Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 June 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 20	June 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Reza Naghbaei Langroudi

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

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC, and irredeemably résumé-like. – Ploni (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Ploni (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails NACADEMIC, and doesn't provide any real evidence of notability (writing for publications doesn't convey the notability from them.) While there might be non-English sources that demonstrate notability, I couldn't find anything substantial. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP: SCHOLAR. It reads as if the article creator sat there reading through the subject's CV. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV. Moreover, this reads like a resume, so delete per Wikipedia:NOTCV.4meter4 (talk) 21:29, 28 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Cimbalo

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

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC (see, e.g., [1]). – Ploni (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails WP:NACADEMIC by all counts, as peer citations are generally quite low. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 23:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full professor at a good university in Italy should generally pass, but we need evidence for one of the WP:PROF criteria, and we don't have it here. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Fails WP:PROF, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:SCHOLAR. This reads like it was assembled from a letter of recommendation. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 21:32, 28 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Martínez (writer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. By searching his name on Amazon, his most rated book has 233 reviews. Official website is a personal Blogspot, last updated in 2021. Only 12 followers on 'FantasticFiction' the second external link. Appears to be a small time author with one of his books being adapted to a film, no significant coverage. Non of the references linked are reliable.Hadal1337 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:AUTHOR item 3 with multiple book reviews including in national newspapers, with minimal searching. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: although WP:NAUTHOR is a guideline, not a rule, and GNG overrides, I was able to find plenty of articles in La Nación and in Clarín. Granted, some of them are interviews and so don't count towards GNG, but the weight of those that aren't push me to keep. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 00:07, 22 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram Husain

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

Majority of the sources are lists of articles they've written for a particular publication or articles they've written. One or two appear to be interviews with them, but I'm not sure that's enough to meet WP:NPEOPLE. Ravensfire (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Economics, and Pakistan. Ravensfire (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is well-known journalist and columist of Pakistan about business and economy.He works for well-known news papers and channels such as BBC, The Express Tribune and Dawn News paper English, which i have already mentioned in article with citations.Zimi09(User talk: Zimi09) 4:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Simply working for significant newspapers doesn't mean a person is notable. There are a lot of journalists at those companies that don't meet notability requirements. There needs to be several sources with significant coverage about that person. Notability is not inherited. Ravensfire (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Writing for reliable sources doesn't confer notability, and I wasn't able to find profiles in said caliber of sources that would demonstrate SIGCOV. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is sourced to publications for which the subject is a contributing author. As such, these publications lack independence from the subject and can not be used as sources towards proving notability per wikipedia's guidelines. Fails WP:SIGCOV for lack of independent sources.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy

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

No sources are provided, and searching for sources really only shows "x person from Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy says..." or a short, surface-level biography of the org--not anything to indicate noteworthiness. Relevant policy: WP:NORG. It's remained a stub from 2006 with little change. SWinxy (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. SWinxy (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organization seems to have played a key role in the nuclear non-proliferation treaties of the 1990s. Its work is described in this book. Also, on p. 77, it says "During the CTBT negotiations, the Acronym Institute came to be regarded by many delegations as the 'ngo negotiator' on the treaty." At worst, merge and redirect to Johnson's article. SpinningSpark 11:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Because...

Passing mentions in academic paper:

Researchers: Help free the world of nuclear weapons. (2020). Nature, 584(7819), 7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02274-9

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/maggie-and-me-by-those-who-love-her-and-those-who-didn-t-1676343.html

Their executive director is often quoted in mainstream news:

They are a source that is used in scholarly journals:

Minor, E. (2015). Changing the discourse on nuclear weapons: The humanitarian initiative. International Review of the Red Cross, 97(899), 711-730. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S181638311600014X
Dee, M. (2012). EXPLAINING EUROPEAN UNION PERFORMANCE IN THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE: LIMITED AMBITIONS BUT PRAGMATIC POSITIONING1. UNISCI Discussion Papers, (30), 11-26. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/explaining-european-union-performance-nuclear-non/docview/1269113306/se-2

...however, I must say weak, because I'm making an argument that appeals to WP:COMMONSENSE and is at odds with policy. Normally we'd need one in depth source to justify this. But this is an anti-nuclear organisation, decades of history, not for profit motivations, the sort of organisation that people might seek out on Wikipedia. I think keeping this adds encyclopaedic value, even if it doesn't have the normal sourcing, and I hope that others might let this pass on the basis of the cumulative of what I've written above. CT55555 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 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 07:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Jayendra Golden Jubilee School

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 22:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could use a more substantial deletion rationale that "Fails WP:GNG"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is sourced entirely to primary sources produced by the government. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.4meter4 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per 4meter4. A quick before shows nothing of note. I do wonder why this wasn't prodded. At any rate, looking through the history it seems this is a primary school, which are almost never covered sufficiently to establish notability. I could be wrong about that, but this doesn't have any coverage anyway. Rockphed (talk) 05:17, 29 June 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Pike

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

Fails notability criteria for musicians. – Ploni (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Ploni (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, found plenty of sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TPH found some good sources. I'll add a feature in The Santa Fe New Mexican. The article needs a ton of cleanup, and most of the unsourced content should be removed. I'm likely to stubbify after this discussion closes unless someone feels motivated to exert more effort in building a sourced article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided by TenPoundHammer are convincing of notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:10, 28 June 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Schoenfeld

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to meet GNG. Almost entirely primary-sourced article with just one marginal secondary mention; does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:JOURNALIST with few reviews and no significant body of work Cambial — foliar❧ 23:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. He's the author of several high profile op-eds that have received much critical backlash. A PROQUEST search revealed numerous reviews (many highly critical) of his writing in The New York Times (NYT), Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post (WP), etc. Additionally, there are multiple critical reviews of his books in major publications like the NYT and WP. WP:BEFORE was either not followed or was incompetently followed.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 4meter4 didn't provide specifics, so I will. I show one book review in a journal: [7]. I show one book review in the NYT ([8]) and a set of letters to the editor dunking on one of his columns: [9]. I have another set of letters to the editor from the LA Times ([10]) but cannot find actual reviews from editorial or newspaper staff. I cannot find reviews of his WaPo work or columns in said paper, but can find a significant mention of one of those columns in the publication of the World Socialist Web Site: [11]. I don't doubt the breadth of his body of work as a columnist, but that's all primary sourcing. Right now, I'm leaning delete owing to lack of significant secondary source coverage; if 4meter4 could attach the sources they found in their WP:BEFORE, I'd be grateful. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 23:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iseult: I also located the two letters to NYT and the book review in the same. I agree your view that it is insufficient – nor close – to meet a level of secondary coverage for WP:AUTHOR. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Iseult's analysis of the references. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the status of some references, their content does not indicate notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:52, 29 June 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} 19:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Ting

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

Fails notability criteria for actors. – Ploni (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Ploni (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is really past time we stopped having articles sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable roles. No significant coverage. — BriefEdits (talk) 22:40, 25 June 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 Zee Entertainment Enterprises. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Living

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

I can verify that this channel exists, but I don't see much evidence that it is notable. Google News turns up empty, and ProQuest results are primarily announcements such as [12], which are sometimes linked to the channel Living Foodz (now Zee Zest). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some results, including the provided URL, are for an unrelated channel called Z Living in the United States. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises. Fails WP:GNG. I've found this book but that's all. The first three sources in the article are just incidental coverage. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 14:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zee Entertainment Enterprises. Does not meet notability on it's own per WP:BCAST. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Black

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

Recieved an award for one guest role in a TV series, but otherwise no significant roles or contributions to a field of entertainment. – Ploni (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Ploni (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although he has been in many movies, the most popular ones he's been in- he's only played minor roles in them. Fails WP:GNG. There are no references. 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 21:15, 28 June 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 23:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hema Polovili

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've done some checking under their full name, and found a reasonable number of refs. This one suggests a clear case for notability.--IdiotSavant (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One reference does not meant WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG as per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the source mentioned by IdiotSavant, this source [13] should be enough to push him over the WP:GNG line. EternalNomad (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. Also, he has over 12 caps for Tonga. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. There is nothing of significance about him in the boxscorenews.com source. The oceaniafootballcenter.org source seems to be a blog that would go against WP:SELFPUBLISH. Even if it would be considered SIGCOV, it wouldn't be enough as GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage, lacks notability. Stats show Polovili scored one goal. Just one. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the WP:GNG. NFOOTY no longer exists so the number of caps is niether here nor there. The two sources provided are box score and a self-published blog and do not show the required significant coverage. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Neither of the sources presented here pass the criteria of usable sources as defined at WP:SIGCOV. The Oceania Football Center (which sounds impressive), is simply a self-published fan website with no editorial oversight and fails our reliability standards at WP:Verifiability. boxscorenews does not address the topic "directly and in detail", so it too is not significant coverage. Without any supporting references of note, this is a clear delete.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since there's no longer an automatic presumption of notability based on simply showing an appearance on a team, I'm looking at the actual sources. Some coverage of him early on as a youth, but not much more. If you remove the match reports, there's little biographical info about him. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first ref is blog, the rest are passing, one or two sentence mentions that are not significant coverage. Fails GNG or WP:NSPORT. VickKiang (talk) 08:09, 1 July 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) 23:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Mount Vernon, Washington

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

As per WP:NPOL I don't think the mayors of a town of c.35,000 are notable. Ingratis (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Washington. Ingratis (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~:see WP:NPOL. Ingratis (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Speedy Keep No policy based deletion rationale identified. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nomination re-factored to make it plainer. Ingratis (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there us nothing to suggest that this is an actual encyclopedic topic. Anything that can needs to be said about the mayor can be said in the article on the place. There is no reason for a content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL seems primarily relevant insofar as determining inclusion, and I'd also argue the fact that the vast majority of its history no sources are readily available demonstrates this is a pretty niche topic. (FWIW, trawling Newspapers.com you probably could fill in a decent amount of that just based off of stories where the mayor was mentioned, but it'd still be pretty spotty based on my searches.) Every source currently in the article save one is a primary source, the other one is just "this guy was elected mayor", and I didn't find anything more promising. Mayors as a whole are generally not a major deal in small cities and towns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert and Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. Non-encyclopedic and non-notable, completely fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 18:03, 24 June 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. Page already deleted by user Athaenara under G11. (non-admin closure) versacespace leave a message! 04:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Triggs (rapper)

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

Recreated after draftification and appears to fail GNG. None of the article's sources (YouTube and Google results) are reliable with significant coverage, and searching Google itself does not find any. Additionally, the biggest claim to fame in the article is a video with 5,000 views on YouTube and WP:INHERITed notability from Snoop Dogg – casting further doubt that any sources to satisfy GNG could exist. ComplexRational (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per {{db-g11}} as blatant advertising. – Athaenara ✉ 22:04, 21 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Zone (2017 film)

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

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFO. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and must instead show some evidence of distinction (e.g. notable film awards, analysis by film critics in media, and on and so forth). But the only notability claim here is that the film exists, the only sourcing is the self-published catalogue websites of film festivals that it was screened at (which are not independent or notability-building sources), I can find absolutely nothing else to strengthen passage of WP:GNG, and even the premise summary is copyvio'ed directly from the IMDb page without even the slightest attempt at paraphrasing. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 21 June 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 Depp v. Heard. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony in Depp v. Heard

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

RandomCanadian (the content creator) claimed that this fails WP:NOTNEWS, so the article has been draftified twice. Then, the page was procedurally moved back to mainspace per WP:DRAFTIFY#3b, so now an AfD is needed to justify deleting or draftifying for failing WP:NOTNEWS. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the trial, or the actors involved. More of a media circus than anything terribly notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wondering about the extent to which WP:RUSH may apply. Editors have invested substantial effort into developing this content from the time it was presented on the Depp v. Heard page which has now been given effective WP:Transclusion from the main article. I suspect the content was in part developed as a result of almost competition between sympathisers of Depp and Heard but, none the less, a lot of notable content was added. My earlier thoughts was that there was value in presenting the content in the chronological order in which the legal teams chose to go through the arguments. However, if this violates not news, then the policy ruling clearly carries. I'd say that there was no rush for deletion and that, otherwise, the content could be put back into draft and certainly be given some direction in regard to it's encyclopaedic development. There's a lot of notable material in there while there's currently disproportionately little content on the on the actual trial in the article on the Depp v. Heard trial. Greg Kaye 07:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and do not merge – (Note: I have made significant comments on the talk page for Depp v. Heard.) The reality is that these minutiae are not deserving of their own article; WP:NOTNEWS strongly applies. See O. J. Simpson murder case#Trial, for example, which is rather long but isn't nearly as specific and detailed as this one. IIRC this article was created as a spinoff from the main article because it was growing too much, hence we should not merge. Ovinus (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't believe this article is in the mainspace. It fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TMI, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and I fail to see how the witnesses are notable enough for a standalone article. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 02:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly INDISCRIMINATE; one might as well look at the trial transcript at this stage. A boiled-down version of the most notable developments is better situated at the Depp v. Heard article. WP:RPURPOSE lists sub-topics as useful redirects, so a redirect to Depp v. Heard#Testimony might be considered if that subsection gets fleshed out. Agree with Ovinus not to merge this article in its current form with Depp v. Heard since it's way too big. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, per creator: this was never intended as a standalone article but as a draft for a larger section on the parent (as that will probably not be necessary in anycase); it was moved to article space by Starship.paint, then reverted by a request at WP:RMTR, and then reverted again by El cid, el campeador. Lets move it back to draft space and allow the creator and other interested editors to continue working on it. If there is then a consensus to do so, they can merge it into the parent article. BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (don't believe a redirect is useful as a target in this instance): Agree with Throast above that this is in violation of INDISCRIMINATE and basic good encyclopedia writing to boot. Individual witness testimony is the purview of live-blogging, not encyclopedia coverage (NOTNEWS). I don't really see where this should be allowed to incubate as a draft. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Depp v. Heard#Testimony. I’d prefer a selective merge, since the claimed point of creating this page was to eventually merge it back into a section in the main article. At minimum, however, it may be the case that a redirect must be retained (or the page must not be deleted) for copyright attribution reasons as some of the modified content appears to have been copied back into some versions of the page available in its history. The closing admin should thoroughly ensure that they do not create a copyright violation when making the closure in the case that they choose to delete it. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:38, 27 June 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 Turn Your Radio On (album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Little Talk with Myself

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

Non-notable song. Scraped the bottom of two charts. Was unable to find sources about the song specifically on World Radio History, ProQuest, or Newspapers.com. Opposing redirect so the title can be freed up for the album, which is more likely to be notable. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turn Your Radio On (album) as preferred WP:ATD. "Have a Little Talk with Myself" is already mentioned there and nothing in WP:R#DELETE applies. Rename redirect Have a Little Talk with Myself (song) if there is a problem for readers finding Have a Little Talk with Myself (album). ~Kvng (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the album should be the WP:PRIMARY topic if the album is deleted. Put the album at Have a Little Talk with Myself and leave Have a Little Talk with Myself (song) as a redirect since nothing else would be using that title. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that ~Kvng (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Turn Your Radio On (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 09:03, 25 June 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 Scottish colonization of the Americas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Empire

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

The term 'Scottish Empire' is never used to refer to the British Empire. It is legitimate just to redirect 'Scottish Empire' to Scottish colonization of the Americas. Also see old discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 18. BlackBony (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BlackBony (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect~~Delete~~. Nominator is completely correct on the logic of deleting this unnecessary disambiguation. CT55555 (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 'Scottish Empire' to Scottish colonization of the Americas as nom suggests. --Bduke (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. A search on Google Scholar and Google News suggests that there is use of "Scottish Empire" in reference to Scottish participation in the British Empire. BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 27 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glorify

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

despite the obscene amount of money spent creating hte app, the coverage consists almost entirely of WP:MILL, specifically about 40 million dollar funding and doesn't appear to have much in the way of true in depth independent coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The service/app is a new, unique approach to worship that has not been done yet. This app is being adopted by churches, as well as non-church-going christians and even non-christians alike. It's engaging in growing the practice of christianity through technology. This hasn't happened in the last 2,020 years (going back to the beginning of Christian measured time here). There are 14 independent, credible sources covering this. Calm and Headspace are similar but less of a story, with fewer reliable sources. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 20:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, all of hte sources are literally about investment funding (which is quite mind boggling, but I won't go into why here.)

