Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 12	March 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Montenegro relations

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

Previously deleted. Fails WP:GNG. There's not much to these relations, no embassies, no evidence of agreements or state visits. According to this, bilateral trade was only A$268,000 in 2014-15. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Montenegro, and Australia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thought there could have been something defense related since Montenegro joined NATO, but no. Found a paper that confirms that trade is at $0.3 million dollars, the smallest import-export partner of Australia in the (Western) Balkans. Just not a notable relationship. Pilaz (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage in reliable sources. Yilloslime (talk) 15:38, 18 March 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!} 22:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Front News - Georgia

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

No claim of notability, and no references. BEFORE shows no coverage. Article in ka-wiki also newly created, has same problems. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Georgia (country). CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, @HouseOfChange:. This article is translated from Georgian Wikipedia where external links are enough to provide sufficient information about this news agency. The news agency is well known in Georgia and have no problems in ka-wiki. Yours faithfully,--იაკობ მახარაძე (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To satisfy WP:GNG you need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Those sources do not need to be in English. So if you can find such sources in the Georgian language, Google translate will help us read them and then this article will be suitable to be kept. And if you find such coverage, I will withdraw this AfD--but we need such sources. Thanks for your efforts and for your civility. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, it is independent coverage that is necessary. I don't see any at a quick glance. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to identify any significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would suffice under WP:NWEB/the GNG. I considered !voting for a redirect to Raul Kiria as an alternative to deletion, but that article is poised to be deleted as well; in any event this title is an unlikely search term. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 19 March 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!} 22:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AnEsonGib

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

Subject is a utuber and a boxer. Subject fails NBOX for not being a top ranked boxer and also fails GNG as the sources are either not reliable, not independent, or about other boxers/event or only passing mentioned. Cassiopeia talk 23:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 23:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 23:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 23:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously fails WP:GNG. 2001:4455:364:A800:7997:2F9A:C1CD:630 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:04, 20 March 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 University of Toronto Faculty of Information. ✗plicit 23:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The iJournal

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

This journal appears to be a graduate-student operated journal out of the University of Toronto. The article references only a self-published source and I can't find sourcing that covers the journal in-depth. As a result, this fails WP:GNG. Therefore, I propose that the page be blanked and redirected to University of Toronto Faculty of Information, where the topic can be covered in sufficient depth. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Toronto Faculty of Information. There's already a similar journal on that page: [1]. There's no reason to have a separate article for this, but no reason to delete the two sourced sentences either. -- asilvering (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Merge it. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Toronto Faculty of Information.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:05, 20 March 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!} 22:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional impostors

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

This is simply too broad of a list, and is almost entirely original research, as evidenced by the fact only one entry has a reference. Pretending to be someone you are not has been used in thousands of fictional works, including pretty much all soap operas and sitcoms. This seems to me as something that would be better as a category than a list article. (and yes, technically, I created this page, but that was a split from the main article list of impostors done in the interest of just getting all this unsourced content out of there. ) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If too broad, narrow into subsets. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But not because I don't think that a list of fictional impostors can be made. Splitting it off was simply the incorrect thing to do here - it should have been pruned in the original article instead. The list should be returned to the original article but significantly shortened to only the notable impostors. In conclusion, this article is sus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, Television, Games, and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too common in fiction, especially for characters who are shapeshifters, undercover workers, or confidence tricksters. Also of note is that all the entries are works instead of characters, possibly because some of these works feature more than one imposter. The list has essentially no mergeable content due to lack of sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, might as well be “list of characters by common plot device exemplified by them”. Wikipedia is not TVTropes. Dronebogus (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not usually one to buy the argument nom advances, but in most of those cases, there is a reasonably well identified list. Does this list need to include Eddie Murphy's character in Trading Places? Both characters from The Prince and the Pauper? I think that the definition of an 'impostor' is untenably wide to include in one list, as LaundryPizza03 insinuates. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are some sources, but it is unclear what is in them. Scope and definition is a problme. Impostor redirects to List of impostors which does not contain referenced definition, so WP:OR seems like a problem for both lists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively back to List of fictional impostors and redirect. First, if we have a list of impostors, I don't see why a List of fictional impostors should not be feasible. I do see the problem of original research in this case, so I'd suggest to insist on having secondary source which call the fictional character an impostor. This avoids both trivial entries and entries where being an impostor is not of importance for the character. I have added such sources for Felix Krull and Tom Ripley as examples. And if the topic still get's too broad, let's subdivide it as suggested by Hyperbolick and WP:SPLIT. The topic of "fictional impostors" certainly is notable, as can already be seen in the secondary sources present, so WP:LISTN is fullfilled in our case here. Daranios (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Imposter may mean many things. So, there are imposters who pretend to be a particular person, and there are imposters who pretend to be a particular profession, like a doctor or a firefighter. Would think these different kinds of situations would take different kinds of lists. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad and/or vague to be of use. Llwyld (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as too broad. A significant percentage of crime films and pretty much all spy films would qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creating more narrowly defined lists with similar themes per Hyperbolick may be a workable idea, but I doubt this list can meet the requirements of the WP:NLIST guideline. Haleth (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Haleth: I can understand concerns about how to properly demarkate the topic, but I think it is not correct that this fails WP:NLIST: Just have a look at the two academic publications currently in the list: A book chapter and a paper, both dedicated to the topic of fictional impostors, i.e. the topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources! Daranios (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an indiscriminate list of vaguely related things. Honestly, it is a slightly worse version of a TV Tropes entry. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not TVTropes. Reyk _YO! 21:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing every time X appears in fiction (or popular culture, or whatever) is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES. The essay WP:CARGO has it right—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. Moreover, the scope issues brought up above alone make this untenable as a list. That being said, it might be possible to create a proper, encyclopaedic prose article about the topic based on WP:Reliable sources about the topic itself. None of the current content would be of any use for that, however, so there's no point in retaining this version. TompaDompa (talk) 15:14, 20 March 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 1188 (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of highways numbered 1188

