in the text. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks DaffodilOcean, this is a clear keep as meeting WP:ARTIST with works in permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, article now reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~...and following up to my comments (and additions to the page), I vote keep. She meets WP:ARTIST with pieces in the permanent collection of two museums. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi DaffodilOcean, you have already recommended "keep" once before, would you like to change this to a "comment"? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, this is my inexperience with this process. I now realize I mangled where my comments and votes should go. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Conti, Samantha (2021-10-07). "Phoebe English Secures Funding for Green Research and Development". WWD. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
^ Petter, Olivia (2022-01-02). "Was 2021 the year we moved away from fast fashion?". The Independent. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
^ Douglass, Rachel (2021-11-02). "Phoebe English among fashion signatories calling COP26 to climate action". FashionUnited. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
^ Murray, Daisy (2021-11-30). "We Speak To Three Of The Fashion Award's 'Leaders Of Change'". ELLE. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
^ "Phoebe English: Fall 2018". The New York Times. 7 January 2018.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Recession

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

Seems to be WP:SYNTH Most of the sources do not explicitly call this the "Japanese Recession" as a de-facto name. Seems redundant to Lost Decade (Japan). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to be a shortened CFORK of Lost Decades. The reliance on the article from the Mises Institute is odd to me as well as there are other less biased sources that discuss Japan's Lost Decades, but that is a moot point. Delete as CFORK. TartarTorte 04:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: withdrawn Chumpih ^t 08:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jihyun Park

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

No evidence that she is a current councillor, and therefore likely to fail WP:SUSTAINED. Chumpih ^t 12:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chumpih ^t 12:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Chumpih ^t 12:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chumpih ^t 12:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Draftspace - I am very annoyed that someone actually made this article, this article was kept in my draft space for a reason. This person would have met WP:NOTABILITY threshold, if they had been elected to be Councillor as they are unique in terms of being a North Korean refugee - but they were not elected, therefore, I kept this article in Draftspace for the future if they were hypothetically elected going forward. Although, I do appreciate the good sourcing and also the information about this person's early life and pre-arrival in the UK. Theprussian (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theprussian, ah, mea culpa. I both approved the AfC and nominated for deletion. Prior to approving the AfC I should have confirmed that the subject was indeed an elected councillor. The article was misleading at the time of move to article space and I trusted this incorrect statement. I subsequently checked validity, spotted my oversight, ... , and here we are.
Indeed, draft is acceptable if this is WP:TOOSOON. But if there's little chance of future notability I would suggest Deletion, or perhaps move to your User space. Chumpih ^t 12:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment likewise I passed the article at new page patrol because the article stated she was elected as a councillor. If she isn’t then her notability is more doubtful. There may still be enough out there for a GNG pass but if this is going to be quickly draftified I won’t spend time looking. Mccapra (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep putting aside the issue of whether she has been elected or not, I see significant coverage [20], BBC [21], ABC [22]. These aren't trivial mentions, they are articles 100% devoted to her with in depth coverage. That is all WP:GNG requires, and GNG is the mother of all notability guidelines. Once it is met, it doesn't matter how other subordinate guidelines frame it. It doesn't require anyone is elected to anything. It may seem "soon", but the big story isn't whether or not she gets elected, it is that a North Korean made an extraordinary journey to get to the point that she could even run. Extraordinary enough that several, high quality sources are devoting column inches devoted to it. That is the absolute core of our criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNG explicitly defers to Biographies and Politicians for subject-specific notability guidance, and it's a peer to WP:GNG as far as I can see. WP:BLP1E would suggest we need to look beyond a single event, and two of the links above pertain to Park's standing for a Councillor election. The other is interview for an in-house magazine of some UK charity completely independent of the UN and receive no funding from it 1a ; an interesting life story for sure, but does that confer notability? Not a reliable source, and questionable journalistic independence - do they fact check? Is there another notable event? Chumpih ^t 17:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying ABC and BBC aren't reliable? And she is only know for what, running only? Don't bother replying, the closing admin will sort it. It is neither necessary nor desirable to reply to every comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No intention to WP:Bludgeon, but a dangling question mark warrant something, rhetorical flair notwithstanding!! BBC and ABC are of course reliable - but they only cover because of this single event. Is she otherwise noteable? To answer your question, she appears to be known as "NK defector who ran for a councillor post" and little else. There are many hundreds of NK defectors every year - do they all get an article? Chumpih ^t 17:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, only those with with multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources, since that IS our policy. Now please.... just stop. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, do please clarify what part of WP:NBLP is met here. Please don't just defer to WP:GNG because as previously stated WP:SNG is a peer of that. Unless you're telling me that WP:SNG is not a peer, in which case, genuinely, can you help me out by showing me where that is stated? (Let's not even bother considering WP:NPOL.) Chumpih ^t 17:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, STOP WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. If you keep dragging out every keep, I absolutely will seek sanctions. You've spoken your piece, now kindly pipe down. You don't understand what you are talking about, so let others opine without your interference. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. There's no need for the WP:ADHOM. Anyway, Pahunkat has come up with some strong sources that demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED. Perhaps it would be reasonable for this article to be kept. Chumpih ^t 06:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant media coverage and the first North Korean to run in British elections. Article can be improved to emphasize this, but it should be a keep for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seungri400 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources that establish GNG is met, here's more: The Times, Reuters, Japan Times and The Telegraph (some paywalled). The first section of NBIO/NBLP even covers GNG and states that "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria", so I don't understand why an argument for deletion is being made with regards to that. Pahunkat (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's because WP:NBASIC states Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, and all that coverage was from Spring 2021 and pertains to that single event. Chumpih ^t 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article from The Conversation, The Guardian and another article from the Guardian before the election, as well as [23] [24] (local media). There might be more, I only did a surface check. I think this counts as sustained coverage and passes BLP1E. Pahunkat (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good sources. Thanks for going to the trouble of researching them. Chumpih ^t 21:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad I could help :-) Pahunkat (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the sourcing is a bit iffy (Youtube) but there seems to be adequate reliable sourcing to meet standards. Coretheapple (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NWC (football club)