New doesn't mean notable, who uses it doesn't mean notable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Calm is at least realistic, with a massive userbase and isn't claiming an obscene amount of funding. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A "massive user base" doesn't make an organization notable. As per WP:Notability - Article content does not determine notability your comments about the funding are irrelevant, notability is determined by the coverage outside of wikipedia, and the reliability of those sources. The UK Times, Bloomberg and Religion News are just three of the reliable sources which have covered this subject in depth. So the itch about the obscene amount of funding is really a moot point. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They've been preaching on TV since at least the 70's, that's pretty techy. This is an app that got funding, with little else to say about it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The alleged references are pure churnalism covering a large investment, but there is nothing in terms of significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources about the app itself. I am not persuaded that this passes WP:GNG. It is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what sticks out to me the most and makes me even more skeptical is the fact that several sources have different investment figures, including a printed paper which says 190 million, one says 40 million and another says 84 million - on an app that has no ROI and is free and has less users than it's larger counter parts (like Calm, Headspace) and yet has 60 employees. Not to mention that none of those sources have verified the investment funding itself and have taken it from Beccle and his partner. Something fishy. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment: @Praxidicae OMG finding organic articles to write is not easy.... and when you find one based on your own day to day activity, and there are solid, reliable sources it's unreal how quickly and vehemently the deletion proposal arrived. This article has 14 sources which include 3 separate articles in the UK Times. All sources are editorial in nature, with authors, not interview-style, all secondary. How does this not pass GNG? The figures vary because they are different articles written at different dates & times and the results change with time. In some cases refer only to a specific investment from one party rather than the entire amount of funding received. based on when the articles were written, for the wikipage I posted the most recent data representing the totality rather than piece parts. The Wikipedia article does not mention ROI and I found no data on this, so I'm not sure why it's being introduced here as discussion, feels aggressive to imply something fishy. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 23:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Churnalism is churnalism is churnalism. It really doesn't matter how often you try to tell us that it's editorial. Some things are impossible to polish. If you find real sources then that will make a difference. I looked, and failed. You have work to do. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the joy of wikipedia, you get to learn the ins and outs of the thing. I've been doing this for almost 20 years, trust me, stick with it long enough and it gets to be an amazing thing. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking in in-depth coverage in reliable sources. That the article creator thinks it's unique and thinks that people are adopting it is neither here nor there. If independent secondary sources say these things, then we can talk. Bishonen | tålk 22:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete funding reports and press relesaes aren't notable/reliable sources. Well, it's covered in Forbes [14], calling it a creepy app that steals your data. Not the sourcing they want I think. Brief mention in the Wall Street Journal [15] Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes article is written by a contributor, which also makes it unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Mention in the Wall Street Journal article is trivial. Throast (talk | contribs) 07:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete beyond the funding information Prax referenced, I'm only able to find trivial mentions. Nothing that adds up to notability. Possibly TOOSOON, but don't see it worth draftifying as it's unlikely that usage will add up to notability in a six month window. Star Mississippi 16:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources are reliable and the topic is notable as 14 reliable sources doing in-depth stories (not just about funding). The sources include The Times (UK), Bloomberg, Religion News, and others. There are three Times (UK) articles alone -- as well as many of the others that describe the service in detail, discussing the perceived crisis in faith, the pervasive depression due to the pandemic lockdowns and how more people have turned to Glorify (and other services like it) in droves. The articles also provide substantial info on the backgrounds of the founders, which I purposely excluded since I felt it would lean it toward being promotional sounding. The Times articles go into great detail; their stories are not just about funding sources and how much money they've raised. I have full copies of those articles if anyone is restricted from seeing (subscription only, but you get the first 3 free) them in the event that is the cause of the focus on the funding. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 18:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Times article would be better used to write an article about the "pervasive lockdown depression"; this app is one of many used, no better or worse than the rest of them. You could lump them together and make a rather interesting article on the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources/Perennial sources, & review pray.com wiki page

In addition to the points I've already made above, praxidicae, Star Mississippi, Oaktrree b, Shellwood, FiddleFaddle, (basically everyone who has taken the time to select this article to review in the AfD discussions and vote quickly) I'd like to point out that the wiki page Pray.com, created in February 2021 was approved in Wikipedia, and it has far fewer reliable sources than Glorify does. Would you all agree that It too mentions funding and is actually more promotional-sounding than the article I wrote on Glorify, especially given some of the recent changes contributed by Jay (thank you). I suspect that Glorify was put on speedy deletion by someone who may have been asked to intervene on this page by another editor who is harassing me on a truly ridiculous dispute on another page. I hope that is not the case and I'll assume good faith despite the timing of the nomination to the publishing of the page indicates there wasn't even enough time to find, let alone read the article and the sources objectively before nominating it. Aside from that - perhaps you all can help explain why Pray.com is acceptable and Glorify is not if we're all using the same rules here. The main argument presented by opposition is about the funding discussion in the source articles Why? Neither the wiki page, nor the sources used for it, focus exclusively on the funding, and even if they did - how does that make this article promotional? The secondary argument is that the article is promotional - it would help if you would outline specifically which statements are promotion and just remove them, and the final argument is that the sources are not reliable so please explain how The Times, Religion News Services, Bloomberg minimally are not being accepted by each of you as "reliable" when both Religion News Service and Bloomberg are on the perennial list of sources clearly defined as "reliable?" Thanks & best, The Real Serena Joy^Talk 15:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The article was not too big and I thought the promotional content could be tweaked. Since I declined the speedy delete, I felt I had to do my part to see what could be rephrased. Probably draftify and wait for it to get accepted. Comparing with other poorly written but accepted articles will not help this. The poorly written ones will get deleted eventually. Jay (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Forbes article isn't about the app, it briefly mentions people in a 30 under 30 list. It's trivial coverage. Reliable, yes. Non-usable due to trivial coverage. The Christian Times is the same thing, minimal mentions of the app and has more of an interview with the founder/creator. Rest are all in a similar style. Reliable sources, yes. Trivial coverage, yes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no links to Bloomberg in the article, so I can't judge the sourcing. Unsure how we'd classify the Religious News Service. As for the Pray.com article, it has sourcing in USA Today, the Catholic Press and Vox among others, those are higher quality sources, devoting a fair amount of space to the subject. Your app might be a bit too niche to gain much attention from the mainstream press, that's fine, it's just not allowing us to maintain the article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b see source #10 for Bloomberg. I didn't mention Forbes, I mentioned The Times, Religion News, and Bloomberg sources. All lengthy articles, not passing mentions, etc. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 17:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we'd already dis-allowed the Forbes source as it's a funding announcement and basically an interview with them? Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and the Religious News is not in our list of sources, it appears to be a distributor of religious news reports, unreliable. See here: [16]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Jay, draftify addresses the previous comment by Star Mississippi noting possible TOOSOON. I would support that, rather than deletion if there is no consensus for keep, which there doesn't appear to be so far. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 17:01, 24 June 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 as per consensus that it meets WP:FILM due to having reviews. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

House of 9

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

Non-notable film. I can't find any sources or professional, vetted reviews of the film (strings: "house of 9", ["house of 9" film]), and I have reason to suspect they didn't exist when this article was first put on the block 17 years ago. The article's little more than a plot synopsis and cast listing, and the cited sources are IMDb and a random blog (non-redirecting link). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Called "Le Piège" in French, but still no sources. Hits on what are equivalents of the IMDb in French, brief mentions otherwise. More hits on a movie from the 50s with the same name. Fr wiki article is also tagged as a stub. Might find Romanian sources...Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5 RS reviews. One at Dread Central [17] and the other at DVD Talk [18]], plus 3 others at Rotten Tomatoes [19] DonaldD23 talk to me 22:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of those three is intended to be the DVD Talk review, but 404s out. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The correct link to the DVD Talk review is above in my comment. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I was excluding the DVD Talk from the 3 other at Rotten Tomatoes. RT has links to Filmcritic.com, Reel Film Reviews, and Cinema em Cena. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Filmcritic and Cinema em Cena's reviews don't have links to them. (This is especially problematic in Filmcritic's case because all it does is give the rating and not a summary or blurb of the review as well.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter because WP:NFILM says 2 reviews are needed and Dread Central and DVD Talk add up to two. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may not - but those reviews would absolutely help, especially as they didn't exist when the first AfD was filed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 21:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources reviews by Dread Central and DVD Talk which were both recently confirmed as reliable sources at the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFILM with multiple independent reviews.4meter4 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:30, 29 June 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} 19:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP reader

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/IP reader

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

Page does not meet notability guidelines, and is overwhelmingly written like an advertisement. Teb (talk) 19:25, 21 June 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} 19:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so it's a card reader. We already have an article for that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find this article as an ad for HID and think it was a POV-pushing for the creation of a new standard (see "HID OPIN API" and "if open communication standards existed").While as a professional of the domain I'd like a standard, and as a wikipedia user I like to include subject and not delete them, I think this is too much of a niche and has no standing in a general view. This could be a paragraph in card reader, or access control, but not a full article. So, to the bin it should go. --Zeugma fr (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional in tone and not worth salvaging - The kernel of this article was created in 2008 by Andriusval, whose editing seemed to have the aim of creating a network of content promoting HID Global. Most of the content is not really encyclopedic in tone and the article lacks adequate sourcing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rotair Industries

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

All the content is sourced to either the company itself or local press to Connecticut. Not in-depth coverage. No out of region coverage. No sign of WP:CORP. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found this Associated Press article covering the scandal with parts being sold indirectly to Iran. This event gained national coverage and was reported on as far away as Iowa and Colorado. I looked for other coverage of the company but couldn't find much beyond a brief mention of an ex-employee trying to sell stolen helicopter parts to the Coast Guard. This CTPost article also discusses the company briefly, they are a significant contractor involved with the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter. If anyone can find even just 1 more example of significant coverage I would be a keep on this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:40, 21 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Johanson

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

No evidence of work with significant impact; fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:POET. – Ploni (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Poetry, and Canada. Ploni (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:SCHOLAR, appears to be created by an SPA. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Failed WP:SCHOLAR. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Blackwood

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

Appears to fail both WP:NACTOR and WP:NFILMMAKER. – Ploni (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Michigan. Ploni (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack anything near enough sources to justify an article, and what he has done does not look to add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Mubarak (Emirati footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Significant amount of false positives for Khalid Mubarak in English and Arabic. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 18:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:45, 22 June 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} 19:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck like Chuck

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

Fails NFILM. Low-budge movie without evidence of any impact. Most of article is promotional. Sourcing is especially poor, and many are unrelated to film itself ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that article was created by "Onmyownproductions" which shares its name with the production company of the film. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NFILM, consequently fails GNG. Could only find, asides from sources in the article, a review from 2014, which is of dubious significance. Still fails NFILM; requires two significant reviews five years after release. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 18:56, 21 June 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} 19:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Piggies

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

contrary to popular belief on Wikipedia, not every show is notable and this one isn't an exception. There was never any meaningful coverage of it outside of "look this exists". No newspapers or books or anything that is useful and encyclopedic. Not sure what additional attention something from 1990 needs, as if it's some historic topic that's hard to find, perhaps we need to go dig through some geocities fan sites? idk. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Article does not currently meet WP:N, looking for sources I am not seeing much to suggets it will ever meet WP:N. Prod was contested so listing at AfD." Artw (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. I don't understand why this was deprodded. As I explained in my prod, a WP:BEFORE involving Newspapers.com, ProQuest, and GBooks found nothing useful as a source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably deprodded due to lack of trust in you then. Given your present situation I would expect to see a lot of that. Artw (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my BEFORE-style search failed to uncover suitable sources. Please ping me if good sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My request for more attention is related to WP:RECENTISM. We have a tendancy to delete things that we can't find sources for in a web search. This series was created in 1990 and is unlikely to show up in a web search. I don't know if it is notable but more than a cursory WP:BEFORE search is going to be required to answer this competently. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you assume that nominators are incapable of searching offline or archived offline sources, as I indicated I already did. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For one, because the editor that PRODded this admitted they had been doing sloppy work ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't prod it, I nominated it here and clearly explained my rationale, so your issues with TPH are pretty irrelevant. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination is snarky and seems to imply, based on your inclusion of the additional attention justification I used, that my DEPROD was unwarranted. Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive. I thought some general background would be helpful. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of ~~irony~~ hypocrisy in you complaining that I or TPH didn't do a before while simultaneously claiming that you either did no before yourself, or did and found nothing or perhaps found something but couldn't be bothered to substantiate your deprod statement, but you do you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to do research or justification of any sort when DEPRODding. (Though not required, I provide a justification for every DEPROD I do.) This comes under fire frequently by butthurt PRODders and is consistently affirmed. PROD policy is asymetric intentionally because it is an AfD shortcut. If you want a symmetric process use AfD first. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need a lecture on how to use AFD, and certainly don't need one here. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you expressed a common misconception about DEPROD so it looked like you did ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 24 June 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} 19:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Institute of Pensions Managers

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

Was proposed for deletion as Bad faith article creation, every source is either primary, dead, or lacks significant coverage and I could not find any better sources. PROD was contested with no explanation other than potentially controversial deletion, but I don't see how. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least as it now stands, it fails to assert clear grounds of notability, and appears to fail WP:GNG. The body does provide some nationally-relevant functions, but does not seem to rise to the level required to have its own article, and I do not see a suitable article into which to merge. I'm not sure re. bad faith, as asserted - more evidence for this should be provided - but the writing was poor, bordering on "off". 12 years and no real improvement is not a good basis for retention. SeoR (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ignoring the apparent WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTWEBHOST issues, it is unclear how the subject meets WP:NORG or WP:SIGCOV. In terms of the latter, a search (for example) in the Irish Times or the Irish Examiner or RTÉ.ie returns no coverage of the subject in national news sources. That we are relying almost ENTIRELY on the subject's own website (to establish the basic facts and the context we do have) reinforces the lack of reliable non-primary sources required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. (A merge or redirect to the UK "sister" org seems like an inappropriate alternative to deletion. Not least as that org/article/content is also questionable).... Guliolopez (talk) 14:28, 23 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SyncThink

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

Undisclosed paid article for a non-notable corporation. This page was originally a disambiguation page at Szepesi (which I have restored) that Oknfj hijacked in August 2016 to avoid the scrutiny of new page patrollers. After clearing out the junk, I discovered that there was only one reliable source covering this company in any significant detail, and my internet search failed to find anything else, so I'm nominating it for deletion. The product is IMO not notable either, although you could maybe argue that it was if you were really determined to (given the circumstances, I am not). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SERIESA. FalconK (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this barely-sourced ad. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quaker Haven Park, Indiana

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

Not an "unincorporated community"; this is a church camp. [20], [21], etc. Some coverage in older newspapers about it opening every summer, but I'm not thinking that WP:GNG is met here although others may disagree with me about what is significant coverage for a summer camp. Hog Farm _Talk 16:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hog Farm _Talk 16:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete as plainly not notable. Mangoe (talk) 01:06, 28 June 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 as consensus was it meets WP:NLIST. Some work is needed to clarify what it should include, but WP:DINC. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of African-American neighborhoods

AfDs for this article:

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

The list is not based on any similar lists published in WP:SECONDARY sources, and is thus a violation of WP:SYNTH with regard to the scanty citations, none of which talk about African-American neighborhoods in the US in general, just such neighborhoods in one metropolitan area or in one state. The unreferenced parts of the article are a violation of WP:NOR. The whole thing is unsalvageable in my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and United States of America. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it's clearly a notable subject for a list, but We have List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas_with_large_African-American_populations and List_of_U.S._communities_with_African-American_majority_populations_in_2000 which seem to be better sourced and cover the same ground. JeffUK (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all three. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't merge them so hastily; I think they server different purposes. One is large populations, and one is large as a proportion. Ovinus (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a notable topic based on the following books:

Peck, R., Wilson, J., Peck, R., Wilson, J. (2008). St. Petersburg's Historic African American Neighborhoods: Community, Culture, and Connection. United States: History Press.
Wiese, A., Wiese, A. (2009). Places of Their Own: African American Suburbanization in the Twentieth Century. Germany: University of Chicago Press.
Martinez, C., Martinez, C. (2016). The Neighborhood Has Its Own Rules: Latinos and African Americans in South Los Angeles. United States: NYU Press.