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

WP:NLIST requires that the group or set that composes the list be covered significantly by reliable sources as a group. I'm not seeing any evidence from google searches or from other means that cover this topic significantly as a group, so I think that this fails WP:NLIST. (Update: I'd support the redirect proposal from David Eppstein.) — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC) (updated 19:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why start here, though, rather than at List of highways numbered 677 or List of highways numbered 1036 or List of highways numbered 1199? Why is 1188 in particular the starting point for deletion discussion? Uncle G (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I think that this particular list is not notable. I looked for sources that describe this particular list as a group and I could not find them. I don't really think that the existence of other similar unsourced lists prevents us from discussing whether or not we should delete this list. If you have found sources that would justify keeping this list as notable under WP:NLIST, feel free to note them on this page. My reason for nominating this for deletion is that there is no evidence I can find that such sources exist.— Mhawk10 (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, though, why this particular list? You haven't explained. You went to Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title and stuck a pin in the middle at random? Uncle G (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you are asking how I encountered this page, it came up while I was patrolling new pages. It seems non-notable under NLIST, which is why we are here. I’m still not seeing anybody make an argument that the page is notable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate at 1188 (disambiguation) between the year 1188 and the two listed highways, and possibly others. I'd do the same for all the highway numbers that have fewer than 5 entries. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- 147 (number)#See also is the way that it is done for other numbers, notice. Uncle G (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've created 1188 (disambiguation). NemesisAT (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that the dab has been created, should we just delete this page as non-notable? — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to 1188 (disambiguation) as an incomplete disambiguation. The only purpose served by these highway lists is disambiguation, so INCDAB is controlling in this case. I would not mind if INCDAB were used as a rationale to merge many other similar highway-number lists into disambiguation pages. They should not, however, be merged into pages about the corresponding numeric value (if we had a page on the number 1188, we should not list highways on it, because they use 1188 as a name rather than for any special properties of its value). [Note: I was brought here by a request on my user talk by Uncle G, based on my recent edits to some of the number articles.] —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1188 (disambiguation) - Highway 1188 presumably should not be a redlink and should redirect somewhere. For now, the newly-created DAB at 1188 (disambiguation) is that where. I'm not sure about all the other numbers; that should be some other discussion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:54, 19 March 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!} 22:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IDF Command and Staff College

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

I was actually shocked that a search did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes GNG, most occur in a Googles book search, but they are almost all passing mention of the type, "x is a graduate of the IDF Command and Staff College" or "x, former commander of..." or others of the type. I had sent this back to draft a few weeks ago, when it was sourced with a single primary source. It had been tagged for poor sourcing for a month with no improvement. I had hoped that perhaps it was simply a matter of sources being available in Hebrew, but not showing up in English, and that the article's creator would put the time into properly referencing the article. However, they simply moved it back without improvement the same day, and have not improved it since. The current source does not even meet WP:VERIFY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not obliged to jump through the hoops on your whim. Just the same, I can advice you "learn a bit of Hebrew before judging Israeli military education". Loew Galitz (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Nomination without merit. An Israeli top military school. Anyway, Loew Galitz (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Lack of due diligence by the nom. I easily added English sources with significant info. Loew Galitz (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was actually shocked that this stub that was only created a couple months ago was nominated for deletion, when the subject is clearly notable and likely to make for a decent article, if given the opportunity. - wolf 22:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. This institute does exist, and I believe that enough sources can be found, especially in Hebrew, to establish that. However, the institute is part of a triumvirate of three Israeli military colleges: This one; the National Defense College (which was almost closed down); and the Tactical Command College. In the Hebrew Wiki, the subject is treated with a general article (he:המכללות הצבאיות) for all three colleges, followed by a separate one for each of the units (he:המכללה לביטחון לאומי, he:המכללה הבין-זרועית לפיקוד ולמטה and he:המכללה לפיקוד טקטי). While this setup might be okay for the hewiki, where there is more interest in this sort of niche topic, I believe that here a general article would suffice for all three. In most of the sources that I have seen, they are most often bundled together. Take for example the discussion (in Hebrew) regarding moving them from the Glilot base near Herzliya to a new campus in Ein Kerem, or the reporting around which university would certify their courses. Contrary to how military academies are perceived in the West, this particular school seems to be lacking in notoriety; it lacks a permanent home, it has been accused of substandard instruction, and it has been shopping around for university affiliation. Finally, I am not even sure that this is the proper name for the institute. It seems to be known in sources as Command and Staff College, which would require some form of disambiguation. But as I said above, I would prefer to see the article scope to be about Israel's military colleges in general. Havradim leaf a message 00:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is some misunderstanding. I do plan to write a general article, which matches hewiki: IDF Military Colleges when I have spare time (it is a boring subject for me, but it is relatively important and nobody in enwiki really cares), but this PUM-shmum article is an independent subject. In fact, it was an independent college for quite some time: 1954-1991. And of course in the most of current sources you see these colleges bundled (but in some the are not), because I suspect we cannot see pre-internet sources :-) Yes, it has been accused of substandard instruction, but the whole mil edu in Israel was accused of sub-instruction. And exactly for this reason they were all bundled together, and eventually put under the instruction from the University of Haifa, apparently due to scarcity of qualified instructors among the military. Shalom, next year in Gan HaVradim! :-) Loew Galitz (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the military colleges is the correct topic. The reason I voted keep here and not delete is because I don't think that the article is so off-course from that goal that it needs to be WP:DYNAMITEd. It just needs more content added, but I am not sure I agree with you that IDF Military Colleges is the correct title. Nevertheless, I am open to being persuaded that the current scope is sufficient as it is. After all, we do already have Israeli Naval Academy and Israeli Air Force Flight Academy, although these two seem to be grouped differently. Havradim leaf a message 02:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the name issue, why not go with Israeli Defense Forces Command and Staff College? - wolf 03:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is not its name. According to the IDF itself, it might not even be a college, but rather a "course". See here (in English) and here (in Hebrew). In this Hebrew article, it seems to indictate that the command and staff "course" is administered by the "colleges". Havradim leaf a message 04:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"IDF" is for disambiguation. see Command and Staff College (disambiguation) Loew Galitz (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to find sources that state unequivocally that this is the name. And even if you find that IDF is part of it, we would need to determine if it should be spelled out as Israel Defense Forces. But my contention here is twofold: 1. This isn't the name. 2. This may not even be a college, or deserving of an article title in the first place. Regardless of that, there is more than one way to disambiguate. So Command and Staff College (Israel) is another option. But to repeat, I am far from being convinced that this should be the article scope. Havradim leaf a message 05:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the suggeestion was for dab purposes, not a debate on the subject itself. If the name can't be supported, then obviously we should go with a name that can be, and going to a bracketed name (for dab) like Loew Galitz suggested would be my next choice as well. - wolf 15:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be an easy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE at least. And probably per WP:GNG for those who can read Hebrew. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per, you know, above. As for the name, in English sources used in the Avraham Tamir (its creator/first director) article, there is an obit that says "the IDF's staff and command college", and the bio from the Center for Israel Education which predates the creation of this article and says "the IDF Staff and Command College". So I would go with IDF Staff and Command College, currently a redirect. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Command & Staff" is standard order in naming of such colleges, so goes in official IDF sources, therefore I used this title in the first place. and oh, by the way, commons:Category:IDF Command & Staff College, which predates my article. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Let us not litter the AfD with renaming suggestions, OK? There is a separate procedure for this. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If part of the debate around keeping or not is whether the name is accurate/appropriate, it is valid to discuss that. "Keep but rename" would be a valid outcome in such situations. Kingsif (talk) 03:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This happens when the scope is confusing and renaming clarifies the issue and consolidates possibly the voting. I.e., when article title is closely tied to the judgment of its notability. The simplest example is WP:SINGLEEVENT: when an article, e.g., about an otherwise nonnotable but lucky thief of a $Bln painting is renamed into a page about the heist. Clearly here there is no question about article scope and I highly doubt that a different title would somehow change the outcome. (Another situation is trivial: when the title is horribly wrong and an alternative is evident. Otherwise all nitpicking whether to use definite or indefinite article in translating "Mädel vom Egerland", etc. is better to defer to the article talk page, so that when someone decides to change the definite article back into an indefinite, I doubt they will be consulting the old AfD page. ) Loew Galitz (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hewiki with plenty of coverage is only one click away. gidonb (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG. Inspect61 (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. Timetraveller80 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 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. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Ridolfi