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

Not enough notable/insignificant amateur club. Generic sources provided currently do not establish notability. Tame (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clubs that play or have played in the Eerste Klasse or Tweede Klasse are usually kept. That said, I have not yet added notability-supporting references. Will cast my !vote afterwards. gidonb (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb, As I said, based on the generic sources (rather external links) provided currently, the topic is fo-shizz not notable. -- Tame (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Point of my comment (!) was that clubs that play at this level get kept at AfDs. Especially if existing 93 years. Besides, per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The bold is in the source. gidonb (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - club has played in the KNVB Cup per this, general benchmark of club notability. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There seems to be a number of match reports for the club on the web, Reported problems news story on low attendance. [25], As GiantSnowman said, they have played in the Cup. Seem to help out in the community. [26] I didn't see a lot, but enough to feel this is workable. Govvy (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/comment In the text "NWC Asten" is used. The club is from Asten however not commonly known by that name but by just "NWC". There's no other footballclub called NWC, so no reason to add Asten. Furthermore [[NVB|KNVB]] is a link to a DP where KNVB is not listed. --Sb008 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEAM and the WP:GNG. Nomination fails WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A few sources and they've played in the Dutch Cup. Needs improving as GiantSnowman said. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and Club notablity criteria.--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 11:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awsam Wasfy

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

Deleted previously due to concerns about notability and immediately recreated. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't quite seem accurate to describe the PROD as "concerns about notability", though it's tough for a non-admin to tell. The given rationale is "Fringe theory concerns", which while not something I consider an appropriate deletion rationale is certainly worth noting for an article that at the time was a puff piece for a "researcher in the field of curing homosexuality". After the article's recreation in the same form, I stubbed it and concluded from the sourcing I found that this was a borderline case. Vaticidalprophet 06:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it as "Fringe theory + concerns below", the concerns below being an endorsement saying "completely non-notable". – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 10:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 10:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I also think this is a borderline case, but am leaning towards WP:ANYBIO not being met here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FRINGE has nothing to do with it. We wouldn't keep an article about even the most orthodox MD if itt had so little content or sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP.--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 10:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete with no objection to draftification if an established editor would like to work on this.. Star Mississippi 23:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uyarntha Manithan (upcoming film)