And these academic papers:

There are plenty more, but I don't want to bludgeon, I assume this is enough to demonstrate notability. I don't understand the point about secondary here, nobody is a neighbourhood, so I see every source as secondary. Unless we're saying that people can't write about their own place of residence, in which case we'd need to discard most history books. CT55555 (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable topic per CT and WP:NLIST. This does, however, need a lot of cleanup; we might want to consult WP:LSC and limit inclusions severely. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 19:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is that by 'limiting inclusions severely' we end up with List_of_U.S._metropolitan_areas_with_large_African-American_populations or List_of_U.S._communities_with_African-American_majority_populations_in_2000 which we have already, so it seems a waste of time to keep all 3. JeffUK (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to suggest limiting the list to neighborhoods in cities over X population, but that's probably outside the notability scope of this discussion. Notability first, duplication later. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 03:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of these neighborhoods are unsourced and are just low income ghettos. Most Black people have moved out of these neighborhoods. Many black people are now moving to white neighborhoods and white suburbs in the US. This is just a list of ghettos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.233.153.158 (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no clear inclusion criteiria. I found one one place on this list that as of our most recent data had a population that was less than 12% African-American. The inclusion criteria is indiscriminate, especially when we consider changes over time, and listing "neighborhoods" at a national scale is just plain excessive. A list like this may be justified for articles on cities or metropolitan areas, but throwing together a list for the whole US just does not make sense. Especially when there are no clear inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a notable subject. Questions about criteria for inclusion on a list aren't a reason to delete the list. They're a reason to improve the list. valereee (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better inclusion criteria can be thought of, and I cannot think of one. By restricting to population, we'd get List of U.S. communities with African-American majority populations in 2000 (which is definitely closer to qualifying for WP:NLIST—I'd vote keep on that one because it has clear inclusion criteria). There are so many neighborhoods we could consider, some of profound significance to African American history, and others not nearly as important. What additional information does this article bring compared to that list article by population? Significant communities belong in African-American history's child articles, where they can be presented in suitable context. Less significant communities belong to the list article by population. I agree that the topic is notable, and CT55555's sources would work excellently in the articles I just mentioned, but the topic isn't notable in a way which suits a standalone list—at least one of any utility. Ovinus (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable topic with encyclopedic value. It meets GNG based on the sources found by CT55555, and also meets WP:NLIST. Netherzone (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable topic, well-sourced. Might need some cleanup, but I see no compelling reason to delete.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep African-American neighborhood exist. This is a real thing, sources exist proving it. Dream Focus 04:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a list of African American neighborhoods in the US. but there needs to be some better inclusion criteria that do not simply make the other two lists given above redundant. I don't think we should default to keeping the article unless something concrete is found; otherwise, we're just duplicating articles. Ovinus (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with updated inclusion criteria and format. Proposed inclusion criteria:

Recognition as an African American neighborhood or community according to a reliable source
Neighborhood recognized for its cultural significance (current or historical) to African Americans, according to a reliable source

In other words, it would be less of a population-driven list (since population-based lists are already covered elsewhere); instead, it's more of a cultural one. Any neighborhood not specifically mentioned by a reliable source would not be listed, but it could definitely include otherwise "non-notable" neighborhoods that do not or will never have their own Wikipedia pages. In terms of the list format, I think it would be more useful if each bulletpoint was followed by, or framed by, some text explaining its significance and/or providing context. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:LISTN with WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources that discusses this topic directly and in detail as a group. Editorial deficiencies in the list can easily be improved by working on the list from those sources. Wikipedia:AFDISNTCLEANUP.4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 29 June 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) --VersaceSpace 🌃 05:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Doughty

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

Only enthusiast databases as sources, fails WP:GNG Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised if someone who played nearly 40 matches with Manchester United and nearly ten for the national team was non-notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These mass nominations of footballers are getting silly. Yes, he's notable. He was an international for Wales. He was in Newton Heath, known today as Manchester United F.C.. And yes, there are sources on him: [22][23][24][25][26].--Mvqr (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, clearly notable. Giant Snowman 19:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above and a cold wet trouting for the nominator. Govvy (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented, passes WP:GNG. If that many book sources can be found just by using Google Books (which has a comparatively small number of historic books), there will obviously be a lot more offline book sources, which are fine to use per WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 23 June 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. (non-admin closure) lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 08:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Christian Andersen: My Life as a Fairytale

AfDs for this article:

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

Newspapers.com listings were just TV directory blurbs or captions to photos. ProQuest found only less than one-sentence mentions in "critic's corner" articles. All hits on GBooks were either directory listings or false positives. Was earlier deprodded without comment. First AFD closed as "no consensus" due to no participation after two weeks, and I made sure to re-check my WP:BEFORE work this time. Admin who closed previous AFD endorsed WP:NPASR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seriously? This is an easily found book with a text paragraph about the movie, with clear commentary (no just a database entry or a passing mention). Published by Routledge, so not some obscure self-published book. This one is short, but again not either a directory listing or a false positive. This has a longish description of the movie. The same text is also included here. Fram (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First source doesn't load for me, and I don't see any mention in the second one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Second source, [27]
Keep. The books provided by Fram amount to significant coverage. Meets WP:GNG just on those. Jacona 16:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fram. I certainly see the mentions. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 19:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources listed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where were all you guys in the last AFD? That thing was relisted three times and not a peep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone (not saying who) listed so many PRODs and AfDs that the last time this was listed it got lost in the shuffle. Just sayin... DonaldD23 talk to me 21:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as out of process rapid renomination: to challenge a close immediately, WP:DRV is the appropriate venue. While WP:NPASR was a closer option for the first AfD, it was not elected. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explicit, who closed the first AFD, stated that it qualified for NPASR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he encouraged you to take a more prudent action, which you ignored. It’s like you’re pushing all the limits, begging people to stand up to you. Jacona (talk) 20:47, 23 June 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Kotwal

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

Fails WP:GNG; sourcing inadequate, no notability presented. "a Dalit woman human rights defender, journalist and the founder of ‘The Mooknayak’, an online news channel and website" do not equate to notability when paired with no significant coverage. Flagged for notability since March. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BASIC - I found verification of recent awards from a non-independent source, and her as a speaker at events 1, 2 (a conference covered by The Wire), as well as recent coverage 'Right Wingers Threatening to Rape Me for Burning Manusmriti': Dalit Journalist (Quint, Jan. 2022), UN writes to India over inaction on death threats to Dalit journalist (Pakistan Today, 9 Apr 2022), Bulandshahr Police Threatens Legal Action Against Journalist Meena Kotwal for Tweet (The Wire, 26 Apr 2022) and previous coverage: In India, calls for a caste census grow as more seek to benefit from affirmative action policies (SCMP, 2021, includes brief coverage about her and her journalism career), Dalit journalist accuses BBC Hindi of discrimination, says was let go due to caste (The Print, 2019). She also gets quoted for her opinion on e.g. politics (Tribune, 2021), (Outlook, 2022) and culture (Mint, 2022), (SheThePeople, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by Beccaynr convince me that she is notable. CT55555 (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems to meet WP:GNG based on sources shown by Beccaynr. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:35, 23 June 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen H. Rapp Jr

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

March 2022 PROD expired, tag removed by creator, article's still there, unchanged. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF; WP:NACADEMIC - in short, not a notable academic. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and History. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Self-published sources/own website used here, no other sources found. Largely promotional Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the sources that I added, self-published sources or the subject's own website? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings User:Oaktree b. Can you please elaborate how Rapp is promotional when he is one of the most wellknown scholars quoted in the western scholarship concerning ancient history? An emperor /// Ave 14:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His CV and his bio at the University, he's an author on the rest of them I'd assume, unless the articles are about him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cited two reviews of the subject's work before this discussion even started, and more have been added since. They are clearly not self-published and not his own web site. Why did you claim that no other sources could be found when they were cited before you made that claim? And why do you continue to assume that he is an author when the evidence that he is not is presented in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I based my analysis on what was in the article when I "voted", I don't continually hang around pressing refresh waiting for new info to appear. I couldn't find any sources at the time; if you have some, please contribute as this adds to the discussion here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I cited two independent reviews in the article before this was even nominated for AfD, well before you "voted". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Oaktree b for your response. Would you like to reconsider your vote since we all see Rapp is not some self-promotional individual but rather wellrespected scholar in his field? Thank you. An emperor /// Ave 14:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. There isn't much beyond the book reviews but I think there are enough reviews (multiple in-depth reviews of multiple books) for author notability. Nominator's claim that the article is unchanged since the prod is clearly false: between when the article was prodded and the AfD nomination, some information including book reviews was added. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rapp is one of the most major scholars of ancient Caucasus and Iran, who is massively quoted in the western scholarship. An emperor /// Ave 14:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR rather than WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Upon reconsideration, he just barely passes the notability bar as explained above; the article badly needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b: I rewrote the article well before you left this comment, to remove some unsourced and unimportant material and provide the basic facts about his academic career in an encyclopedic style, with more focus on his books. It's a little stubby but not more so than many other biographies of academics here. Are you saying there is something wrong with my rewrite? If so, what? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NPROF. Has several multi-version publications with significant number of citations. Jacona (talk) 14:47, 24 June 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Software

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

This article appears to have had problems with a lack of citations for a while, and the article Computer program essentially covers the same topic in a better-written, more adequately-sourced manner. I propose that 1) this article is deleted, and 2) the term "Software" either gets redirected to "Computer program" or "Computer program" gets renamed to "Software". EucalyptusTreeHugger (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep and trout the nom. There is absolutely no reason a notable subject such as this should be at AFd, even if it were april fools day. The existence of a perpetual maintenance tag isn't reason to delete either. Obviously "software" as a term and subject are viable and an extremely encyclopedic topic. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The article has more than enough citations to establish notability; possibly needing more to support certain statements in the article does not create a need for deletion in any way. As Computer program notes in the lede, "A computer program is a component of software" the two are not interchangeable terms therefore a redirect or any similar outcome is unwarranted.. - Aoidh (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Keep: The argument made above by Aoidh about software and computer programs being different is completely valid and while the state of citations isn't great WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and thus with no notability issues and it not being a duplicate, plus previous speedies this should be speedily/snow kept. TartarTorte 18:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fermín Madera

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

Only databases as sources, fails WP:GNG Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cuba. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Olympians are usually considered notable enough to be included, and also there is this: https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/mensolympic/montreal1976/teams/1889839, which proves he was in the Olympics. Antonio The Crazeee Cannonball! Martin (que?) 00:50, June 22, 2022 (UTC)
Comment Not only a two-time Olympian, but a member of of the Cuban team that won the gold medal three times at the Central American and Caribbean Games and a silver at the Pan American Games too. Possibly some coverage of him in Spanish. For example, this mentions he was part of "a group of seasoned coaches and former athletes" working in a school/youth soccer programme in Cuba. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If participation in the Olympics does not make a person notable by default, then trivial mentions about the Caribbean Games and work at school/youth soccer programme do not make it all the more. Сидик из ПТУ (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: we need to find reliable sources that indicate that he did win a silver medal at the Pan-Ams. I think if we do, then that would make him pass without (much of) an argument. Antonio my nephew's uncle Martin (que?) 04:08, June 23, 2022 (UTC)
Delete Being an olympic competitor is noit, contrary to what the editor above claims, enough to make someone notable. Our guidelines are very explicit that only those who win a medal at the Olympics are notable enough for Olympic competiton per se to justify an article. There is not enough sourcing here to pass GNG, which is the standard we use for non-medaling Olympic competitors, so we need to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lacks the sourcing for an article and I see nothing to automatically grant him notability. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:26, 25 June 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. ✗plicit 14:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Lyon Hansen

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

Afraid she fails WP:GNG - no significant coverage, no role of significance. A highly respected lady, she however is not notable as per prevailing WP standards. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cited sources The American Journal of Nursing and European Immigrant Women in the United States: A Biographical Dictionary are reliable sources. Hanson held several positions that are "roles of significance", including president of several organizations. Vexations (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets general notability per sources cited by User:Vexations. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have significantly improved the article, I think. I have reviewed the first two existing citations and they establish notability, due to the significant coverage in reliable independent sources, as per WP:GNG . CT55555 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:HEY applicable now. Easy WP:GNG pass. 173.179.229.12 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nominator has withdrawn his proposal but delete opinion make a Speedy Keep unfeasible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fish, Strange Pond

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits on the movie, some scattered hits on the use of the phrase. Some come up with Galafinakis who starred in the movie. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should actually be at Frenemy (film), which is the reason for zero hits (the title here ended up being changed after a failed theatrical run, which it did have as it came out before Zach Galifianakis's spike after The Hangover to use him on the cover to drive rentals). Will investigate further because I know there were more. Nate • (chatter) 20:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found this review in the Austin American-Statesman [28] DonaldD23 talk to me 20:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We now have the proper name. Giving it some more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even with the correct title I found very few hits. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional references have been added to the article since the latest delete !vote. Are these sufficient?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I think, based on the coverage here:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/103283749/austin-american-statesman/
SLOTEK, J. (2010, Nov 05). 'Frenemy' flick comes up short of expectations. The London Free Press Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/frenemy-flick-comes-up-short-expectations/docview/2218932119/se-2?accountid=196403
https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/review/45983 CT55555 (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reception section has been added to the article since nomination that includes details of reviews in reliable sources such as The Austin American Statesman and DVD Talk so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination since there are now two RS reviews. The Film Creator (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Blanton

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

This article is about a film producer and director that fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV. The sources in the article are passing mentions and nothing in-depth. A search on G-NEWS bring barely 3 sources all of which are mentions. At best, it is WP:TOOSOON. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Leaning keep, sources look good, and TOOSOON is not an option as the sources are many years old. Borderline for sure, needs a second look. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are two reliable sources here, the hollywood reporter and business insider. However both only briefly mention the work and very briefly mention the person. It is not a clear call, but i'm leaning delete as fails WP:GNG. I would change my opinion if you can find more in depth sources describing the filmmaker.PaulPachad (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A point nobody has mentioned is that this article passes WP:ANYBIO regarding awards. The subject here received a Peabody Award, a Telly Award, and was nominated for an Ambie Award, all three of which are among the most prestigious awards in their respective fields. When you combine that with The Hollywood Reporter, Business Insider, and CNN, that tips the scales for me in favor of keep.

pickletitanic (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Indeed passes WP:ANYBIO and is close to the fence but I feel that it just meets the notability standards Proton Dental (talk) 14:48, 24 June 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 23:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toufiq Kreidieh

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

Non-notable entrepreneur who fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Possible WP:PROMO as it was created in Draftspace here and declined. See more here, requesting it to be WP:SALTED. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Lebanon. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Baggaet (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salte as discussed above.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as person is notable with verifiable independent, credible news sources and a notable business, entrepreneur and innovator in UAE(Seirahsam (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above user is the guy who keeps creating the nominated article, so take his words with a grain of SALT (no pun intended). The 'sources' on the article consist of press releases and blogs. There are a few short articles on what appear to be RS but they mention BFL Group, not the subject of the article himself. You can make an article about BFL Group but not the founder himself. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 18:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same as last time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 21 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher I. Chalokwu