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

Violates WP:NOTDATABASE, due to be sourced only to databases, and fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage - all we know about him is that he competed in the team gymnastics event of the 1908 Olympics, his name, and where and when he was born. BilledMammal (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Violates WP:NOTDATABASE" isn't true or relevant, as the article is not 1)Summary-only descriptions of works, 2)Lyrics databases, 3)Excessive listings of unexplained statistics or 4)Exhaustive logs of software updates. If nothing can be found for this guy, then redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a sports stat database entry on the subjects appearance in the Olympics masquerading as an article. There are no significant sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:PRESERVE, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing sysop. Citing WP:NOTDATABASE here completely invalidates the nominator's case. The article has not been written as a database. If the nominator does not understand the purpose of the site's policies and guidelines, how can their flood of nominations be justified? No Great Shaker (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That argument only makes sense if you take the literal wording of NOTDATABASE and entirely ignore the spirit (and yes, the article is only a "summary description of a person", which IMHO is much worse than a "summary-only description of works", since, you know, it's an actual human being and nobody bothered to write a proper article). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Will reconsider if significant coverage can be found to validate the presumption of notability, especially since experienced sports editors have responded who surely would have presented these sources if they existed. –dlthewave ☎ 02:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of even a remote sign of meeting GNG or of any source with which to write an article (and, no, a two-sentence-database-entry-converted-into-basic-English-text is not an "article", and fails WP:BADIDEA - if we had articles about every person who is mentioned in some database, then the current number of articles we have would likely be dwarfed by a significant amount, while still not providing any useful content to our readers - and WP:NOTMIRROR is also a concern). Oppose redirect as sportsmen don't get exempt from other requirements just because they took part in sports, and we don't usually have redirects from non-notable names, unless there is some actual content at the target or the name might be a likely search term (neither of which is the case); and on the grounds that if there is some actual content about this person, a red link will encourage actual article creation (instead of database scouring), and no functionality would be lost as searching for the name would likely yield the only other page where he is similarly trivially mentioned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:46, 21 March 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. Article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Briggle