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

Began filming in 2019 but no coverage since then as per my searches. Likely shelved; does not meet the WP:NFF criteria. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I suggest a draftify because they can submit after the release. Onmyway22 talk 06:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The film does not have any scheduled release date, and is unlikely to receive any new coverage in the next six months. So, I don't think draftifying is going to be helpful here. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to give time to develop. (We shouldn't assume there won't be any coverage). Neocorelight (Talk) 12:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filmymantra

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

non notable news website. Lack of significant coverage. fails WP:GNG. DFXYME (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DFXYME (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. DFXYME (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DFXYME (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, Unable to satisfy WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks reliable independent sources, not notable and won't pass WP:GNG. VincentGod11 (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Warren

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

Fails WP:MMABIO, hasn't fought in almost 9 years, and is in his late 40s marking a return to MMA competition unlikely. Coverage I've found has shown that he opened his own gym, and wrote a book, though I doubt this is enough to pass WP:GNG ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes NMMA having 3 fights in top tier promotion (1 in Strikeforce (2006) and 2 in Bellator in 2012 and 2013 where both Strikefore and ellator were considered top tier during those years). Cassiopeia talk 08:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its about whether he passes GNG or not, NMMA is irrelevant here. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The important thing is that he fails to meet WP:GNG. He did have 3 top tier fights, but he lost them all and his highest ranking was #171, which is not surprising for someone who won half his fights. Listings in databases, routine fight coverage, and the bio from his gym do not count as significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though NMMA is typically inclusive, there is not nearly enough for this fighter to pass WP:GNG. Spf121188 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sports criteria clearly state that the subject must pass GNG. They exist as useful approximations of what will meet GNG, but are not always right (a few like the football criteria and the cricket criteria we actually know are way too broad, but people refuse to be reasonable about creating one that more closely approximate GNG), so when these articles come to AfD we look at GNG, and in this case the subject clearly does not pass it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of editor who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 13:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glass (social network)

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

Did a WP:BEFORE search, doesn't pass WP:BASIC or WP:SIGCOV. Article tone isn't the worst, but it's a promotional piece with no independent coverage. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion I created a stub article in hope it could be developed further. Don't really understand why someone wants to come along and delete it. It is not a promotional piece but states what it is and who it is intended for. I am not an employee or investor in the company. I would agree the article needs more work. However, if you create something in good faith, and then it's deleted because it's not a perfect article right away, that seems like a deterrent to working on Wikipedia. Moreover, the idea that the article has no independent coverage is patently untrue, given that both PetaPixel and writer Om Malik are independent from Glass.Fletcher (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify so it can be developed further and the author can prove its notability. It's not as promotional as claimed. Neocorelight (Talk) 12:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is fine, but I'm not sure the subject meets WP:GNG. The best source I could find is this coverage from TechRadar. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Suriname0 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I added a couple of sources to beef this up but I think it's WP:TOOSOON. Hopefully there's be more coverage coming so we can revisit. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cogliano

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

Non-notable individual, sourced almost entirely to blackhat SEO and nonsense vanity spam/pay to publish sites. SANTADICAE🎅 11:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When an article on a movie composer is so convinced that the works he composed for are non-notable that it does not even bother to name them, this is a strong sign that the person is in fact non-notable. The analysis by the nominator is good, and there are no indications of major changes since last July that would indicate this now meets notability guidelines when it did not then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I encourage everyone (if you have some extra time) to read the downright bizarre proceedings at the first AfD for this musician, in which his article was deleted about six months ago. You will see clearly that the musician has supporters who claim to have no direct connection to him while desperately trying to cram promotional statements about him onto Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One thing has changed since the last AfD: Cagliano has expanded from TV/film music composer to indie recording artist. The same problem remains though. His list of TV/film works is nothing but a personal resume repeating his fleeting mentions in the list of credits at the end of a program. Most sources talking about his works in general are merely directories; recent articles about his 2021 EP are unreliable (and probably pre-paid) promotional sites. Kudos to him for building a viable career creating background music, but that doesn't mean he qualifies for an encyclopedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My {{prod}} on this was declined by someone who made up a non-existent criterion (which they're technically entitled to do; the prod rules are that the template can be removed for any reason, not necessarily a valid one) but my reasoning still applies. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your accusation at all Iridescent. Deletion policy is explicit that an article that has ever been discussed at AfD is not eligible for PROD (WP:PRODNOM). This article subject has an existing AfD, and thus per policy, it is not eligible for PROD. I would expect an editor with 15 years of experience and who nominates stuff for deletion to be familiar with deletion policy, and not to accuse others of making up absurd bullshit when you're the one who is incorrect. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've looked at the new sources and agree that this is textbook blackhat SEO. I was strongly in support of deletion last year and my stance has not changed, despite the addition of new 'sources' and new 'claims' to notability. Thank you to the above contributors for their diligence. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above and nomination. I read through the previous AfD and it made my head spin. I don't need to add more than what's above. Spf121188 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube in Germany