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

Non-notable Geologist who fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Written as an advert and have survived for the past years without improvement. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Nigeria, and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a linked-in post. Non-notable, poor sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ — The entity served as a Vice-chancellor of University of Tennessee which automatically makes him notable as he meets WP:NACADEMIC#6.^[1] RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 16:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vice-chancellor is not the "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post" at an American University, as it is at a Nigerian or English one. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Striking through. RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 06:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Oke, Gbenga; Arenyeka, Laju (10 November 2013). "How I became the first black prof. of a US university – Chalokwu". Vanguard (Nigeria).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no notability to the article and the sources used are inadequate Proton Dental (talk) 15:03, 24 June 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 as rough consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alatau (sanatorium)

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

Former sanatorium currently a Swissotel. No indication of notability, fails WP:NBUILD, "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Kazakhstan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does look like its considered a significant cultural property, especially with the government status. The coverage looks significant - one independent source calls it "famous" - even from Forbes.[29][30] Oakshade (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Oakshade. Here is Google-translated version of their first link, where "famous" asserted repeatedly. Built in 1982(?) that is 40 years old, but the place does seem notable, historic even. User:Alexandermcnabb, your nomination doesn't say you performed wp:BEFORE, did you search for sources?--Doncram (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I did, and no I wouldn't note on every nom that I did WP:BEFORE - and the Forbes piece is not RS, being community generated. It's a 40 year old Soviet sanatorium that is now a Swissotel. I quoted NP:BUILD above, and this building fails that standard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The government designation seems equivalent to the National Register of Historic Places designation in the United States. As such, I think it passes WP:NBUILDING.4meter4 (talk) 15:43, 29 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jinmyeong Girls' High School

AfDs for this article:

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

Article gives no indication of notability. A WP:BEFORE does not turn up anything relevant, so fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 12:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article gives a pretty good indication of notability. Jacona (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many sources in Korean 진명여자고등학교 and Hanja 進明女子高等學校. I'm not good at those. But the notability of the subject is in little doubt from what could be found in English, including [31] and the sources currently in the article. The school was founded in 1906 as part of an attempt to provide modern, western education. It was taken over by the Japanese army in 1910, and in 1919 helped provide impetus to the March 1st movement. It could definitely use improvement by Korean or Hanja speakers.Jacona (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jacona's research. Indeed with proper attention from Korean-speaking editors there is likely plenty to say about this school. If/once this AfD is closed as keep I will clean up the inappropriate self-sourced statements so that it's a mostly blank slate. Ovinus (talk) 23:42, 22 June 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etron Technology, Inc.

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

Article about a company which does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. The sources used in the article are standard business coverage, press releases and business listings. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, and ~~China~~. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are limited sources in English I can find. I will try to find more unbiased sources! Please don't delete this, I will fix this, thanks! Koreafishnumberone (talk) 01:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia review team. I don't understand what else I need to do. I believe my sources are decently credible, and the same facts has been found across different archives and news reports. If I cannot use the subject company's official website history archives for reference, what else can I use? I've compared my edits to many other Taiwanese technology companies' wikipages, and it is alike. I believe wikipedia should be a non-biased and fair environment for everyone to publish things with significance, in this case, a significant tech company in Taiwan that has both a decent amount of local and international influence and fame. Please advise me what should I add to make this publish-able! Thanks! Koreafishnumberone (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wang, Zicheng 王子承 (2020-03-04). "老牌記憶體大廠減資五成鈺創拚求生" [Old-fashioned memory manufacturers reduce capital by 50%, Etron struggles to survive]. Business Today [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Although Etron has many re-investment projects, but the benefits are not significant, it is also regarded by the outside world as one of the reasons for dragging down Etron's operations. However, Etron continues to invest in new technologies. In the future, whether these little golden chickens can succeed and thrive, adding fuel to Etron's operational growth, has also become the focus of attention from the outside world."
2. Gu, Jianyan 顧健晏 (2021-11-10). "元宇宙飆股不只宏達電！沉寂多年的鈺創，如今憑什麼暴漲？" [Metaverse soars not only HTC! Etron has been silent for many years. Why is it soaring now?]. The Storm Media [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Etron is an old-fashioned IC design company. It was in the same period as UMC, TSMC, ASE, Huatai and Macronix. ... Different from the previous ones, Etron does not have its own fab. It started with IC design, and its main products are memory DRAM and SRAM. Because it is an IC design company with a small scale, Etron does not produce standard DRAM, but takes a niche route. In addition to the characteristics of IC design, the share capital is small, thin and short. The stock was listed in 1998, and it soared to 201 yuan in 2000. Sky-high prices. Later, with the bursting of the Internet bubble and the DRAM boom, Etron's share price also floated and sank."
3. Li, Chunjun 李純君 (2020-10-15). "個股：鈺創(5351)推AI-DRAM、3D視覺感測等智慧整合微系統產品，搶AI時代商機" [Individual stocks: Etron (5351) pushes AI-DRAM, 3D visual sensing and other smart integrated micro-system products to seize business opportunities in the AI era] (in Chinese). EBC News. Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Etron (5351), through the development of various products, is entering the ranks of heterogeneous integration innovation technologies, and has successfully developed an integrated micro-system integrating eyes, brains, and nerves, such as: a niche type of very small package for AI terminals Memory, 3D depth map camera for AR/VR systems, the world's fastest USB4 and Thunderbolt 4 chips, can be used for live broadcast, video conference applications, and seize business opportunities in the AI era."
4. Wang, Yixin 王逸芯 (2022-05-23). "《半導體》Computex回歸實體鈺創4大亮點一次秀". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "First of all, Etron has developed the world's first wafer-level chip-scale micro package (WLCSP), and it is specially developed for the integration requirements of edge computing devices. ... Etron Technology's USB Type-C E-Marker transmission line control IC—EJ903 has already passed the international USB-IF dual certification of 40Gbps USB4 and Intel Thunderbolt4, and is the only two international manufacturers in the world that have passed dual certification."
5. Han, Qingxiu 韓青秀 (2022-05-23). Zhang, Xingmin 張興民 (ed.). "鈺創COMPUTEX秀亮點　記憶體多元創新應用" [Etron COMPUTEX Show Highlights Multiple Innovative Applications of Memory]. DigiTimes (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "In the innovative memory segment, Etron has developed the world's first wafer-level chip-scale micro-package (WLCSP), and 256Mb RPC DRAM specially developed for the integration requirements of edge computing devices, which has the dual advantages of cost and power consumption , which can be integrated with logic computing chips to develop a variety of applications, which can be mounted on products such as wearable devices and endoscope micro-cameras."
6. Li, Chunjun 李純君 (2022-05-23). "鈺創四箭齊發，Computex力推智慧IntelligenceN普惠應用" [Etron launches four arrows together, Computex pushes smart IntelligenceN inclusive applications]. 財訊快報 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-06-20. Retrieved 2022-06-20 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Etron Group (5351), which spans the fields of memory, high-speed control chips and virtual reality, has developed four major technologies, from innovation Memory, high-speed transmission, pan-reality XR, and privacy computing have presented four major technological highlights."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Etron Technology, Inc. (traditional Chinese: 鈺創科技; simplified Chinese: 钰创科技) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Cunard. The language barrier is probably an issue here; fortunately, I can help sidestep that in this case. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 23:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note The author of the article is a CU-confirmed sock of a blocked editor, and is no longer able to contribute to this discussion. The article is, in my view, eligible for G5 speedy deletion, but I'm leaving it since good-faith editors have opined that it is worth retaining. Girth Summit_(blether) 21:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for posting this comment letting the participants of this AfD know that the article creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet instead of speedy deleting the article. I stubified the article and expanded and added sources from this AfD. Cunard (talk) 10:14, 23 June 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 13:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter Capital Private Limited

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

not notable, not supported by reliable sources nor deep coverage in media. WP:GNG, WP:NCORP red flags Bash7oven (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and almost completely unsourced; can't find anything. FalconK (talk) 08:48, 23 June 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 13:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srushti Deshmukh

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

No evidence of notability Melcous (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was tagging this for AfD simultaneously with Melcous. Deshmukh was briefly in the news as the top woman in an exam. Since then, there's been some gossip mag coverage of her wedding. I suspect there is paid editing going on, to try to keep her in the news. WP:CITEKILL has been used in an attempt to show notability. Coverage is excessively based on what Deshmukh has said, either in interview or via quotations. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's mostly tabloid-style coverage of her life, and nothing in a year anyway. Non-notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete multiple citations doesn't make up for not enough grounds for notability. I searched and could find nothing else to add that would make her notable Star Mississippi 14:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed. Refbombing always happens for a reason. Q.E.D. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note The author of the article is a cu-confirmed sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all.All work is only in job and is paid marketing.Non notable work.regular job work.exclusively paid promotion of job.WP:CITEKILL has been used in an attempt to show notability.paid editingNo WP:SUSTAINED coverage. — Corona India (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kita Records

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

Subject is non notable, poorly written and has only one source. The article and the source added does not show how the record label meets GNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has not advanced any reasoning as to why they think "Subject is non notable". Current quality of writing and sourcing are not grounds for deletion. The subject was active thirty years ago, so most sources that cover it will not be found online. That said, these academic theses clearly establish that it was one of the Thailand's four largest record labels at the time.[32][33] Mentioned in this book chapter (though I don't have access).[34] Its decline is mentioned in this Billboard article from 1998.[35] Plenty of Thai web articles about its former artists[36][37] and TV news scoops about its reunion concerts.[38][39][40] PS This thesis [41] covers the subject's business within the industry in considerable depth. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC), 21:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was once one of the big 3 of Thai music label. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 00:58, 22 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro D'Ubaldo

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

Essentially a duplicate of the 800 PIZZA article - not notable beyond that - could perhaps be merged. Unbh (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill business guy, not all CEOs or board members are notable, so nothing to merge. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was previously created as Alessandro D’Ubaldo and moved to draft space. Fram (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CEO of a pizza chain, nothing terribly notable about it. Few if any sources found, other than routine announcements. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Arab Emirates, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 22 June 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 14:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Design Science (company)

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

WP:NCORP is not met by the company. No reliable sources and independent coverage. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamata Amasung Keibu Keioiba

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

Theatre play of unclear notability. The two sources cited throughout are not independent; they appear to be copies of the handbill or similar. A Google search finds one source that might or might not be reliable, [42] which summarizes the plot in one paragraph. That isn't enough third-party coverage for an article. Sandstein 10:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this play has ever had a major, long-running production with a notable cast and crew. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:14, 23 June 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} 19:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Youssef

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

The subject appears to lack clear notability. Independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth do not appear to exist to meet WP:GNG / WP:BIO. The article seems promotional (prior to my edits) and based on self-published material with close paraphrasing. Other editors have also previously expressed copyright and sourcing concerns via article hatnotes and comments at User talk:MK882. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree with most of your comments, including that the article had a promotional tone prior to your edits. But, I also believe that after your edits, the article is almost basically completed. As for notability, the subject is a a scholar with many published papers, and is one of few pioneers in spiritual psychology, the initial reason I published the article, alone with contributing to WikiProject psychology. I also added the St Louis radio interview as a example. As for the copyright concerns, they have been avoided. Lastly, since the article has been given a start eating from two WikiProjects, shouldn't it basically be assessed? MK882 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A start rating

MK882 (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such ratings are about the quality of an article and the quantity of content it has, not the notability of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. MK882 (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rated it as "start", but as Phil Bridger said, that is no indiciation of notability. Merely publishing papers is not sufficient to show notability, they need to be greatly cited by others. Interviews also aren't very independant as per WP:RELIABLE and are typically WP:PRIMARY sources. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can find nothing that indicates that the subject comes anywhere near passing any of the counts of WP:PROF, and the cited university profile describes him as a graduate student, which is nowhere near the level that notable people are usually at. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said they were a professor, but being a pioneer in the spiritual psychological field, a field, that has been investigated by very few to none before the subject, is what makes them notable, and worthy of an article. Also, describing them as a graduate student is inaccurate as they have earned two PhD's previously. MK882 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Their impact on the field of psychology is notable, because of his promotion of the integration of spirituality into psychology. MK882 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What significant independant sources would you point to show the impact? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see nothing which indicates they meet Wikipedia's definition of notable, as no independent reliable source has decided themselves to write about this person. There is zero indication how they would meet the other possible criteria of WP:PROF. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing enough to warrant a pass of WP:GNG (but could be convinced otherwise), or WP:NAUTHOR as couldn't see any significant independant reviews. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the links are confirmation of the existence of the school/proof of ordination. The psychology stuff seems to be fringe-based science, or at least how I understand it. Not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I may have been rather lazy in not finding much evidence of notability (apologies), but after some researching, I have (notice: in Egypt people sometimes use their fathers name as their last name which is why he is listed as Hossam Kamal in the interviews).

- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6k2nWsXl_Io (a televised interview with Al-Nil (The Nile, a major Egyptian news channel)

- https://youtube.com/nnxJ7yXzHxw (a televised interview with the Egyptian Medical Channel, one of the largest medical channels in Egypt).

- https://youtube.com/ESn5cRaA4fQ (another televised interview with the Egyptian Medical Channel, one of the largest medical channels in Egypt). MK882 (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE: FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD LINKS, I ACCIDENTALLY PUT IN YOUTUBE.COM. IT SHOULD BE YOUTU.BE MK882 (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No .com MK882 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, Wikipedia has blacklisted links to the youtu.be domain. The links do seem to work if they are edited. Are the second and third links to the same interview? Are the interviews focused on his own biography and notability, or is he being interviewed about some other topic(s)? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why they blocked it. Anyways, no they are not the same interview, just with the same channel, they were some time later. Yes they discuss his achievements, notability, work in the US, and a traditional aspect to healthcare. MK882 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is enough evidence of notability, if so, should I cite them in the article? MK882 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not considered independent coverage, especially when they are in video form. You need to show he has been written about independently and in depth, or that his papers have had an exceptional impact in his field (through citations). JoelleJay (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I heard he has a biography coming up from Marquis Who's Who. Could we keep the article intact until then so we can get more valuable info? MK882 (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the article gets deleted can potentially go to WP:REFUND to request a copy of it if additional sources are found, or possibly move the article to userspace. But Marquis Who's Who is generally not reliable enough to establish notability, as listed on WP:RSP. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So one final question, if the Who's Who article comes out soon in a couple of days, and it lists info which could better establish evidence of notability, could the article remain intact until then? I understand that Who's Who may not be reliable to establish notability alone, doesn't the three interviews I showed, the St Louis radio interview, the Marquis Who's Who article and the information in it much more than enough to establish notability. There has already been a press release of the article, and it contains notable achievements of the subject that may revolutionize the field of psychology. MK882 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, I have came across information that the subject has been honored by Harvard Business School as a Business Innovator in the Healthcare Industry, is that also contributive to the evidence of notability? MK882 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how is Marquis Who's Who not enough evidence of notability, if their policy clearly states: individuals profiled are selected on the basis of current reference value. Factors such as position, noteworthy accomplishments, visibility, and prominence in a field are all ta

aken into account during the selection process.

oteworthy accomplishments, visibility, and prominence in a field are all

aken into account during the selection process. MK882 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, you stated the subject has to have been written about "independently and in-depth", wouldn't that count for the University of Metaphysics article, which was written by the University as part of an award as a graduate in action (excluding the book ad), and if not wouldn't the Marquis Who's Who article also work as it was written by an independent team of investigative writers who did take info from the subject, but made sure of it to be genuine themselves and investigated it thoroughly before including it, while adding their own views to the article? MK882 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever closes this discussion will decide the outcome, based on what's been said here. Regarding Marquis Who's Who, I'm not personally familar at all, but if you go to WP:RSP and search for "Marquis Who's Who" you should find the reasoning along with links to previous discussions. It something "may revolutionize" a field, but hasn't yet, then it WP:TOOSOON as Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL ball. If you've got a web link regarding the Harvard Business School honor for people to look at it won't do any harm. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the digital portion of the honor, which is the certification process.

https://courses.edx.org/certificates/9a9e8ad9504b4db3899916ff8f0353e4 MK882 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's just for completing an online course it looks like (I'm assuming https://www.edx.org/course/innovating-in-health-care-2), and so wouldn't really count towards notability at all. How did you discover this certificate? do you have any connections to Sam Youssef? -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it was on their LinkedIn page. MK882 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis Who's Who cannot contribute to notability because it is not independent (entries are written or at least edited by the subjects) and has no demonstrable standard for inclusion. There are also concerns of paid promotion and reliability. The University of Metaphysics is a scam school that awards fake degrees, so is not reliable, and anyway articles about a subject published by the subject's own school are obviously not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is no such thing called fake degrees, I am really disappointed to hear that from you, metaphysical psychology was adopted by great psychologists and psychiatrists such as Carl Jung and William James , please read and educate yourself before you comment!!! MK882 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MK882, please WP:AFG. University of Metaphysics appears to not be accredited. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course fake degrees exist. More importantly, how did you come to hear that the subject has a biography coming up from Marquis Who's Who? Not that it is a reliable source anyway, but the fact that you heard of this seems to indicate a conflict of interest. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that indicates because of how desperate I was to not get all my work deleted, I checked out their social media platforms where they wrote about this.