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

Fails WP:NBIO and possibly WP:ONEEVENT. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. KidAd • SPEAK 06:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is not significantly covered in one event. fails WP:1E. DMySon (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG - There is more than one event she receives coverage for, as well as WP:SUSTAINED and in-depth coverage, and she appears to be high-profile, so not appropriate for WP:BLP1E, e.g. Denton Mom of Transgender Son Waiting for Texas AG Paxton to Set Date for Meal Together (Dallas Observer, Aug. 25, 2016), Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Has Dinner With Family of Transgender Boy (NBC5, Sept. 2, 2016), This Mom Comforting Her Crying Son Shows the Real Pain Trans Kids Go Through (Good Housekeeping, Jul, 26, 2017), The story behind the viral Express-News photo of a transgender boy crying at the capitol (MySanAntonio, Jul. 27, 2017), 7-year-old caught in high-profile custody battle exposes additional gaps in trans rights, protections (ABC News, Nov. 8, 2019), Denton mom says it's time for anti-discrimination ordinance to protect LGBTQ rights (ABC8, Jul. 19, 2019), Debate Fires Up in Denton Over LGBTQ Discrimination Ordinance (NBC5, Jul. 21, 2019), WATCH: Emotional Mom of Trans Son Goes Viral for Tearful Plea to Texas Legislators Not to Pass Anti-Trans Bill (Mediaite/MSN, Apr. 15, 2021), Tearful mother urges Texas lawmakers not to pass bill that would classify supporting transgender children as abuse (CBS News, Apr. 16, 2021), Texas Mom Gives Emotional Testimony Defending Trans Son at Hearing on Controversial Bill (People, Apr. 16, 2021), 'It's not safe': Parents of transgender kids plan to flee their states as GOP bills loom (NBC News, Apr. 19. 2021), Texas Democrat revives trans athlete bill in retaliation against his party (NBC News, May 7, 2021), Why one mother says the public fight for trans rights is worth it (The 19th, May 7, 2021), Four parents of transgender boys on the challenges and joys of raising their sons in a world that can be hostile (ABC17/CNN, Jul. 26, 2021), Texas mother organizes transgender story time after library faced threats over 'Rainbow Storytime' (The Hill, Nov. 23, 2021), Trans Boy's Mother Stands Up to Transphobic Threats Over Storytime (The Advocate, Nov. 23, 2021), Denton activist, business owner announces City Council bid (Denton Record-Chronicle, Jan. 26, 2022), 'I have no more words for him': Mother of transgender youth responds to Ken Paxton labeling gender-affirming care as child abuse (KHOU, Feb. 24, 2022), How Anti-Trans Bills Affect Trans Youth (Teen Vogue, Feb. 24, 2022), In Texas, an unrelenting assault on trans rights is taking a mental toll (NPR, Feb. 25, 2022), Opinion: I’m the mother of a trans son in Texas — and no, I’m not a ‘child abuser’ (Briggle, WaPo, Feb, 25, 2022), This Texas mom says she’s moving her family to California to protect her transgender daughter (KRDO/CNN, Feb. 27. 2022), Parents of a trans child who reached out to Attorney General Ken Paxton over dinner are now under investigation for child abuse (Texas Tribune, Mar. 8, 2022) Dallas-area parents of transgender son say CPS is targeting them through 'state terrorism' (Houston Chronicle, Mar. 9, 2022), They hosted him for dinner. Now he’s accusing them of child abuse (Independent, Mar. 10, 2022), Texas judge temporarily blocks state from investigating parents over medical care for transgender children (CBS News, Mar. 11, 2022), Texas Has Been Investigating the Briggle Family Because of Their Trans Son. Here’s Their Story. (Mother Jones, Mar. 11, 2022). This BLP can be expanded with these sources. Beccaynr (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC) sources added to comment Beccaynr (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) sources added to comment Beccaynr (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:HEY, I incorporated most of the sources listed above into the article, and during the process found the official website of the subject, which has a list of more sources: [2]. I have also updated my !vote per WP:SKCRIT#3. Beccaynr (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Beccaynr and WP:HEY. Inspect61 (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and those above. Much improved even over the past few days, answering shortfalls complained of. Fairly and squarely meets notability. Fact that so much work has been done in a short time ought to give confidence enough that improvement will continue. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article development can also be supported with older sources not yet incorporated and because Briggle continues to be high-profile and receive significant coverage, e.g. Dreading the knock at the door: Parents of trans kids in Texas are terrified for their families (Washington Post, Mar. 18, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Beccaynr. Rab V (talk) 22:36, 20 March 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. Nominated by a sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manish R Goswami

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

Not a notable Producer . Fails WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR. Cinzia007 (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3) The Indian Express = The film has not been made on the biography of Guru Dutt, only the official announcement of the film was made

5) The Times of India = The film has not been made on the biography of Guru Dutt, only the official announcement of the film was made

6) DNA = This news is about happy birthday

8) Mid Day = This news is about Neena Gupta's book

9) The Times of India =There is information about the awards but it is the same as in imdb

10) In this news about Manoj Kumar

11) The Times of India = Helped news is in the title of a movie

12) The Times of India =First thing is this India Wire news, second thing has been added there by writing in the name of falsehood, third thing is that the news that is in it is help about the title of a film.

14) Bollywood Times India = Helped news is in the title of a movie

16) Bollywood Hungama = This news is about the inaugurate of a school

19) The Times of India = news is about the employees of the association getting the covid-19 vaccine

21) The Times of India = news is about meeting Dilip Kumar

22) The Times of India = This is news helping Shagufta Ali financially

25) The Times of India = Speaking about actress Nushrat Nushrratt Bharuccha in this news

26) The Times of India = There is news about one of his projects but Definitely not reliable source

27) The Times of India = The Times of India = another news about his project but this is just an announcement.

28) The Times of India = In this news so not even name

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cinzia007 (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per resources passes WP:GNG. Inspect61 (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inspect61 Sir, Which source is the reliable is that source please tell me. Cinzia007 (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2022.

this, this, this, this, this, this and many others. Inspect61 (talk) 02:59, 17 March 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 13:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Izadi

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

Non-notable computer scientist. Sources cited are primary and/or offer only passing mentions. Search finds more of the same, as well as the usual social media etc. mentions, but nothing contributing towards notability. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google Scholar gives an h-index of 88 (in a highly topical buzz field), in case that has any bearing on academic notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I had left a message on the creator's page asking for them to declare their COI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Could find nothing on newspapers.com extended. BBQboffin (talk) 00:42, 16 March 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. Can be draftified on request to WP:REFUND (though not by me). Sandstein 13:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andras Miyagi

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

I nominated it earlier once, but at the request of the OP, I withdrawn my nom as they convinced me the article was at it's initial stage, and they will improve it. Now, it seems the development has been done, and I'm afraid, it still doesn't fit in.

There is no significant, in-depth and independent coverage that qualifies the subject to meet GNG, there are just lots of wrestling databases and some routine event coverage. Wrestling titles are irrelevant to notability since pro wrestlers are considered entertainers and not athletes for SNG purposes. Tame (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Japan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I noticed that you nominated the article of Andras Miyagi for deletion for the second time. Please consider that I am still working on the development of the article since Miyagi is an important freelancer. I am trying to find the best palpable references for the article, picking them from various sources such as promotion sites and certified wrestling analitic sites (for example Pro Wrestling Insider). I know wrestlers like herself are just entertainers and not really athletes. That is why I am trying to find these kind of refs to help the subject of article get as relevant as possible. Also please note that the article has plenty of links to other notable wrestling-related articles such as important events or wrestlers, thing that somehow hints the relevancy of the article's topic. Best regards. User:JeyReydar97 (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and then let it pass through WP:AfC, since the creator thinks that the article can be improved. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824, I did some lookups for 10 mins straight, and couldn't really find much of in-depth or significant coverage. All are just, as I previously mentioned, trivial coverage and stats. I'm a AFC reviewer myself, and if it comes my new pages feed, I would decline it if not improved significantly, and I'm sure, other reviewers also will do the same.