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

Redundant and not-suitable for encyclopedic entry. Might fall under WP:NOT Tame (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability currently relies on WP:SYNTH. The events and channels mentioned may be significant, but there are no sources that currently tie them together as a single topic. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there probably is something to be written about YouTube in Germany especially with regards to Youtube and NetzDG, but that's not this article at all, and that is probably better as a section in an article instead of as its own article. TartarTorte 17:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Je Suis Animal

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

Fails WP:NBAND. No big tours, no charts, not multiple albums on bigger indie labels. Geschichte (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks in-depth coverage of significant events. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar University School of Humanities and Social Sciences

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

Fails WP:GNG, and a BEFORE search isn't looking good. It is full of advertising fluff, and is solely referenced to a source from the university itself. If any independent sources could be found, it should still be merged into the main Khazar University article, and this deleted as it is of little use as a redirect. Kevo327 recommended that I take a look at the Khazar University articles, so any delete !vote from them should be considered as part of the nomination. Mako001 (C) (T) 10:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 10:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this doesn't appear to be notable. Not surprising really considering it's a department of Khazar University and departments are rarely notable on their own. On that, I don't think it's worth a merge or a redirect. For that matter someone could probably nominate Khazar University for deletion also since it's sources aren't great either. That said I'm not recommending anyone nominate it, just pointing out that it's probably not worth merging or redirecting this to another article that probably isn't up to snuff either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sourcing, I think that at least sources could be found for the main article, unlike the department ones. Also, the university teaches largely in English, so I would be surprised if any Azerbaijani language sources could be found and not English ones. I'm also thinking of taking a trip to the az.wiki, as these articles seem to have counterparts there. I wonder if they are also self-saucing puddings too? 😁 Mako001 (C) (T) 02:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. I'm sure there's enough sources for the main article. A lot of times people will create forks because they think everything needs it's own article or something and often times it at the cost of the article for the main topic being well referenced. Which then leads to both being deleted when there could have just been one good article from the start. The whole thing is a vicious cycle. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Adamant1, guess I can be considered a co-nominator. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevo327, I'm trying to ensure that, if the Khazar Univeristy paid editors come after either of us over nuking their handiwork, they won't be able to try to say that either of us are engaging in canvassing, or similar, as we are making it as transparent as possible. Mako001 (C) (T) 02:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a good way to approach it. There's been a lot of paid editors going after people lately for some reason. Especially with articles related to schools. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and there is not much coverage in my WP:BEFORE.--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 11:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

School of Economics and Management, Khazar University

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

Fails WP:GNG, a BEFORE search isn't showing anything worthwhile. The article reads somewhat like an advertisement, and seems to have been just copied straight from their (13 year old) course information book. Kevo327 suggested that I take a look at these Khazar University articles, so any delete !vote from them should be considered as a co-nomination. If independent sources could be found for anything in this article, it should be merged and this deleted as it is of little use as a redirect. Mako001 (C) (T) 10:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (C) (T) 10:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Exorcism of Anna Ecklund