Also, would this work? https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/492351/hossam-sam-youssef-phd-psythd-celebrated-for-dedication-to-the-field-of-psychology MK882 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Marquis Who's Who is not considered an independent reliable source for establishing notability for Mr Youssef, then a press release by Marquis Who's Who does not seem like a reliable source for establishing notability for Mr Youssef either. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made 4 Entertainment

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

Television production company doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE stories of corporate takeovers etc. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, now a subsidiary of Studio 100, maybe a redirect in order. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage seems to be mainly press releases or routine coverage. German-language sources may exist but I couldn't find any w/my limited competency in the language. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 11:27, 21 June 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 11:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HjemmePC

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

Does not appear to be a notable magazine, sourcing in the article consists of primary sources and passing mentions, and a search only brought up forum posts and Wikipedia mirrors. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Norway. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Article presents no significant coverage. Not entirely sure why enwiki would want to list a Norwegian home computer magazine. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last edidion came in 2017. The article should be deleted. Hlunde (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joginder Singh Habbi

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

Notability is very Dubious, not to mention that the article lacks inline citations. Very likely article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN, almost all the sources are either unreliable or not independent of the subject. I have previously attempted to draftify the article, but the article creator reverted my changes. HenryTemplo (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. HenryTemplo (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while you can verify that a folk artist of this name exists and appears in a few lists, there is no significant coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While "He is a very good dancer by himself", he is not a very notable good dancer. His role as co-ordinator of a performance by the Asara Cultural Troupe adds nothing to his notability - probably the most solid coverage there is of him. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find any WP:sigcov. For now fails WP:NMUSICIAN. BrutBrother (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a gentleman doing his job for the last 25 yrs, no significant/any coverage found. Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congrats! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:16, 28 June 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. Speedy deletion by Athaenara: CSD G3 Vandalism. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olx egypt

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

Olx egypt

There is nothing here...absolutely nothing...Antonio cool and awesome Martin (dime) 09:26, 21 June, 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. ✗plicit 07:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Rasmussen

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources in article are primarily written by the subject, rather than independent sources. A search turns up some mentions ([43]), but these turn out to be only photo captions or other trivial mentions (machine translation, while imperfect, is sufficient to tell that the foreign-language sources are also just passing mentions). Other searches ([44]) turn up either other individuals with similar names, or this individual's own books. There is no indication of sufficient reference material to provide notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nothing of note presented, last AfD closed due to non participation. Nothing to see here... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find any in-depth coverage of Rasmussen in independent reliable sources either, and co-authoring a few sparsely-reviewed books doesn't establish notability even under a very broad interpretation of WP:NAUTHOR. No possible alternatives to deletion come to mind. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:34, 28 June 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Forbes (cricketer)

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSPERSON, "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG (general notability guideline)." No significant coverage presented, search only uncovers listings. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Ireland. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the updated WP:NCRIC criteria - "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation" as she's played for Ireland multiple times this month alone, as well as plenty of domestic matches too. At worst, restore the redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An absolute nonsense nomination. Per the updated WP:NCRIC, as Lugnuts points out. StickyWicket (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Mpk662 (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and keep - "I've never heard of them" isn't a viable deletion criterion. Taking an article to AfD - of an international cricketer - is not the way to get us looking at sources, etc. As I've stated elsewhere, the article creator Lugnuts and the (at least) half a dozen other content creators who have more-or-less stopped caring about the project over the years - have done so because of nominations like this. If you don't know anything about the subject or want more eyes upon an article, taking to AfD is not the solution. Bobo . 08:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I have to admit, I was unaware of the updated WP:NCRIC criteria and was applying WP:GNG, which I believed she would have failed. Given that, I'm happy to withdraw my absolute nonsense. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Alexander. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and SW. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 22 June 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 07:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Axilor Ventures

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

The article relies on routine announcements; fails WP:NCORP. Number of employees 1-10. Bash7oven (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Karnataka. ––FormalDude talk 07:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of a million accelerators, no notable than any other - possibly less so. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no one of a million, however pretty trivial and routine. Bash7oven (talk) 11:36, 21 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Preterism

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

A description "pauline preterism" which isn't in use anywhere reliable, sourced to 2 self-published books (Liwanag and Hollett) and other primary or unreliable sources. Probably better not to merge or redirect this neologism / WP:OR either. Fram (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 8 search results, none passing WP:GNG, no sourcing makes this an essay, TBH... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Immediate citations does not call for speedy deletion since suitable sources are needed and it's not a final draft. Please see WP:NOTPERFECT Transformium (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is neologism not recognized as a title for Wikipedia article? Sourcing the topic's content will be hard to find since neologisms are not always indexed by google nor published on mainstream media, but it doesn't mean it's non-existing.Transformium (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything that exists can have a Wikipedia article, we only should have articles on well-established subjects, things which have received attention from reliable, independent sources (books from reputable publishers, newspapers, scientific journals, ...). Please see WP:GNG for more on this. Fram (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Let's consider time in finding suitable sources. Instead of removing content from an article, consider: Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact. See WP:PRESERVE Transformium (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The basic issue, the concept of "Pauline Preterism" itself, lacks sources. "Correcting inaccuracies" = "Deleting this". WP:PRESERVE doesn't call for the keeping of such neologisms with poor sources which don't even mention the subject as such. Fram (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very good at this here counting thing, but it seems to me like you just voted KEEP twice, Transformium... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, forgot to remove it after copying my reply with "suitable sources" above.Transformium (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we move it to draft space? I've been following these Preterism variants for years and would like to make a valid entry. If possible, let it be an article for WP:DRAFTIFY. Transformium (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-mainstream, so hard to find sources. The ones given are short/not reliable. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete citations are self published, except (Hays 1915), which doesn't seem to reference the topic. Does not appear to be a widely acknowledged thing.--Jahaza (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just added two sources from JSTOR to emphasize its Pauline Eschatology origin and its older name as Paul's eschatological fulfillment view. Wikipedia doesn't have these entries. Check also the bibliography for the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) proponents. This led to the beginnings of Pauline Preterism. Transformium (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, the added source also doesn't seem to reference Pauline preterism? It makes it look more like original research, not less.--Jahaza (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So how will I call it "Paul and Fulfilled Prophecies" (aka Pauline Preterism)? Transformium (talk) 05:44, 22 June 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. ✗plicit 07:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ence (esports)

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

The article relies on non-notable announcements/press-releases, and very much on its website. Fails to meet WP:NCORP Bash7oven (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also seems to be a cross-wiki spam Bash7oven (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Finland. ––FormalDude talk 07:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having gone through the article, I disagree with the description of the sources. While there's certainly press releases, blog posts and the odd Twitter reference in there, there's definitely enough non-trivial news coverage to satisfy WP:GNG as well: ESPN ("ENCE the most unlikely of IEM Katowice finalists"), Ilta-Sanomat ("ENCEn menestys synnytti ennätyksiä Veikkauksella ja DNA:lla – myös IS:ssä ja Ylellä kovia lukuja", "Suomalaisen pelijoukkueen fanilaulusta tuli jättihitti – Kauppatorillakin kuvattua musavideota katsottu yli 9 miljoonaa kertaa", "Aikakausi päättyy – ENCEn CS-joukkueessa ei pelaa yhtään suomalaista", "ENCE perustaa CS-akatemian: Hakee suomalaisia ja maksaa palkkaa", "ENCE teki kovan kaappauksen – kiinnitti maailmanmestarin"). There are also shorter pieces or more trivial content, which helps build the article but isn't worth pointing out here. //Julle (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator) -- The Video Game Wikiproject considers Dot Esports, The Esports Observer, Red Bull, and Upcomer to be reliable. Add in ESPN and Ilta-Sanomat, the second biggest newspaper in Finland, and there are ~35 reliable sources, many of which discuss the organization in quite some detail. And I could find a lot more because news orgs in Finland have entire esport beats essentially dedicated to covering ENCE. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julle's and Aylo's analysis. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 14:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of independent indepth coverage in reliable sources, esp. Finnish newspapers already in the article. Plenty further coverage that is not currently cited in the article, e.g. (paywalled) articles in Helsingin Sanomat and on the YLE website. Also bunch of on-TV coverage by YLE, including a 26 minute TV special. See [45] for more YLE coverage. These go far beyond announcements/press-releases. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, article seems to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7 by page creator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa of Jesus, Child

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

The only source cited for this article is a website in Italian that claims the Mercedarian Order observes the apparent subject’s feast day on 23 November, but a quick search for "23 November Catholic saints" shows that she is not on the saints’ calendar.

Furthermore, a Google search for a "St Teresa of Jesus" comes up with Teresa of Ávila, who was canonized in 1622 and exalted to patroness of Spain by the Cortes Generales in 1627 – exactly the same years claimed for the birth and death of this alleged saint "Teresa of Jesus, Child."

All of this points towards being a likely hoax, and a very long-lasting one at that (over 11 years). 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indeed a blatant hoax, created to cause confusion. Note that e.g. Sanlúcar de Barrameda, the supposed death place of this child, has a relic of the real Saint Teresa. Fram (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And then you have Theresa of Lisieux Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Probably qualifies for immediate deletion via WP:SNOW. I had forgotten I created this. It was at a time when I was trying to write articles about saints or venerables who were children and this website said she was five. There are a lot of saints named Theresa, not all of them venerated in every country or included on every calendar of saints after Vatican II, if I remember my thought process at the time. I had written several others that were all in a category called Child Saints. Looking at this one again, I agree that it is completely problematic and should be deleted, probably immediately. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am tagging for speedy deletion via G7. As you appear to be the only person who has added substantial content to the page, it appears to be eligible for {{db-authorreq}}. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Agree to speedy delete. Get it gone as soon as possible. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Endorse immediate action. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should go to the hoax museum instead. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Send to the hoax museum. It’s important that we document this just like the other 10+ year old hoaxes (e.g. William Henry Farrow). 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 17:19, 21 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phasing and Recoverability

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

No reliable secondary independent articles about the book. The two reviews in the article are on user-generated sites so do not meet the reliability standard. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although published in Linguist list, this review by Kimary Shahin (Birzeit University/University of British Columbia) and this review by Stefan Frisch (University of Michigan) are both reliable (edited by Andrew Carnie). The book has 285 citations on Google Scholar. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UGC for a discussion of user-generated sites. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rsjaffe As I said the reviews are different as the reliability of the text and the author and the editor is evident. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the crux of the matter. I'd like to see others weigh in on this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:EXPERTSPS, self-published sources like the two Linguist List reviews may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That criterion is clearly met here: see work by Kimary Shahin and Stefan A Frisch respectively. (It doesn't make a difference, but I can't work out quite whether the reviews actually are WP:SPSes at all: if our article on the subject is right that anyone and everyone can submit posts to the list, why do both sources have the header naming an "Editor for this issue"?) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per above, the two reviews are from subject-matter experts, and are therefore reliable despite being self-published. Additionally, both authors are used in multiple other phonetics related Wikipedia articles as sources. ––FormalDude talk 08:05, 21 June 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 Amuse Inc.. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A-Sketch

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

Fails WP:GNG - Japanese artist management agency with no significant coverage and no notability in evidence either as a business or as a record label in its own right. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and Japan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has several citations, and my Japanese is not sufficient to evaluate them, but it suggests a prima facie possibility of a GNG pass here (even accounting for the fact that one or two of them look like PR sources). It certainly suggests the nominator's judgment cannot be taken without scrutiny, as no mention is made of the sources in the article or any WP:BEFORE. At worst, we'd want a merge to Amuse Group, anyway, and I fail to see why people keep dragging these things to AfD when we have other venues to deal with them; a redlink here is certainly the worst of all possible solutions. Chubbles (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Lots of ghits, decades of existence. Is there a Japanese Wikipedia article? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments focusing on the quality of available reference material would be very helpful in determination of the outcome. "Ghits" and "decades of existence" would not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having translated the sources, en and ja and zh Wikipedias, non of them contain secondary source information. It’s just lots of mentions of this record label sponsoring things. The ja and zh articles are worse. Fails WP:CORP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amuse Inc., where it is listed as a subsidiary. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Ventures

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

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

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

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

Run-of-the-mill VC company that invests in non-notable startups (investee companies with bluelinks in the "Notable investments" section are also of dubious notability). This article relies on routine announcements of fundraising and investments. Refbombed, fails WP:NCORP. M4DU7 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Singapore. M4DU7 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the WP:GNG is evident, and the subject is well sourced with enough coverage. At least several investments and exits the company made have their own wikipedia pages, that shows the VC is not dealing with small or rubbish startups. --42.60.202.20 (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— 42.60.202.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Agree with nom, all sources are funding announcements, and the "notable investments" is pure advertorial stuff. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also appears to be a SPA with only one edit. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the nominator and I think that this company has appeared on wikipedia perhaps too soon, or at least it is not right there. There are many notable coverage and mentions, and the VC looks good Singapore and South East Asis, however it's even not close to the legendary Sequoia Capital - an American venture capital firm that had funded Facebook, Apple, Cisco, Google, Nvidia, YouTube and even WhatsApp and European neobank Klarna. It's similar to Azure Capital Partners, however Azuere is American VC and has better portfolio with larger companies onboard. --2600:1702:3790:22F0:C4C8:C1C1:8696:9FF4 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for my monologue 2600:1702:3790:22F0:C4C8:C1C1:8696:9FF4 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough reliable sources to count as notable --Bigneeerman (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created on 31 January 2022 and has zero edits between 31 January 2022 and 12 June 2022. M4DU7 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references are there to support key investments, figures and exits. I found it a good practice in many other venture firms article on wikipedia and used it on purpose, not to make the article spammy/refbombed. I don't know what's better—a stub version or a long version of the article, as both are not perfect. The firm itself is the biggest in the region with a stable long-lasting (10 years) media coverage in local and international news outlets. --Tristana Wors (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Tristana Wors (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this is a company, WP:NCORP guidelines apply and not just GNG. The references in the article don't appear to include any in-depth "Independent Content" from a party unaffiliated with the topic company. It is a big company and perhaps there are references in other languages that my searching skills fall short on. Unless we can identify the references, the topic company fails WP:NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep the page has not a perfect style and sourcing, however it has numerous Techchunch reliable sources and not routine coverage (bigger than just passing mentions) and enough Chinese language news articles are also on the web. --Morpho achilles (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post links to the Chinese language news articles which satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? Can you present the WP:THREE best sources (in any language) to establish notability? M4DU7 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since this is a company, NCORP criteria applies. There's reference above to "multiple references" and mention of Techcrunch references but nothing that isn't a regurgitation of company announcements. I've spent some time searching for references in Chinese on various search engines but I'll readily admit that my searching in this regard is not reliable but I could find nothing that approaches NCORP criteria. Perhaps somebody will post references but until then, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many arguments here get off the track of examining whether the available sources do or do not establish notability. A specific focus on the quality of available references would be very helpful in evaluating the outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Did a review suggested by @Seraphimblade::