@JeyReydar97, since you keep insisting, I guess 7 days is a lot of time for improving refs. You keep improving it, and let others vote. If no thorough discussion takes place, I'll relist it, and by then, you may finish improving it? Although I'm not sure how, unless you have access to unindexed pages which I couldn't find via Google and Bing. And one suggestions, if you feel the article is not fit for mainspace, then please work on it keeping at as a draft, when you drag something into mainspace, and it comes to page reviewers' (such as mine) attention, we are to AFD or CSD them if we see fit. I already gave you like2-3 days since the first nomination. So yeah, let's see how you improve it. Regards. -- Tame (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NOTIMELIMIT. WP:AGF. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The onus is on those seeking to include or keep content to provide the necessary references, and failure or refusal to do so can result in deletion. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 21 March 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. I reassure the nominator that I have taken note of their response to every comment, but they should bear WP:BLUDGEON in mind. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salmon 3D

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

Future film whose production does not meet WP:NFF due to lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. Citations are announcements, interviews and non-RS sources which do not establish notability. No scheduled release date, and nothing significant found in WP:BEFORE. Ab207 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A multilingual film that has made adequate noises before its release. The film has proved its notability in all languages meeting WP:NFF, but the makers are yet to announce its release date. Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

"adequate noises before its release" is not criteria to meet NFF, the production receiving independent coverage from reliable sources per WP:GNG is. Can you pick WP:THREE such sources which can establish notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Does not yet meet WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 15:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has sourcing, seems to be notable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would be helpful if you explain how this meets WP:NFF; Merely having sources is not enough, the production should've received coverage from independent and reliable sources. None of the sources cited here meet that criteria. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More credible sources have been added to the article.Superstars8547 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP:REFBOMBING of routine coverage of lyrical videos (Eg. the ones published around 14 May 21), press releases and announcements which are not GNG worthy sources. Please pick your WP:THREE which provide independent, significant, and reliable coverage on production. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion another round, especially for the "keep" voters who have yet to respond to the nominator's rebuttals.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability guidelines PastaMonk 17:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might have to explain the "how" for your !vote to carry any weight. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. fails WP:NFILM. Inspect61 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, has reliable sources too. Timetraveller80 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG needs "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that are "independent of the subject." Being a reliable source is necessary but not sufficient condition. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 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. Sandstein 13:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Musbah Abbas

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Munfarid1 (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reason Munfarid1 (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Munfarid1 why should we delete this article? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm doesn't look like she has too many citations, however her L'Oréal-UNESCO award does seem quite significant. Coolcactus04 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the deletion proposal was not started by me. As the first editor, I can't really assess, if her award and the selection by a highly competent scientific panel of experts nominated by the UNESCO comittee are sufficient to keep it under WP:GNG. I think she is not primarily noteable for her academic work, but for the outstanding international recognition as a young woman researcher in a country like Sudan and her contribution to food safety there. (A male dominated society with rather limited possibilities for research)- As I have found two secondary sources today, I think the weakness of not citing enough secondary sourcees in my first version of 11 March has been addressed, and the decision about the proposed deletion of 12 March is open to this discussion. - Looking forward to other views here. Munfarid1 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines PastaMonk 17:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete student awards do not show academic notable, and other than that we do not have actual signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The original nominator is the author of this article, and I believe opened this nomination in a malformed attempt to contest User:Onel5969's PROD. In case this is of relevance to the eventual closer. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:02, 21 March 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!} 22:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kettavanu Per Edutha Nallavanda

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

Unreleased film since 2019 whose production does not meet the WP:NFF guidelines. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources, and the cited sources are announcements which do not establish notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another unreleased film. A film that was in production in 2018 and has not been released yet is in some sort of production limbo or post-production limbo, which is one of the reasons why unreleased films normally are not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 20 March 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 12:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Milan

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

My reasons for wanting this page to be deleted is that it has several wrongful written statements and untrue information about me, my career and what I do. It is poorly researched and not up to date. I don't go under the name Milan anymore, it details work that I haven't done and this page describes the dancer I was 7 years ago whereas now I am only a choreographer. I am not a celebrity in any way, or famous. This wikipedia page is the first thing that comes up when clients are looking to book me for work and is looking for my actual website and it is misleading, untrue and harmful - I have no desire for it to exist. Please delete it, I would appreciate it a lot. Best, Benjamin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminjonsson (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I created the AFD page for Benjaminjonsson as they were unsure of how to do it, and copied their AFD rationale from Special:Diff/1076882266. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing does not establish that the subject is sufficiently notable that we ought to have an article. Vexations (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search in the Swedish media archive doesn't establish much more than the fact that he exists. /Julle (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thin sourcing, coupled with subject request. There does not appear to be enough to support a standalone article. Star Mississippi 14:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability and independent sourcing. Timetraveller80 (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:09, 20 March 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 Gaziantep Stadium. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Gaziantep Stadium

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources are not valuable. Delete... Kadı Message 10:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 10:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 10:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Kadı Message 10:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - top level stadium, numerous sources, notable. Giant Snowman 12:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - stadium that has hosted professional football games. Multiple sources exist. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - this article is a duplicate of the long-standing article Gaziantep Stadium. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - serving at Süper Lig level. Isik (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaziantep Stadium, as it's an exact copy of this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaziantep Stadium. The two articles are almost copies of each other as said above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as appears to be a duplicate. NemesisAT (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also expect that significant coverage does exist in Turkish for this place (which could be added to Gaziantep Stadium. Looking at the sources in other language wiki pages about this stadium, there are [3], [4], [5], [6]. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaziantep Stadium as this new article covers the exact same ground as the pre-existing article with much the same content.--Mvqr (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaziantep Stadium, per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaziantep Stadium.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:25, 20 March 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!} 22:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reedsy

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

This article was created by an editor who ~~is currently the subject of a community ban discussion for undeclared COI editing~~ has since been community banned for undeclared COI editing (link). (updated: Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

The article reads as a blatant promotional/marketing piece. I started trying to clean it up, but I have to conclude that every section would need to be removed and restarted. In other words, to turn this into an acceptable article, I think it would need to be deleted so someone else can write a new one from an encyclopedic/NPOV perspective (assuming notability, reliable sources, and all that). I've done a fair bit of copy editing in the past, but I think this one is unsalvageable in its current state.