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

My article. But now there are doubts about the significance WP:NFILM. --Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2022 (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/2022 January 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An author can request deletion of their own article with WP:G7 provided they're the only substantial contributor to the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My reading is that the author is wondering whether it ought to be deleted rather than proposing it should be deleted. Thincat (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andrew Jones (filmmaker)#Filmography, the only reliable review I could find was the Scream review already cited in the article. I also found this article in Dread Central reacting to the trailer, but that article only really talks about the film for two sentences, the rest is a plot synopsis and a callback to an earlier article by that website. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some coverage for the film and expanded the article - it's not the heaviest and I'm not really certain about the Cryptic Rock source, but I think that overall there's enough to squeak by notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some sources and improvements were added by ReaderofthePack. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Of the added sources, ScreenRant, while reliable, is mostly a plot synopsis with only a sentence of actual coverage, while Cryptic Rock has no indication that it has an editorial team, so it's probably not a reliable source. Notability probably rests on the WalesOnline source, which is probably reliable, but the article is mostly about Tiffany Ceri, not the film itself. It might provide SIGCOV, but it's very marginal at best. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does focus on her, but it's predominantly focusing on her in relation to the film and how she approached the character. The content about her outside of the film makes up about a third of the article. There's also the reviews from Scream, a fairly widely internationally distributed magazine, and HorrorNews.net, which is seen as a RS for horror topics. As said above, it's not the firmest keep but there is just barely enough here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Baur

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

Stub article, text: "is a Tirolean composer. He was recipient of the Tiroler Landespreis für Kunst in 2011." That's not a nothingburger but I don't think it alone can support this whole article.

His website is here: http://www.franzbaur.at/biographie.htm; if he were wiki-notable, I'd expect his self-written bio to say so. I don't think it does.

Warning for google/newspapers searchers: he shares a name with German meteorologist Franz Baur (1887-1977). asilvering (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the whole point of stubs with "expand" tags are they they can be expanded de:Franz Baur (Komponist). de:Tiroler Landespreis für Kunst only goes to one recipient each year. The chap has 3 oratorios etc recorded by the Tirol Landesmuseum. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering which living Tirol composer exactly we're mean to be comparing this composer to? Do we know of another living Tirol composer who has won the an annual Landespreis for Art and had his works recorded? If he was Welsh or Scottish we wouldn't be having this discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read the de-wiki article before listing this. It is also basically a stub, though larger, and doesn't have sourcing that achieves WP:GNG. As I said, I don't think the Tirol State Prize for Art is enough to assure notability on its own. So, we need a WP:GNG pass. Right now, even with your recent additions, we do not have that. As for your second question about which living Tirol composer we're meant to be comparing him to, I don't know what you mean. -- asilvering (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If that's your opinion, how about we just delete all stubs then? The point of a stub is for it to be improved upon so it can be a better article. While it doesn't have the best coverage it does not need to be deleted. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs need to be on a notable subject. Do you have sources that will cause this article to pass WP:GNG? -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: This is by far one of the worst nominations I've seen come through AfD by an experienced editor. Literally nothing in the nomination rationale is a valid criteria for deletion. Just bc an article is a stub isn't a criteria for deletion even if the text "[can't] support this whole article". Also, who gives a f*** what the guy's self-written bio says?? The nominator actually gives a halfway decent rationale in one of the replies above, why not start with that?! All that being said, it's pretty obvious that the subject fails GNG; that said, he may or may not meet WP:ANYBIO#1. I don't know how significant an award the one he won is; if it is determined to be a significant award, then it should be kept, otherwise delete. Curbon7 (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Absent legal recognition, places should meet WP:GNG, which this place seemingly does not. RL0919 (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pitcairn, North Dakota

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

According to GNIS, Pitcairn sat just to the left of the tracks about 150 feet from where the photographer appears to have stood for the image gracing the article, and the only other structures in the vicinity are a house just out of the picture to the right, and the apparatus of railroad crossing signals and gates. Going backwards through the topos doesn't show much more, but they do show a siding at this point, and the only reference I could find that addressed this spot indicated it was established as a shipping point. It does not describe Pitcairn as a town, either. Searching is buried in chance juxtapositions both with the mutineers' island and with another town in another state, so my confidence in that is a bit low. On the other hand, having looked at a lot of these ND rail towns, the vast majority have a quite characteristic pattern of at least two or three square blocks defined by streets, usually aligned with the rails; and the streets are quite persistent even when there are no town buildings left. There is no trace of that here. Mangoe (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I started to contribute to Wikipedia with researching and writing articles, I thought Wikipedia served as a gazetteer. Thank You-RFD (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNIS spam. Fails WP:GEOLAND#1 and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer (my essay). Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. The other places called "Pitcairn" make the search a bit complicated but there is nothing on GBooks, Google, internet archive, JStor, or Newspapers.com for "Pitcairn, North Dakota". The intention of the article creator is not a keep-reason, but shows that Wikipedia really needs to be clearer on the question of whether Wikipedia is or is not a Gazetteer, and an RFC should probably be held at WP:NOT to clarify this. Frankly I find their confusion understandable given how often people on here talk (wrongly) as though there is a consensus that Wikipedia is a gazetteer - there is not and never has been any such consensus. FOARP (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be just a rail siding, no evidence of legal recognition or sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The WP:GEOLAND guideline has had consensus for nearly a decade and takes precedence over individual editors' claims that "Wikipedia is a gazetteer". Even if we do keep this article, what can we possibly write about this location? GNIS is not a reliable source for "populated place" or "unincorporated community", so all we can really say is "Pitcairn is a place in Richland County, North Dakota". –dlthewave ☎ 23:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carman Hall