1. Techcrunch (2021) https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/12/southeast-asia-focused-jungle-ventures-announces-225m-first-close-for-its-fourth-fund/

The article notes: "Southeast Asia’s funding boom is set to continue, with Jungle Ventures announcing today the $225 million first close of its fourth fund. Fund IV started raising in mid-May and is targeting a total of $350 million. The majority of its limited partners are returning from previous funds, and include Temasek Holdings, IFC (which put $25 million in Fund IV), DEG and Asian and global family offices. The firm says this makes Fund IV the largest fund across all early-stage funds in Southeast Asia this year. Founded in 2012, Jungle Ventures launched with a $10 million debut fund. Then in 2016, it announced a $100 million second fund, followed in 2019 by its $240 million third fund. Fund IV fits in with Jungle Ventures’ pace of raising a new fund every 2.5 to 3 years, founding partner Amit Anand told TechCrunch. Jungle Ventures takes a concentrated approach and tends to invest in about 12 to 13 companies per fund. It’s relatively stage agnostic, writing seed to Series B checks and builds long-term partnerships with many of its investments. The firm has invested in every round of several companies, including buy now, pay later startup Kredivo. Jungle Ventures’ limited partners also do a significant amount of co-investments; in the last three to four years, LPs have invested close to $400 million in its portfolio startups. Jungle Ventures’ social commerce investments include Evermos, which sells halal and Sharia-compliant goods through agents to their communities. The firm focuses primarily on Southeast Asia, but it also makes investments in India.:

2. The Wall Street Journal (2015) https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/DJFVW00120150813eb8dqk2e0:

The article notes:Jungle Ventures, a Singapore-based venture firm that invests in a range of software startups based in Asia, has begun raising its second formal fund, a $100 million investing vehicle, a regulatory filing said. The firm has yet to raise capital for the new fund, which is called Jungle Ventures II LP, the filing said. The firm announced in July that it had brought aboard David Gowdey, formerly a partner with TPG Growth, to be to be Jungle Ventures' newest managing partner as the firm begins fundraising efforts. The firm now has four managing partners, the announcement said, including co-founders Anurag Srivastava and Amit Anand, as well as former Sony Corp. executive Jayesh Parekh. Jungle Ventures is an early-stage investor in digital-media, software-as-a-service, e-commerce, analytics and payments startups, information from the firm said. Roughly three quarters of the firm's investments are seed rounds, with the remainder being venture-stage rounds. The firm has so far seen several exits, including one in July from travel-technology company Voyagin Pte. Ltd., which was acquired by Japanese Internet-services company Rakuten Inc. Jungle Ventures was also an investor in Bangalore, India-based ZipDial, which was acquired by Twitter Inc. at the beginning of this year for an undisclosed sum. The firm's current portfolio includes Singapore-based digital-media company One Animation, software-as-a-service provider Mobikon Asia Pte. Ltd., e-commerce company Pomelo and more than 20 other Asia-based software companies, the firm's website said.:

3. Techcrunch (2016) https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/31/seedplus-is-an-early-stage-fund-focused-on-finding-global-startups-in-southeast-asia/

The article notes: Jungle Ventures started out as an angel investment firm in 2012, but it moved into Series A and Series B financing with its new fund last year. SeedPlus, as the newest fund is called, takes it back to its early-stage roots with a hands-on approach to working with its portfolio. SeedPlus will be run by three new recruits that we recently reported to have joined Jungle Ventures: Michael Smith, who was CTO at streaming service HOOQ, ex-Spotify product manager Gabriel Lundberg, and Tiang Lim Foo, formerly of Evernote. Together the trio — who are listed as ‘operating partners’ at Jungle — will invest in companies in Southeast Asia and work closely with them to scale their business. Jungle Ventures is arguably one of the stand-out investors in Southeast Asia, but SeedPlus is an interesting challenge since — to date, at least — there are few examples of companies with global reach emerging from Southeast Asia. The startups that have scaled the most in the region have provided services very specific to Southeast Asia — Grab is an Uber rival, Lazada is an Amazon equivalent, to name but two — but Jungle is investing significant funds, resources and attention to SeedPlus, which suggests that the team sees the potential for Southeast Asian startups to break that mold and be relevant globally. That makes this is a project worth watching.:

4. Techcrunch (2022) https://techcrunch.com/2022/05/17/jungle-ventures-closes-a-600m-fund-bringing-its-total-assets-under-management-to-over-1b/

The article notes: Singapore-based venture firm Jungle Ventures is digging deeper into Southeast Asia and India with the close of its fourth fund. Fund IV totals $600 million, with $450 million for new investments and $150 million earmarked for follow-up investments in its portfolio companies. The fund’s close brings Jungle Ventures’ total assets under management to over $1 billion, which it says makes it the first independent, Singapore-headquartered venture firm that invests across Southeast Asia and India to hit this milestone. Fund IV’s limited partners are split equally between returning investors and new ones. Returning backers include Temasek, IFC, FMO and DEG, while new LPs include StepStone Group. TechCrunch covered the fund’s first close of $225 million in September 2021. Jungle Ventures was founded in 2012 by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava, launching with a $10 million debut fund. Jungle Ventures has about 60 portfolio companies and says its enterprise value is over $12 billion on $250 million of invested capital, with a loss ratio of less than 5%. Some of Jungle Ventures’ most notable investments include unicorns Kredivo, Livspace and Moglix. It looks for companies that can expand between Southeast Asia and India; for example, Livspace was founded in India and now operates in Southeast Asia, too. Fund IV will continue Jungle Ventures’ “concentrated portfolio” approach, making a projected 15 to 18 key investments out of India and Southeast Asia. It makes many follow-up investments and has invested about $30 million to $40 million in some companies, across multiple rounds.:

5. The Next Web https://thenextweb.com/news/jungle-ventures-10-million-super-angel-fund:

The article notes: There’s good new for young startups across Asia after Singapore-based investment firm Jungle Ventures announced the launch of its new ‘super angel’ fund, which it confirms has raised an initial US$10 million to be invested in early-stage businesses across Asia. The firm already has investments in a number of promising pan-Asia startups and Amit Anand, Jungle Ventures founder and managing partner, says that the new fund will target seed-to-series-A funding opportunities, with investments typically ranging from US$100,000 to US$1 million. The company recently put US$1 million into travel startup TravelMob and partook in a US$1.3 million round for DocDoc, and these deals are exactly the type that will be pursued over the next eight years or so. Then there is the role of the Singaporean government, which recently added Jungle Ventures to the Singapore National Research Foundation (NRF), Technology Incubation Scheme (TIS). That, Anand explains, means that the government will augment Jungle Venture’s investments, with each US$1 of funding being matched by up to US$5 from the government. The funding scheme is designed to “jump start” deals, the Jungle Ventures founder says, and investors are given the option to purchase the government’s share in startups over time. Some pundits have speculated that this leaves startups unhealthy focused on raising funding rather than other business-related targets, but there is no doubt that it can help encourage startups and aspiring entrepreneurs in the region where investor support lags the US. While Jungle Ventures is based in Singapore, it is casting its eye across Asia for startups that have pan-continental potential. The firm already has strong links in India, but Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan and other markets are very much in focus. Jungle Ventures works with a number of other top VCs, including Dave McClure’s 500 Startups, which was a co-investor in DocDoc.:

6. Techcrunch (2016) https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/30/jungle-ventures-100-million-fund-southeast-asia/:

The article notes: Singapore’s Jungle Ventures today confirmed the final close of its newest $100 million fund for investments in Southeast Asia. The firm announced plans for the fund, which is its second, in September 2015 when it completed a first close. It represents a big step up from the first debut $10 million, and with an increase in capital so Jungle Ventures is shifting its initial focus on seed-stage deals to Series A and Series B investments. The company is still very much involved in early stage startup work, but that is being handled by SeedPlus, a new fund it established in May of this year. Jungle Ventures began spending the capital last year, and the plan is very much the same now that the full allocation is closed. Beyond its focus on companies in Southeast Asia, Jungle Ventures plans to continue to look at opportunities in India and, in addition, other parts of Asia Pacific where it can help startups expand into Southeast Asia.:

7. Reuters (2019) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jungle-ventures-fundraising-idINKBN1X82K6 :

The article notes: Singapore’s Jungle Ventures said on Wednesday it has raised $240 million from investors, including Temasek Holdings, for a third fund designed to back Southeast Asian startups, highlighting the growing interest in the region’s technology firms. Jungle Ventures’ latest fund comes as a growing number of venture capital firms, including Vertex Ventures and Golden Gate Ventures, have been raising funds focused on the region this year. The fund exceeded Jungle Ventures’ initial target range of $150 million to $200 million, Anand said. In its previous fund, the company raised $100 million from investors in 2016 and its debut fund had raised $10 million in 2012. Jungle Ventures’ portfolio includes Singaporean hotel booking and management platform RedDoorz, cloud-based software provider Deskera, research platform Smartkarma and Thai fashion e-commerce start-up Pomelo Fashion. The firm has created an internal rate of return of about 79% with its four exits that included vacations rental platform Travelmob, Anand said. It typically allocates $10 million-$20 million per company, making 10 to 15 key investments in each fund.:

8. Business Standard (2019) https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/venture-capital-firm-jungle-ventures-raises-240-million-for-third-fund-119103000052_1.html :

The article notes: Jungle is scouting for companies in India which have an opportunity to scale their business into Southeast Asia and globally. Jungle Ventures, one of Southeast Asia’s largest early-stage venture capital firms, closed its third fund, Jungle Ventures III by raising a total of $240 million. It includes $40 million raised in separately managed account commitments, for investments in innovative technology and digital-driven consumer businesses across Southeast Asia. Jungle mainly invests in three verticals which include consumer brands for the digitally native, digital platforms for transforming small and medium enterprises and global technology companies born in Asia. Some of Jungle's notable investments in India include Livspace, Moglix, PaySense, Engineer.Ai, Tookitaki and Klinify. Jungle raised more than double the amount of its previous fund, Jungle Ventures II (2016), with nearly 60 per cent of committed capital coming from outside Asia. More than 90 per cent of the capital came from institutional investors spanning North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, with new investors accounting for nearly 70 per cent of the fundraise and returning investors for the rest. ungle Ventures was the earliest institutional investor in a number of category leaders in Southeast Asia. These include travel and hospitality startup RedDoorz, fashion e-tailer Pomelo Fashion, online consumer lending and payments platform Kredivo and software firm Deskera. In the past, Jungle has got at least six exits from its portfolio firms including mobile marketing company Zipdial which was acquired by Twitter and travel company Voyagin which was bought by e-commerce firm Rakuten.:

9. Bloomberg News (2021) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-13/jungle-ventures-raises-225-million-at-first-close-of-new-fund :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures raised $225 million in the first close of its fourth fund as the venture capital firm seeks to replicate its successes in startups across Southeast Asia and India. Many of its existing investors in previous funds backed the latest one, founding partner Amit Anand said in an interview. They include Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corp. and German development finance institution DEG. The new fund has a planned size of $350 million. There has been a flurry of fundraising activities and initial public offerings in Southeast Asia and India, where the tech industry is having a boom year. Since launching its first early-stage fund in 2012, Jungle Ventures has become one of the fastest-growing local VC firms in the city-state with assets under management of about $600 million. “We have coined two unicorns this year where we have been seed-to-IPO investors,” Anand said. “We have built a franchise that will repeat quarter after quarter, and that separates us from the one-hit wonder venture-capital providers.” Singapore-based Jungle Ventures has been an early and consistent backer of Kredivo, which went on to become Indonesia’s largest consumer lending app, as well as business-to-business e-commerce platform Moglix. Kredivo’s parent, FinAccel, in August agreed to go public in the U.S. through a merger with a blank-check firm that values the combined entity at $2.5 billion. Other noteworthy Jungle Ventures investments include home-interior platform Livspace, beauty e-commerce operator Sociolla and Pomelo, a women’s fashion retailer in Southeast Asia.:

10. Inc42 (2022) https://inc42.com/buzz/jungle-ventures-announces-closure-600-mn-fund-iv-india-sea/ :

The article notes: Singapore-based venture capital (VC) firm Jungle Ventures has announced the closure of its Fund IV at $600 Mn. The fund will consist of $450 Mn in the main fund and $150 Mn in additional managed commitments. With this fund, Jungle Ventures will have total assets under management (AUM) at $1 Bn and the VC firm said that it was the first independent Singapore-based VC firm to reach this milestone. Incidentally, Fund IV was originally targeted at $350 Mn, with participation from existing investors such as Temasek, IFC, FMO, and DEG. Along with these, new investors such as Mizuho Bank Ltd. and StepStone Group also committed to the fund. Founded in 2012 by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava, Jungle Ventures was launched with a $10 Mn debut fund. The VC firm has a portfolio of companies with an enterprise value of over $12 Bn, investing around $250 Mn. Some of the startups that form part of Jungle’s portfolio include Livspace and Moglix, the two Indian unicorns. Jungle Ventures had been an early-stage investor in both of them. Apart from the two unicorns, Jungle Ventures also has recently backed the likes of HRTech startup inFeedo and blue-collar workforce management platform Betterplace, the latter of which was exclusively reported by Inc42. Other investments made by Jungle include the likes of edtech startup Leap and insurtech startup Turtlemint, among others. The VC firm has said that it will make around 15-18 investments across startups based in India and Southeast Asia from Fund IV. Jungle Ventures already has made commitments from the new fund, including Vietnam-based digital banking startup Timo and Indian D2C consumer electronics startup Atomberg. The aforementioned inFeedo was also an investment made from the new fund. The first close of Fund IV came in September 2021, when Jungle Ventures raised $225 Mn from existing investors, including Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corporation and German development finance institution DEG.:

11. The Economic Times (2021) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/jungle-ventures-raises-225-million-to-invest-in-india-southeast-asia-startups/articleshow/86163515.cms :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures raised $225 million in the first close of its fourth fund as the venture capital firm seeks to replicate its successes in startups across Southeast Asia and India. Many of its existing investors in previous funds backed the latest one, founding partner Amit Anand said in an interview. They include Temasek Holdings Pte, International Finance Corp. and German development finance institution DEG. The new fund has a planned size of $350 million. There has been a flurry of fundraising activities and initial public offerings in Southeast Asia and India, where the tech industry is having a boom year. Since launching its first early-stage fund in 2012, Jungle Ventures has become one of the fastest-growing local VC firms in the city-state with assets under management of about $600 million. Singapore-based Jungle Ventures has been an early and consistent backer of Kredivo, which went on to become Indonesia’s largest consumer lending app, as well as business-to-business e-commerce platform Moglix. Kredivo’s parent, FinAccel, in August, agreed to go public in the US through a merger with a blank-check firm that values the combined entity at $2.5 billion. Other noteworthy Jungle Ventures investments include home-interior platform Livspace, beauty e-commerce operator Sociolla and Pomelo, a women’s fashion retailer in Southeast Asia.:

12. The Wall Street Journal (2019) https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/jungle-ventures-third-fund-holds-175-million-first-close-11556571660 :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures held a $175 million first close of its third fund and expects the new vehicle to reach a $220 million final close in the coming months, a person familiar with the matter said. The new fund, Jungle Ventures III LP, already has collected more than the Southeast Asian venture investor’s previous vehicles combined. Its second fund, a 2016 vintage-year vehicle, closed at $100 million and its first fund, a 2012-vintage offering, closed at $12 million. The new vehicle initially had a $200 million offering amount, according to a December filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Placement agent Eaton Partners LLC is assisting with the fundraising process, the filing says. The Singapore-based firm targets early-stage investments in three main areas: consumer brands for the younger population of Asia; digital platforms targeting small and medium-size businesses; and global technology companies originating in Asia. Jungle Ventures’ investments include online home-furnishings marketplace LivSpace, apparel e-commerce site Pomelo and cloud-based business-application maker Deskera, according to its website.:

13. Business Standard (2015) https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/jungle-ventures-appoints-david-gowdey-as-managing-partner-115072300382_1.html :

The article notes: Jungle Ventures today announced the appointment of David Gowdey, formerly with TPG Growth, as managing partner. With this appointment, the Singapore-based firm will now have a team of four managing partners led by co-founders, Anurag Srivastava and Amit Anand as well as Jayesh Parekh, co-founder of Sony Entertainment Television India who joined the firm in 2013. Earlier this month, Jungle appointed Ratan Tata, Chairman Emeritus of Tata Group, as a Special Advisor. Gowdey brings to Jungle Ventures over 16 years of experience in investing and working with internet companies in both mature and emerging markets. He will be based in Singapore, where he will help lead Series A and B stage investments with a focus on the consumer internet sector. Jungle is in the process of closing its second South Asia focused fund. Some of the other advisors with the Jungle Ventures network include Gokul Rajaram, product engineering lead at Square; Lim Dershing, founder of JobsCentral; and Alon Sobol, director of ISP/ telco relationships for Spotify.:

14. Tech in Asia (2022) https://www.techinasia.com/jungle-ventures-fourth-fund :

The article notes: VC firm Jungle Ventures has closed its fourth fund at US$600 million. The investment vehicle includes US$450 million in commitments in the main fund, with the rest coming from additional managed commitments. This pushes the firm’s assets under management to over US$1 billion. In a statement, Jungle Ventures said that it was the first independent Singapore-based VC that targets the Southeast Asian and Indian markets to reach that threshold. The fund itself started with an initial target of US$350 million. Half of the total commitments came from existing investors such as Singaporean investment firm Temasek, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation, Dutch development bank FMO, and German financial institution DEG. Japan-based Mizuho Bank and US-based StepStone Group also joined the fund as limited partners. The VC firm plans to deploy the fund into 15 to 18 key investments across India and Southeast Asia. Founded by Amit Anand and Anurag Srivastava in 2012, Jungle Ventures launched with a US$10 million maiden fund. David Gowdey then joined as managing partner in 2015. It currently has an enterprise value of more than US$12 billion, and its portfolio includes unicorn companies such as Kredivo, Livspace, and Moglix. Jungle Ventures recently promoted Yash Sankrityayan, Sandeep Uberoi, and Manpreet Ratia as managing partners.:

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jungle Ventures to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". --ArcticSnowWind (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wall of text, much? Fails WP:CORP, no significant coverage outside funding announcements. I'd drag Livspace to AfD as well, the only bluelink 'unicorn' claimed in this article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what's wall of text means but I only picked the coverage concerning vc firm from the most reliable and deep media coverage provided in the article. It it significant enough. However, I didn't do it for you or myself, but for the one who will decide. I found @Seraphimblade's comment quite reasonable that no one wants to analyse the quality of sources and coverage. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ArcticSnowWind that's significant effort, it is appreciated. You say those references pass NCORP's Primary criteria. As per WP:SIRS (past of the Primary criteria) *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. Each reference must include deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Looking at the references you've selected above, they are all based on company announcements, regulatory filings and other company-created information. This fails the "Independent Content" criteria since there is no analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc that is *clearly attributable* to a source *unaffiliated* to the topic company. For example (I'll just ramdomly pick two of the references above):

this from WSJ is about the topic company's "hunt for $100m South Asia Fund" and also mentions the company's earlier announcement of a new managing partner. So the sources for the article (as confirmed by the content of the article) are 1) regulatory filing 2) an Announcement and 3) information from the firm. I am unable to identify any "Independent Content" so this fails WP:ORGIND - and therefore WP:SIRS and therefore fails the Primary Criteria. The next reference from India Times dated Sept 13 2021 is about the company closing the first round of its fourth fund and raised $225m. The second paragraph mentions an interview with a founding partner. Also worth pointing out that this exact article originated as a Bloomberg article (journalist also accredited as "Bloomberg"). If this was based on an announcement - which is very likely - then I would expect to see the announcement covered by a lot of other publications and all with a high degree of overlap in terms of information. And we can see that sure enough, it was also covered by Business Today (uses identical quotes too)
Business Times (also practically identical) by way of example. Based on the near-identical texts in different publications it obviously originated from the company and those publishers/journalist have not added any additional in-depth "Independent Content" - fails ORGIND also.
Final point. Essentially there are two types of references (all governed by WP:RS) and while just about any reference including PRIMARY sources and interviews, etc, published in WP:RS can be used to support a fact or piece of information within an article, only a smaller subset go on to meet the criteria for establishing notability.

I hope the above helps explain what kind of references are acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability - namely ones where an unconnected party have written in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I read numerous AfD's and also the rules and see, that anyone is glad to explain the rules as they want. Concerning WSJ and India Times - I don't think they are the best. Techcrunch has much more deep coverage. But, almost any of the given sources is independent, as the rule states: "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Self-promotion and product placement are not routes to qualifying for an encyclopedia article." And here the rule says how to decide whether or not the sourse is independent:

Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsor (the media are independent and track the company's history from 2013 to 2022 with steady interest)
Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties
(yes, there are some comments by the CEO, but I didn't pick them, and only added above the original coverage by the journalists with their overview, description, commentary, analysis, and evaluation of the company as needed for a significan coverage) Taking into consideration that criteria, I see that most of the sources I highlighted here are independent, not relied in any way to the firm (are unconnected parties), and they do include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking.
Also here is another point: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage says: Such (deep) coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. I see the page has received "deep coverage" that is far beyond incomplete stub.

ArcticSnowWind (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not ready to discuss here anything more. Please, don't ping me or address me any comments. Bye bye ArcticSnowWind (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "yes there are come comments by the CEO, but I didn't pick them" you appear to be assuming that all of the parts of an article that are not quotes must therefore be "Intellectually Independent". That's isn't true. You provided a truncated definition of "Independent of the Content" and the part you left out is the bit which says that "Intellectual Content" must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It would be helpful if you could explain how "Independent Content" from multiple different publishers all contain the same facts/information/quotations ... the easiest and simplest explanation is that they're based entirely from a company announcement/PR/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you cherry-pick the most suitable pieces of text which suit your theory and apply them too broadly. Plus, your generalization "Independent Content" from multiple different publishers all contain the same facts/information/quotations" doesn't lave here any room for further discussion. However, I agree, that some pieces of text if copied by other news media may look not truly independent by its nature, but it's still a POV/assumption. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if that's the way it appears to you but in the absence of any other "theory", what do you think? In many cases when I see this exact same conduct (edit - should read "the exact same material in multiple sources") I can locate a link to the initial company announcement (maybe on PRNews or similar) but I haven't in this case. I'm not trying to cherry pick any text in particular but sometimes it is easier to pick a phrase or a quote and search for it and then look to see what else is identical between different sources. For example, in looking at the "Business Times" article, it contains a quote "We have coined two unicorns this year". Searching for this quote uncovers multiple different RS publishers repeating the same news about the $225m fund all within a day of each other. I believe it is reasonable to discount sources such as these as containing "Independent Content" and I would argue that to assume otherwise is disingenuous. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, press-releases work in this way. ArcticSnowWind (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors in a given day have to tell you that your unique theory regarding "Independent Content" is incorrect for you to take a hint? Its three in the last one, is that higher or lower than normal? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have given them significant coverage. You only have to pass the general notability guidelines or a subject specific guideline, not both. WP:GNG has been met. The company manages over a billion dollars, so business media will cover their activities. Dream Focus 20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't give much weight to AUM based on private, self-assigned startup valuations. A company which was valued at $3 billion about two years ago was recently valued at just $13 million [46]. Just goes to show how absurdly overvalued these startups can be at the peak of the fundraising bubble. We've deleted at least one private company valued at $5 billion this year and that one had far better sources than the ones on this article. I'm not able to find any WP:SIGCOV beyond the routine fundraising announcements for this company. M4DU7 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument "you only have to pass GNG *or* SNG, not both" has been debated many times. The consensus is that for companies/organization, you should generally follow NCORP guidelines. In exceptional circumstances you might default to GNG but I don't see any reason to deviate here. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this consensus you speak of? WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, an article is notable if it passes the general notability guidelines OR a subject specific guideline. Dream Focus 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus The consensus is the NCORP guideline itself which, unlike other SNGs, increases rather than lowers the rigor involved in proving notability beyond GNG. As a community supported policy page, it demonstrates that the community as a whole thinks corporations must be held to a higher standard to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add - WP:NOTABILITY has two sections. One is called the "General Notability Guidelines" or WP:GNG for short. The very next section is called "Subject-specific notability guidelines" or WP:SNG for short. In SNG it even specifically refers to the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. I don't think you can argue that NCORP is not the appropriate guideline for companies and organizations? The line taken by some editors is that there are *two* paths to notability - you can either pass GNG *or* pass the SNG. You're welcome to argue that the topic passes GNG just as others are pointing out that the topic fails NCORP. You appear to miss the point that even GNG requires "Independent" sourcing (and NCORP explains how, in practice, that applies to companies/organizations) and you've yet to link to any sourcing that you claim even meets GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the detailed source review above by ArcticSnowWind, which highlights significant media coverage including this from Business Standard [[47]] calling the company "one of Southeast Asia’s largest early-stage venture capital firms." The source review shows all independent, reliable sources. Meets WP:NCORP. There should be more efforts to expand our financial business coverage beyond the United States and its Western allies. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage from independent reliable sources to meet WP:NCORP criteria. ChristinaNY (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not this again. Seems to be nothing to say about this other than a bunch of financial transactions (see WP:SERIESA). That does not meet WP:NCORP. And one can't use WP:GNG as a backdoor claim that articles documenting routine financial transactions establish notability; they don't. User:ArcticSnowWind's lengthy statement of sources on this article is moot, because aside from heavy reliance on sources like WP:TECHCRUNCH, the articles cited are all routine financial transaction coverage. Why do we have to constantly rehash this? Is there some reason to keep articles that only, and will only ever, list the amount of money raised and subsidiaries? Wikipedia is not a chronology of the doings of market whales. FalconK (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments. The listed sources are enough to write an article not only focused on fundraising or product releases. --2A01:C22:7231:3800:DC94:D85A:E399:69DE (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The newly minted IP above voted Delete at one other AfD before rolling up here - and for our first two edits, we're right on top of AfD protocol!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an IP I made several votes on recent AfD debates listed on Wikipedia. I see the IPs often vote and voted here so I don't see any troubles. --95.117.31.251 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cancer Conspiracy

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

A year ago, I boldly redirected this to Big Pharma conspiracy theory#Hidden cancer cure, and this redirect was just reverted. I don't see any way that this will meet notability. Three of the sources merely name-drop this band while being about something else, and the fourth source is their own web page. I recommend restoring the redirect Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Vermont. ––FormalDude talk 07:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Come on man, did you do any research on this band before nominating it? Not notable? Really? There's no doubt that the article is poorly written, formatted and sourced. It needs a complete rewrite. But I remember this band from when they were active and they were a high-profile act. They had coverage in big magazines and toured with some big bands (I don't mean being a one-off local opening band for a national act; I mean they were out and on the road as part of package tours with bands of notability). Their releases were put out by some big labels too and had a lot of coverage. I just spent a short hour doing very basic online research on the band and came up with a bunch of things validating their notability.

-Point 1: 98 of the 222 results on Archive.org are relevant to this band. Some of the sources that can (and will) be used as citations on the rewrite include WP:RS and notable publications like Ox-Fanzine, Punk Planet, AMP, The Phoenix, HeartattaCk, Seven Days, Maximum Rocknroll, Modern Drummer, Plan B, Plastic Bomb, SLUG Magazine, Suburban Voice and The Improper Bostonian.

-Point 2: there are 172 results published in CMJ relevant to the band. Granted, most of them are trivial radio airplay mentions, but 19 of them are very good and usable, like album reviews, chart ratings and announcements of album release and show dates. It's very hard to get a review in CMJ. This alone shows that the band was notable enough at the time to be on Wikipedia.

Link1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

-Point 3: In addition to the above, other online publications include AllMusic (Link, which has a detailed band page with a biography and a professional review of one of their releases so it can be used as a valid source since its not user-generated content), Barre Montpelier Times Argus (Link), The Austin Chronicle (Link), BrooklynVegan (Link), Metal.de (Link), Pollstar (Link), Ondarock (Link), Rock Hard (Link), Alarm (Link), Scene Point Blank (Link), Lambgoat (Link) and Visions (Link).

-Point 4: 265 of the 304 results on Newspapers.com searching for "cancer conspiracy" between 1999 and 2008 are relevant to this band. Again, most are trivial listings for concerts, but there are 13 that are clear WP:SIGCOV. You can take your pick of the 9 full-page or half-page write-ups in the The Burlington Free Press (Link1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). There's also a feature article in the Arizona Daily Star (Link), and album reviews in the Daily Hampshire Gazette (Link), The Sun News (Link) and The Tampa Tribune (Link).