(For info, this is the revision before I and User:Melcous started removing some puffery) Boing! on Tour (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've started looking through the long list of sources, and I'm seeing a lot of the same problems with them as in the previous AFD. I'm seeing what are esentially company press releases, trade insider publications (which serve to promote the trade), primary company sources, sources covering e-publishing in general, coverage of individual authors and books, coverage of the demise of traditional publishing, aspirational guidance for new authors, etc. I've checked 20 of the 57 current sources, and not a single one so far is an independent, secondary source, providing in-depth coverage of the subject. So I haven't checked them all, but the article is nowhere near as well sourced as its ref-bombing suggests. Boing! on Tour (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Boing! on Tour. Mommmyy (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Bri has been doing a bit of pruning, and the reference count is now down to 39. So I thought I'd do a quick pass through them. Numbers refer to this revision...

1, 2, 19 = Company's own website content

3, 6, 8, 28, 33 = Press releases or similar, in TechCrunch, online news of high tech and startup companies

4 = Guardian, superficially RS, but see User:Iridescent's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reedsy. To me, it reads like a promotional puff piece.

5 = BBC piece about self-publishing in general, passing mention only

7 = About publishing in general, passing mention only

9 = Telegraph piece about cloud computing, with some blurb from Reedsy itself

10 = Promotional piece in personneltoday.com, primary company source

11 = A general publishing piece, one passing mention by name

12 = General guide to ghostwriting, with one promotional mention

13 = Freelance economy article, with primary content from the company itself

14 = 404, not found

15 = Press release or similar, promotional

16 = Article about publishing startups, one passing mention by name only

17 = Article about layoffs at Macmillan and Tor, written by writers now at Reedsy

18 = Industry insider about who's moved jobs, passing mention of one person who used to be at Reedsy

20 = General article about aspiring authors, with a passing mention

21, 25 = Press release or similar, in publishersweekly, industry publication

22 = Paywalled, but looks like general "How to Finally Write Your Nonfiction Book" article

23 = 404, not found, but title suggests a general howto for writers

24 = List of 7 Self-Publishing Book Resources For Aspiring Authors, Reedsy inclusion reads like marketing blurb

26 = Best software for writers article, includes Reedsy Book Editor

27 = Nine tools every aspiring writer needs to have in 2020 in a PC magazine, mentions Reedsy Book Editor

29 = Press release or similar, in industry magazine

30 = General "I’ve made thousands" clickbait piece, one passing mention by name only

31 = General article about plot generators, includes one by Reedsy

32 = 404, not found, industry mag thebookseller.com

34 = 404, not found, looks like Reedsy primary source

35 = About an author who won the Reedsy Writing Contest

36 = Paywalled, looks like a specific book review

37 = Paywalled, looks like a general article on digital publishing platforms

38 = General piece about publishing startups, passing mention of Reedsy by name only

39 = Restricted viewing, looks like there's a passing mention of Reedsy

I shall leave it to the good folks here to ponder whether this demonstrates that the company "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and satisfies the "stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals" (per WP:NCORP#Primary criteria, emphasis in original). Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever decides to remove Reedsy should consider working on a new page — the company is probably the most legitimate startup in publishing today with close to 4 million in monthly traffic according to Similarweb. It's a vital resource to many authors in the indie community. See testimonials on Reddit: [[7]] It has received funding from the European Union itself: [[8]]. 217.181.229.196 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Miguel

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

no evidence of notability MurielMary (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all hits found are from his employer, GMA network, simply confirming he works there. Oaktree b (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks any indepdent sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no sources of an individual person which fails WP:NBIO. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT sources found related to the senior writer. Chompy Ace 12:57, 17 March 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) Ab207 (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marthand Rao Holkar

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

This article fails Wikipedia's General notability guidelines. This article does not cite any sources and there is no significant coverage about him anywhere. There is some information in some websites, but they are dependent on Wikipedia only. IconEditorMaster (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We generally have articles on kings. There might be a little information here (1) if you search for "1833". Ficaia (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ficaia: Reply: But I don't think it gives significant coverage about him. IconEditorMaster (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are quite a lot of sources about him, particularly given his short lifespan. Also, as the head of a sovereign state, he is presumptively notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Some sources (there are plenty more but those are just the most prominent):

Hira Lal Gupta, "INDORE SUCCESSIONS, 1833-34 & 1843", Proceedings of the Indian History Congress Vol. 18 (1955), pp. 243-251

Second Letter to the Right Honourable Sir John Hobhouse, Bart., M.P. Conveying the Opinions of Lord Amherst, Lord W. Bentinck, Lord ::Auckland, and Lord Metcalfe, on the Right of Princes and Chiefs of India to ::Adopt Successors. London: G. Norman, 1850

Henry Beveridge, A Comprehensive History of India, Civil, Military and Social, vol 3, London: Blackie, 1865, 220 et sup

C U Aitchinson, A Collection of Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries, vol 4. Calcutta: Government of India, 1893, 157

Atchom (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per Atchom. Thanks for finding sources. Ruler of a kingdom is auto notable on Wikipedia as passes WP:NPOL. VocalIndia (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We are required to keep an article where the subject has inherent notability whether or not there are references that verify that. Referencing would help but WP:AFD is not WP:CLEANUP. Maharajas of that era are inherently notable Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discussion above seems to ensure that the subject meets WP:N. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 15:01, 15 March 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 the statements made and the sources in the article, consensus was that this subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Pungi

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTY. No indication that the subject has played in a fully professional league game. PROD contested previously. Hitro talk 07:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. There is significant coverage on him in the South Korean media dating back at least four years. Alvaldi (talk)
Keep per Alvaldi, mets GNG. Giant Snowman 12:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper Alvaldi passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 17:48, 13 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unannounced Rugby League Game