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

Sources are either affiliated or comprise a passing mention and do not meet WP:WISC. Lowering the bar of notability to this level would clutter Wikipedia with articles about college dorms that are more appropriate as sections of other articles. (proposed by Filetime) Filetime (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep as it appears to be a storied structure, and would be consistent with existing articles on other residence halls of Columbia University (Hartley Hall, John Jay Hall, and Wallach Hall, which have not been nominated for deletion), but I would also be amenable to a merge, perhaps bringing the various halls into a single article. BD2412 T 06:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Columbia University#Students, where it was originally targeted, since it is mentioned there. There is simply not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes GNG. I actually grew up across the street from the Columbia campus, not that that has any bearing on this discussion. Just that this article did interest me, and I was hoping that there was enough coverage, but sadly there is not.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would argue that the building is architecturally significant, considering the sources for the building's reception in the 1960s. Its reputation for its ugliness seems to have survived, looking at the "In popular culture" section. I'm don't have the time to look right now, but someone could definitely find more sources on that subject. I think there's a good case to be made that in addition to keeping this article, another one could be made for the contemporaneous Uris Hall, whose groundbreaking was picketed and covered by the NYT. 2601:196:4900:15CD:DC03:E7EF:7271:C945 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and thus WP:OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument. If this is more appropriate as a section of another article, why wasn't a merge proposed? Appears to be discussed in multiple book sources (ignoring the citations in the "Notable residents" section) and a New York Times article and thus I feel notability has been established. NemesisAT (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been updated with more in-depth coverage (such as the New York Times article) added by other users since I first worked on this page. CatchedY (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communion of Christ the Redeemer

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

WP:NCHURCH; I found nothing on this denomination, and the page has had no reference added in 14 years of existence.
The very few mentions of it on Google Books are mostly from non-WP:RS, and all Google Books sources mention this denomination in Wikipedia:Passing mention. There is no mention of this denomination on the 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions either.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (at most) - The website appears to show four (possibly five) congregations (called dioceses) in US, which may well meet for worship. It is a splinter of the American episcopal church and claims to be in communion with Anglican Province of America, another much larger splinter (with two US dioceses and 116 congregations worldwide). This is another case where local church ministers have been declared to be bishops. This has to be near the limits of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: when no secondary RS talks about an organisation, said organisation does not match the WP:NOTABILITY criteria at all, whatever the number of dioceses and parishes their website may claim. Veverve (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gutting the article diff just before nomination has been called disruptive as it removes information that could be useful for source searching. It's not a BLP so retention of uncontroversial unreferenced material for a week or two is not damaging in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No secondary sources as indicated by the nom. The topic fails WP:N. Jerm (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources and the two external links are archived web sites dating back to 2007. Generally speaking if sources are this scarce, and this old, the subject fails WP:GNG. Blue Riband► 09:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could find no secondary sources that would make this organisation pass GNG or NORG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annetta Kapon