-As mentioned above, these are just things I found in a quick hour of research. I could find a ton more if I start looking back on the Wayback Machine at old WP:RS webzines and music publications of the era.--Bricks&Wood talk 09:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Bricks&Wood. ––FormalDude talk 13:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources enumerated in point 3 of Bricks & Wood's comment, although I take exception to their indignation expressed towards the nominator and their insistence that editors spend up to an hour performing a WP:BEFORE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for coming off as indignant. I was just surprised, but I'm not angry and have no resentment. I also apologize for any implications at editors' duties, that certainly was not my intention. I mean no offence to anyone.--Bricks&Wood talk 18:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was told something similar in another AfD; I'm not here to argue with you as to why your sources are good and I've suggested others, but I'm not doing a line-by-line analysis of the sources; this frankly isn't that important to me. I'll withdraw my vote completely. No skin off my back if this gets kept or deleted. I've thrown in my two cents, but I'm not going to die on this hill. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep Some of the sources appear to hold up the point, but I'm not here to re-invent the wheel/validate them in depth. Article seems fringe-based to my plebe eyes, I'm of no fixed opinion otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are substantial content issues with the page, but I don't think they're insurmountable and WP:DEL-CONTENT commands that we not delete articles when ordinary editing can fix issues within them. The sources identified by Bricks&Wood show that the band is notable and are more than enough to improve the page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:47, 27 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paathshala School

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

Nursery school. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No mention in RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to fail WP:NSCHOOL by virtue of a lack of significant coverage in multiple independent RS. As a nursery school founded in 2012, I would be surprised if there were enough coverage in print-only media to get it over this hurdle, so I am comfortable deleting the article as non-notable. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttarakhand-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congrats! This is the first AfD in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:15, 28 June 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 per A7 by Justlettersandnumbers (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Madhu Chaudhary

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

Non-notable -- NotCharizard ^🗨 04:55, 21 June 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 03:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Friggin' Daisies

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

I found no significant coverage on Google and Newspapers.com. Non-notable film. SL93 (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage. Nothing on Newspapers, Wayback, Google, or other databases. I don't see how the article can or could meet the notability criteria per NFSOURCES at NFILM. Likewise I am not seeing other evidence of notability per NFO. One line, poorly sourced stub with negligible potential for improvement. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found only directories and Wikipedia mirrors. There is so little out there that I think it might be a WP:HOAX. What say you, @SL93: and @MaxnaCarta:? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...This has left me confused. It is not a hoax, why do you suggest that? There are too many links to different sites be they reviews or blogs, plus screenshots from the film in Google images to be a hoax. Not notable, but not a hoax. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can we prove that though? There are no recordings of the movie anywhere, which is jaw dropping for something involving as big a name as Zooey Deschanel. Literally 100% of the entries on Google are just mirrors of IMDb and/or Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that you would believe me, but I have seen the short film years ago. Plus there are lots of screen captures available online. Definitely not a hoax. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obviously not a hoax.
1. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330956/
2. https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-sgkiuq/sweet-friggin-daisies/
3. Newsmakers: [3 STAR , 0 edition]. (2006, Jan 02). Houston Chronicle Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/newsmakers/docview/396182135/se-2?accountid=196403
4. Ratliff, L. (2003, Apr 25). Generational saga a fine mess: [metro edition]. San Antonio Express-News Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/generational-saga-fine-mess/docview/262249816/se-2?accountid=196403
5. Identity theft charges have model posing for mugshot: Salt lake telegram. (2006, Jan 01). Deseret News Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/identity-theft-charges-have-model-posing-mugshot/docview/351401622/se-2?accountid=196403 CT55555 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is still incredibly sus to me because of how little proof exists beyond the most superficial of mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it being a not notable short film seems like a very likely explanation and this being an elaborate hoax seems exceptional unlikely. Occam's razor applies here. CT55555 (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. IMDb links to a two sentence long non-English review so I don't see how the film could be a hoax. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 21 June 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 merge to The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy. Reading over this, there are plenty of bad arguments. I would like to remind people that WP:TNT does not advance an argument for deletion and WP:MUSTBESOURCES is considered to be a bad argument. Keeping that in mind, the people advocating for merging have the numerical and policy-based edge. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy characters

AfDs for this article:

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

This has twice been nominated for deletion (with one by yours truly). I read through the past nominations before posting this. I still don't think this is worthy of its own article. Maybe on a fan site, maybe on a blog, but not WP.

The characters listed here do not hold up to the notability guidelines set by WP. A laundry list of supporting or recurring characters on here have no real content in their respective subsections other than in-universe information (i.e. physical descriptions and episode plot mentions). The list is cluttered with speculative summaries and unconventional aliases for the characters (Irwin Dracula? A main character?). There are two references cited, one being a blog and the other a page in a book with a brief mention of the show.

I concede that Billy, Mandy, and Grim are notable and deserve inclusion on WP, but that doesn't justify a separate character list when descriptions in the main series article would suffice. I'm not against including some characters other than the main three in the series article, but this list is overkill.

This list, detailed as it may be, is a heap of fancruft and should be merged with the main series article. If I'm on the Internet looking for this much detail, I'll visit a fan site. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT if nothing else. This is a massive blob of fancruft with little to no out-of-universe notability asserted. No sources could possibly exist. Mentioning the main characters in the main article should be enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. ––FormalDude talk 07:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as desired. A list of not individually notable elements is explicitly enumerated under WP:CSC, and fictional characters lists exist for this purpose since the WP:Pokémon test wars, regardless of whether the nom is familiar or not. No issue with the list has been identified that can't be addressed by regular editing (i.e., pare down excessive info), and nom grants the notability of the fictional franchise, so that's not even on the table. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your comment, I'd like to reference an older XfD for a similar character list that also happened to be a CN series. Quoting another editor, "Any content of value can be added to the main article". — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Character lists are sometimes kept and sometimes deleted, based on the random people that show up to comment. Dream Focus 03:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus That randomness is unfortunate. Perhaps we need a wide RfC on the Wikipedia:Notability (character lists). The tits for tats at AfD are amusing, but frankly, not very professional. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid spinout list. Just like we have lists of episodes, we also have character lists. If its too long to fit in the main article, you make a side list for it. Dream Focus 03:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC);B[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Massively unsourced and effectively a random block/list of unstructured content that doesn't satisfy WP:V. It is effectively fancruft and is better served somehwhere else on the internet. scope_creep^Talk 08:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't fail V unless you've tried to source it and failed. Remember, V can be met by primary sources... they just don't count for notability. Jclemens (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge short summary then redirect to The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy. This is mostly unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT. But some list of characters, short, does, arguably, belong in the plot description for each work of fiction. No need to spin it off, WP:NLIST is no met outside other plot summaries (also, see MOS:POPCULTURE). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS means manual of style. It references how things are represented, not what is represented, and is a categorically inappropriate argument in any deletion discussion, because style never determines content. Rather, policies determine content, style guides determine presentation of that content. Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per arguments made by @Jclemens: and @Dream Focus:. This was a popular show, so I would be shocked if there weren't at least a few sources discussing some of the show's characters, particularly the lead characters. MoonJet (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy. I don't see anything to justify the massive detailed coverage of any of these characters in the sources, a Tumblr post and one sentence in a book. If anybody can find in depth sources discussing the characters as a group or individually then maybe some it could be kept but when I looked I couldn't find anything. A short list of characters would be suited in the main article. Cakelot1 (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's no justification for the list of characters being notable on their own, it doesn't meet NLIST, and The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy doesn't have SIZE issues that would require a spinout article, either. Like Cakelot above, I couldn't find anything that specifically and in-depth was covering the characters versus the show as a whole (which is what was brought up at previous AfDs.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is self-published with no encyclopedic analysis, backed up by zero secondary sources and with no historical value. It like a big social media post, self-published and is completely anathema to Wikipedia 5P. scope_creep^Talk 19:33, 23 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sergienko

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

No assertion of importance or significance. This recently translated BLP has been created by an account that admits COI/paid editing. Two images have been uploaded to support the article, both apparent resume photos, claimed by the page creator as "own work". Two quotes, apparently by the subject, are inserted with no attempt at citation but don't seem to appear in presented sources. Prior COI and Notability tags have been removed by page creator. On the merits, the article claims the subject is a working standup comic with some minor television credits, a low bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Since all of the presented sources are in the original Russian, I'm assuming good faith. However, this seems a purely promotional work with all the signs of likely paid editing. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Russia. BusterD (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article's a mess (literally - I tried it myself - a Google translate of the Russian), COI/UPE is an issue and sourcing is likewise all over the place. fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not hard to figure out based on the sources/quality of the sources. The paid editing usually is a red flag for me that the subject isn't notable. If they were, people would write about them, for free, on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the article, because there are also authoritative sources, the same first state channel in Russia, there is a separate story about this character, when he was still 12 years old, at the moment there are sources about his career! --Karol DEO (talk) 09:45, 22 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rashed Khamis

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can someone please confirm why football/soccer is not covered specifically at NSPORT, one of the most popular sports in the world? Yet there are specific criteria for curling and MMA? I tend to avoid football AFDs for this reason, is there a football/soccer specific criteria for those players who do not need general notability but have played for a national league? MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NSPORTS2022 for the most recent RfC on the subject; WP:NFOOTY is deprecated as a result of removing participation-based criteria. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 05:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. ––FormalDude talk 07:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with MaxnaCarta and avoid football AfDs for precisely the same reason - that and the ardent pile-on you get when you argue that one appearance for Wigan is not notability. Having waded through the links shared by Iseult I am none the wiser. However, by any standard, Rashed with one appearance for Hatta fails WP:GNG, let alone WP:SPORTSPERSON. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: essentially, all footballers must pass WP:GNG on their own merits, and the arguments by appearances are no longer valid as of April. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 15:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having reviewed the consensus discussions regarding sport notability, I am more confident in submitting a comment on this AFD. GNG does not apply as there is not significant coverage by multiple reliable and independent sources either in the article or elsewhere. No hits in the library, nothing appropriate on Google, Newspapers, or wayback. Consensus is that there needs to be at least one significant source. Not seeing it. Happy to change my submission if anyone finds proper sourcing elsewhere. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 22 June 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 03:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Yousuf

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. ––FormalDude talk 07:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not show notability. 85.150.93.249 (talk) 14:56, 24 June 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 03:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Waleed

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. ––FormalDude talk 07:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 22 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Al-Mesmari

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant sourcing found online via WP:BEFORE in English or Arabic (stub on ar-wiki). No significant coverage in sources on page. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 01:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. ––FormalDude talk 07:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only passing mentions found in an Arabic search Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 27 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2020 United States presidential electors

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

Although the United States Electoral College is a notable topic, the actual electors themselves are generally non-notable (as a position - they may be notable in other roles, e.g. mayor of a city, state representative, etc). I do not believe there are RS that discuss the "full list" of electors in a given presidential election year. Each state publishes their list of electors as part of an official record, or in the official documents for certifying the election, but this topic is not widely discussed in independent sources.

Note, if deleted, other articles in the Category:Lists of United States presidential electors should also be reviewed and deleted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the result is keep, the article needs major work, as it is in very poor shape at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can handle the clean-up, since it's looking like it's snowing. Curbon7 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Anyone can be selected, it doesn't matter who. And saying who they voted for is misleading, the voters decided, they just did what they were suppose to. Dream Focus 03:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see a clear policy based-reason for delete in the nomination. Are there problems with WP:SALAT, WP:LSC, WP:NLIST? Worth emphasising NLIST here: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" The idea that the 2020 Electoral College membership in toto is not notable seems rather at odds with the ... um .... staying NPOV here .... incidents around the tallying of the 2020 EC vote. FWIW, sources speaking of the 2020 electors in toto: All 538 electors have voted, formalizing Biden's 306-232 win - CBS News, Al Jazeera speaks to Biden and Trump electors before Monday’s Electoral College vote, After voting for Donald Trump, Texas electors ask swing states to reject results that assured victory for Joe Biden - Texas Tribune Electoral college confirms Joe Biden's victory in presidential election - The Guardian US Presidential Electors Confirm Joe Biden’s Victory - VOA News. Not declaring a !vote for this one at the moment, as I would appreciate the nominator (or others) responding to these points and hearing alternative views. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reasons presented for deletion are that the individual people aren't notable (but this is an exhaustive list, not a list of examples, so individual notability is irrelevant), that sources do not discuss the full list (but we only need sources which discuss them as a group, and there's no shortage of those), "anyone can be selected" (so what?). On the other hand, the people who actually cast the ballots in the electoral college -- some of them bound to the voters, some not -- come up every election, especially when the election's going to be close or when people start talking about electoral college funny business. Every election there are sources which talk about who the electors are, who the individual electors are in your particular state, etc., alongside the "what if" speculation. I'd argue that while the subject is notable for a list on its own, it's also a completely valid spin-off of 2020 United States presidential election. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Delete all isn't a valid outcome here. If you want this to apply to other pages, you have to formally nominate them, not just say it'll apply. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid subtopic of both the national article and respective state articles. There is substantial coverage of these electors as a whole and by each state's slate. Reywas92^Talk 13:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Reywas92 and Rhododendrites. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztaijn (I think the sourcing tips the balance) and Rhododendrites. As for binding votes, that's not the case in some states (see 2016 for an example). Iseult^Δxparlez moi 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (notified). As Rhododendrites states, this is an exhaustive list of Americans who play a formal role in electing the president. The entire content of the list is verifiable and portions of the list receive significant (if routine) coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears it's not just me. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a topic that is noteworthy both historically and in the present day. Also there are plenty of sources for most of the people who are public figures. As long as it's clear that the electors are voting on behalf of their state then I think its fine. Unless like in past years you have someone votes for someone else then they should be highlighted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites and Reywas92. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Sal2100 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing indicates that the list passes WP:NLIST, which only requires the group to be significantly covered. The nom objects to non-notable individuals being listed, but the way to resolve that is to suggest selection criteria and try to gain consensus through ordinary editing and discussion in line with WP:DEL-CONTENT. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:43, 27 June 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. This was relisted in error. I was looking at another AfD and clicked on the wrong page view. Apologies. Thanks for the catch @ Simione001 Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nishan Velupillay

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Young Australian footballer who won the FFA Cup in 2021 with Melbourne Victory. Article needs improving not deleting. Simione001 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not valid reasons to keep an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even done a google search? There are many mentions of him this one being the most significant I could find without making much effort. [48] Simione001 (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - young player with ongoing professional career, subject to coverage such as 1, 2, 3. Giant Snowman 13:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1. The Football Sack relies on a huge group of amateur "interns" for these articles, not professional journalists, with no evidence of editorial oversight. This is no better than a group blog and should be removed per BLP. 2. The FTBL article is a routine match recap with at most 3 sentences relevant to Velupillay; far from SIGCOV. 3. Ditto for Stadium Astro link. 4. The Daily Telegraph link requires me to change my browser settings to allow cookies, so I don't know what it says. But if it's another couple brief mentions then that too doesn't contribute to GNG. How many successful AfDs will it take before such clearly routine reports aren't proffered as "SIGCOV" anymore? JoelleJay (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melbourne_Victory_FC#Players - fails WP:GNG per JoelleJay. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE not correctly done in my opinion, vetting websites again above on a few links and not performing a google search yourself? News website 7news clear mentions him in their article about a Melbourne match and there are more like that if one goes looking. GNG, SIGCOV fail my ass. This guy clearly passes that. [49], multiple sources to be found, I can't be bothered to go through the rest. Govvy (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is identical to the FTBL article, which, again, is routine match reporting explicitly excluded by SPORTCRIT. Your second link is not independent (match coverage from the opponent team) and also only has two brief mentions of Velupillay in a routine recap. Do you only look at the headlines and total article length or something?! JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And who says I didn't do my own search? Google News had literally nothing more significant beyond what was already mentioned, and the first three pages of regular Google returned exclusively database junk and wiki mirrors. JoelleJay (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First, he is young footballer with an ongoing career in a fully pro league (24 appearances). Not only does she have sources as well, when you put his name in Google search (e.g. Nishan Velupillay) there are a ton of search suggestions (e.g. "Nishan Velupillay family" and "Nisgan Velupillay malaysia"), which indicates he is known enough in Australia (and probably other countries). Lastly, this additional source shows how he is seen as a rising star and he won his club's Young Player of the Year Award, which is pretty significant. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz, which sources do you believe contribute to GNG? Nothing else you said is compliant with the P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit your comment after others have replied to it. And I don't see anything SIGCOV in the new link, unless you mean the two sentences accompanying his name on a list? It doesn't matter how popular he appears to you, all that matters is whether there is currently coverage in significant detail, and that has not been demonstrated. If it was valid to cobble together a biography out of small bites of info from different sources, we would have articles on every middle school coach and town councilperson in America. And if an editor's opinion that a subject "seems famous" based on their subjective evaluation of a source was acceptable evidence of notability, we would have articles on leaders of every niche hobby. But Wikipedia is explicitly not an indiscriminate collection of verifiable factoids that are interesting to some people, it is an encyclopedia, so we have to rely on existence of comprehensive secondary coverage to meet notability. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is this being relisted? Seems a consensus has been reached. Simione001 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simione001:, I agree, I feel like articles (at least the ones I see) only get relisted if the consensus is to keep and not the other way round. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above arguments. St Anselm (talk) 15:22, 21 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alton Chapman

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

WP:BEFORE check turns up very few sources, none of which meet WP:42. All of the current references in the article are interviews/their personal webpage. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A credible claim of significance is required to avoid speedy deletion in accordance with WP:A7, and no independent reliable sources can be found to confirm notability. This article doesn't make any credible assertions of notability. I was about to speedy-delete it accordingly, but didn't do so because of this AfD nomination. If another administrator agrees with my assessment, go ahead and speedy-delete it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:56, 23 June 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] Oke, Gbenga; Arenyeka, Laju (10 November 2013). "How I became the first black prof. of a US university – Chalokwu". Vanguard (Nigeria).

[1]