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

This "unannounced" video game appears to fail WP:GNG. I can't verify its existence by searching it up other than to find a bunch of clickbaity YouTube videos that fail WP:RS. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of the worst violations of WP:CRYSTAL I've seen in recent memory. Completely made up. Bordering a speedy delete. At the very least hopefully it's a WP:SNOW delete either way. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the Criteria For Speedy Deletion, This article does not violate any of the listings that would allow for a speedy deletion, however an AFD is applicable here. PerryPerryD 19:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, Absolutely no proof that this game will be released. Incorrect section names. "Few people have said that this game is going to be released" is not a feature. Violation of WP:CRYSTAL as stated above. Unknown developer and publisher information. Information is not sourced. This would almost qualify for a G3 Speedy Deletion for Hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I mean, it's not hard to predict the next game in a sports franchise, but that doesn't excuse filling an article up with guesses. I don't see anything in the speedy-delete criteria that clearly applies to plausible guesses about notable future events, but it doesn't matter. I'm sure this AFD will snowball. (Obviously it should be deleted without prejudice against recreation when the time inevitably comes.) ApLundell (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's a rugby Fandom wiki, it's perfect for that. Here, it's just a game which may come out in the recent future under a much different title, but there's nothing else to back that up. Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 13:54, 14 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AP Business Principles

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A mere self-published announcement of a job posting on Workday is not enough to justify the existence of an article dedicated to an AP course that does not yet exist in light of WP:N's notability requirements. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, no evidence of notability, would WP:G11 apply here? Justi yaya 07:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unambiguously promotional to me; it seems to be more likely that a clever person was snooping on job boards to find out that a course was being created and wanted to put it on Wikipedia, rather than using Wikipedia as a way to advertise the job posting (or the course). That being said, feel free to tag the article G11 if you feel that it's unambiguously promotional. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhawk10 Looking over the G11 criteria again, the NPOV requirements likely removes this option, thank you! Justi yaya 10:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: please also check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AP Human Anatomy and Physiology Principles, which is related to this nomination. In hindsight, I probably should have multi-AFD'd them because of similarity, but we're a bit past that point now. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL— rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my proposed deletion rationale, which should be visible in the page history. (Which basically distills down to WP:TOOSOON.) Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 01:48, 17 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AP Human Anatomy and Physiology Principles

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A mere self-published announcement of a job posting is not enough to justify the existence of an article dedicated to an AP course that does not yet exist. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, no evidence of notability Justi yaya 07:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL— rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rarely do I feel strongly enough to !vote to delete anything but this is an exception. The topic does not appear to meet our notability guidelines and, if it does, the guidelines are not providing appropriate guidance. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here remotely resembling an encyclopedic topic or article. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm left with no words. A job posting as source. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, really snow delete at this point, since this clearly isn't notable. It should be obvious that articles shouldn't be based on job postings. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: please also check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AP Business Principles, which is related to this nomination. In hindsight, I probably should have multi-AFD'd them because of similarity, but we're a bit past that point now. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 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!} 06:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Kurzawa

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

No credible claim of notability is given here, nor does the individual appear to pass WP:NBASIC. It seems to be the case that the creator of the page removed a CSD tag, so I'm nominating this for deletion with no prejudice against speedy deletion. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing for an article on a minor. We should be especially dilligent in protecting the privacy of minors and not create articles on them unless they are truly and without question public ifigures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced BLP. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 16 March 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. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Laure Bonnel

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

French journalist and filmmaker. She may or may not be notable, but the current stub article about her is pretty much an attack page, and appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. The article is almost entirely about claims that she relayed Russian propaganda related to the ongoing war in Ukraine. That issue does get substantial media coverage, but I wasn't able to find substantial coverage about her unrelated to it. Looking at Google News hits with a date range prior to the Ukraine invasion, the only substantial piece about her is an interview in the magazine Elle, and interviews aren't appropriate sources for biographies. As to her documentary film Silence dans le Haut-Karabakh, I can likewise find only one pre-invasion source about it, a video by the far-right magazine Valeurs Actuelles which we can't use as a reliable source. Based on these sources, the article should be deleted until somebody can write a version of it that is not an attack page and establishes notability unrelated to the controversy about her Ukraine-related work. That controversy should instead be mentioned in Disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis or another war-related article. Sandstein 06:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Journalism, Television, and France. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Weasel words "claims to teach" and not using a neutral POV. Badly needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took a shot at the article. However, I agree with the WP:BLP1E classification as there seems to be nothing out there about her other than the event regarding the 13,000 deaths. Mercy11 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not a specialist of deletion policy on WP:en, but I think that this person is not well-known enough to justify an article about her. Ydecreux (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this person is not well known enough precisely because, as lack of availability of the documentaries she has made, their subject matter, and the fact they only seem to be in French or Ukrainian rather demonstrates, there is a desire to keep her from being known a little I heard about her work in the Donbass and her documentary a little while ago and went searching - Wiki was one of the few places it came up - so, to me, this is all the more reason to KEEP this entry, as a starting point perhaps. The issues she raises are quite important and deliberately ignored, or perhaps censored, in the mainstream press - Thank you Wiki for helping me find her - I would like to know, for instance, if her works has been translated/dubbed into English Aquifer1 (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is known for spreading misinformation then that's what they're known for [9] and there's nothing non-neutral about our article saying so. However, I agree that she is non-notable, so Delete. Volunteer Marek 06:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Known by whom for "spreading misinformation"? - if anyone who was ever "known" for spreading misinformation was deleted, wiki would probably be pretty bereft of any human subjects at all. It would be interesting to identify the "knowers" and see if they themselves have been known for spreading "misinformation" - Aquifer1 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- On last March 8, she said that Donbass could be a case study for journalism. My feeling is that could be a case study for Wikipedia. Genium . 17:51, Mar 15, 2022 (UTC)
Comment FYI, she defined herself as reporter and teacher. She teaches news media coverage issues and the writing of documentary films at Institut National de l'Audiovisuel (INA), at the École supérieure de journalisme de Paris and at Sorbonne University [Donbass: un conflit européen méconnu, a conference in Paris, 2020]. Article created as an attack page. On last March 8, she said to be ashamed of being called a journalist. Genium . 17:33, Mar 15, 2022 (UTC)
Weak keep: The recentness of her prominence is not a reason to delete: there are an increasing number of sources about her because of her reporting on the current war, and this might be a reason to keep the article, albeit with improvements. Some recent sources: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this the case of WP:BLP1E, her documentary did not even receive widespread coverage. Furthermore, the article, as it stands, does not even provide enough context of her life, education, work etc. The only subject here is discussing how her film is misinformation. The page does not even talk much about the the documentary itself. Given that the current article seems to be written as an attempt to discredit her, I say delete unless somebody can fill in with more details. Big Wang (talk) 07:23, 19 March 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!} 22:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhav Singh Bassi