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

I cannot find any reliable sources to include in this article. It currently has no references. The subject fails WP:NARTIST. She doesn't appear to be in any major exhibitions or had any of her exhibitions reviewed. Her work is not listed as being in any collections WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about https://www.frieze.com/article/annetta-kapon? I haven't looked very carefully yet, but there appear to be at least some usable sources, listed at https://annettakapon.com/Reviews Vexations (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vexations. I checked out the CAMAC link embedded in the article and it looks like the content of the article was taken from there. The article is from a show in 2007, so I don't think CAMAC got the text from Wikipedia. I do apologize for not doing a better "before" on this artist. Now I am not sure how or if I should tag it for copyright violation. Please advise. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a text that appears in many places, the kind of bio that any artist is expected to provide for exhibitions, conferences or lectures, and of course it also appears on her own website: [27] Vexations (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NARTIST, works in permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums ie. Museum of Contemporary Art, North Miami here, UCR/California Museum of Photography here, Benton Museum of Art here, have added this to article. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Works in the collections of multiple notable museums, as noted above by Coolabahapple, is enough for a pass for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DTV Innovations

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

Very PROMO, does not meet WP:NCORP with no significant in-depth independent coverage. Last four edits made by a blocked sock farm. Deprodded in 2019. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article content is largely unreferenced, and the few references used are either press releases or primary sources. I was not able to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; can't find anything indicating its significance. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it has a lot of weasel terms. I.hate.spam.mail.here (This is YOUR page) (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per User:Cullen. SoyokoAnis - talk 13:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability or SIGCOV by reliable sources, mentions that I can find are surface-level. Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete there's zero indication that this is notable and the chance that it will be kept is pretty much non-existing at this point. So it might as well be snow deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Not the End (Manafest album)

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

The majority sources present are YouTube videos that make claims about the existence of pieces of the work. There are also multiple Apple Music entries that do the same thing. press releases (jesusfreakhideout.com ) works without authors (indievisionmusic.com) and a WordPress blog entry (rockonpurpose.live) and of course the Patreon entry. There is no review for it at AllMusic, ~~jesusfreakhideout.com, or even crossrhythms (and they review pretty much everyting that comes across their desk)~~. It seems that the subject is lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so it fails WP:GNG. The fact that it did not chart and no other claims for WP:NALBUM can be made, I can only assume it should be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a review at https://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/ThisIsNottheEnd.asp and https://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/products/Manafest/This_Is_Not_The_End/177184/ Not sure why they did not show up in their lists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources present don't help meet the WP:GNG, no evidence anything else out there is helping either. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources present are unreliable, searching online didn't turn up enough coverage to justify keeping the article. QuietHere (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge with Manafest, but do not delete the article history. I have just added three items to the new "Critical reception" section of the page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as three independent reliable sources reviews have been identified and added to the article for a critical reception section so WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Manafest. Not enough coverage to warrant an independent article. Tkbrett (✉) 18:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources added to the article by Jax. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 00:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Sourcing still needs improvement, but it should not be deleted because of that, it seems likely that it can be fixed. Mako001 (C) (T) 10:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree that iwth the two sources I found after I started the AfD and that were added, along with a third, by Jax 0677, it now meets HEY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] rphaned

[2] Chime_Tsnare

[3] Mr_2Kay

[4] DJ_Big_N

[5] DJ_Caise

[6] Idahams

[7] Mary_Uranta

[8] Bola_Are

[9] Dunni_Olanrewaju

[10] A-Q

[11] Afro_Candy

[12] Ali_Jita

[13] Dice_Ailes

[14] Emeka_Nwokedi

[15] /May7ven

[16] Mr_Real

[17] Mr_Raw

[18] Ruby_Gyang

[19] Yung6ix

[20] Daniels, Stephanie (2000). 'A proper spectacle' : women Olympians 1900-1936. Internet Archive. Houghton Conquest, Bedforshire : ZeNaNA Press ; Petersham, NSW : Walla Walla Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-9537645-0-1.

[21] "Laura Yelin-Bekerman". Google Books.

[:0-22] Conti, Samantha (2021-10-07). "Phoebe English Secures Funding for Green Research and Development". WWD. Retrieved 2022-01-13.

[23] Petter, Olivia (2022-01-02). "Was 2021 the year we moved away from fast fashion?". The Independent. Retrieved 2022-01-13.

[24] Douglass, Rachel (2021-11-02). "Phoebe English among fashion signatories calling COP26 to climate action". FashionUnited. Retrieved 2022-01-13.

[25] Murray, Daisy (2021-11-30). "We Speak To Three Of The Fashion Award's 'Leaders Of Change'". ELLE. Retrieved 2022-01-13.

[26] "Phoebe English: Fall 2018". The New York Times. 7 January 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]