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

Not a notable person, there is no independent commentary of the journalist. All the sources are nothing more than interviews or the promotion of his live shows to sell tickets. Juggyevil (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of The Hindu and Indian express article. Found more by WP:BEFORE. Can be enough for WP:BASIC. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I second to Laptopinmyhands. Additionally the article can be improved with some content and editing with resources as there are available resources to support the article. --Nang Nandini (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can you offer some specific sources supporting WP:BASIC?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Some examples here [17], [18], [19] Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:32, 17 March 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) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keyword density

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

Largely unsourced since at least 2013, and a key source provided is a now-defunct Forbes contributor which is not reliable per WP:RSP. This all could be a single line in search engine optimization. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable. Sean Brunnock (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think a single line would do justice to this or this or this etc., or any of the 11 Google Scholar searches using the term suggested on the first page of results. Although a Google Books search shows page after page of SEO-oriented books that talk about it, I think this article is best supported from the academic viewpoint because keyword density has many uses other than SEO, as evidenced by the G-Scholar works. It's a shame that the article isn't better, but the concept has significant and reliable sources in information technology and academia. I suggest marking the page as needing improvement. Lamona (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lamona convinces me. Merge in Keyword stuffing while at it. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Lamona has demonstrated that the subject passes WP:GNG. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:54, 13 March 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!} 04:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S. Jayarama Reddy

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

Not realising WP:GNG policy of Wikipedia. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 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 13:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Chandran

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

Marketing article. Saying did TED talk when he just did Tedx. Two are very different and Tedx now got no value since everyone do it just like that. Most links not talking about his work in detail. Not good for WP:GNG. Just interviews mostly. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sexuality and gender, and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 13 March 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 13:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masahisa Naitoh

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

Not enough links for WP:GNG. Not notable by GNG policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Japan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Potential sources include this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 13 March 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. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Wallace

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

I don't think this meets WP:GNG or WP:BLP. PepperBeast (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Wine, and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google news search will show that Wallace easily meets WP:GNG.
(refactored) I started this article 12 years ago when Wallace had just won the inaugural version extremely widely covered contest to become a house blogger for a major independent winery. He has since received significant coverage in a number of independent sources for a variety of things, including founding and running "One of California's most influential modern wineries" (per sources, below). A comprehensive coverage of the wine industry would include bios of the most visible and influential winemakers, so having this article does fit our mission here of presenting encyclopedic collection of knowledge. A partial list of some of the more significant sources:
- One of California's most influential modern wineries, Dirty & Rowdy, is ending after 11 years. Article entirely about Wallace in the San Francisco Chronicle, one of the largest 20 or so newspapers in the US and one of the most authoritative in its coverage of the wine industry, describes him as "highly influential".
- Hardy Wallace: Soul of a Winemaker. Profile article entirely about Wallace in the Vallejo Herald, a significant (100 years old, 15,000 circulation) regional daily newspaper.
- Is it Time to Change How We Describe Wine, about 1/3 of this feature article in Wine Enthusiast Magazine (circulation 250,000) is about Wallace
- Honeymoon tester is latest dream job, 1/3 to 1/2 of this article in CNN is about Wallace and the contest he won
- Atlanta blogger wins Murphy-Goode's 'dream job', article in SFGate entirely about Wallace winning the contest
- California wine's new paradigm: Bright, juicy, translucent reds, article in the SF Chronicle, about 1/3 devoted to Wallace's winemaking style
- Top 10 Inspirational Quotes From The World Of Wine, 2 of the 10 quotes Forbes selected are Wallace's

-Wikidemon (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm much less sure than Wikidemon about this. First, we need to get rid of all of the sources that are not only not about him, but do not mention him. Those are the ones number 6, 14 and 15 here. There is the info about this "dream job". The famed "contest" was to become the winery's "lifestyle correspondent" aka blogger/tweeter, for six months. (The SF Chron article at #5 is a paragraph saying that he was #1 in the line to get into the venue.) Then there are articles about him moving on to other jobs, which are pretty puffy, generally based on his "fame" of winning the original contest. The Food Republic article ("9 people...") is a longish single paragraph about his wine (but little about him), and the NapaValley paper ("7 of ...") is a short paragraph (5 sentences) about the wine product. The most extensive article is the SF Chron from September 2021, but that's only one source. He shows up in Google searches, but nothing more impressive than what I see here. His job was as PR person for various concerns, so there are quotes from him about other people's products. I'm leaning toward delete. Lamona (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expanding the sections on his wine-making and adding refs from what Wikidemon provided. If the article is more about his wine-making accomplishments and less on the contest, then I go for weak keep. However, I'm not finding anything that I consider to be truly current - he did some podcasts in 2018 and I see that he is scheduled to speak at a 2023 symposium on wines but it doesn't make clear what his current business is. There's a hint in his linkedin profile, but that's not usable as a source. Lamona (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the whole I think we lack any good sources that are both in depth and truly independent. Most of this amounts to local promotional journalism, and not quality coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Johnpacklambert. --Vaco98 (talk) 05:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the spirit of full disclosure, I lived in the Napa Valley for almost 30 years and know many people in the Napa and Sonoma wine industry. A small percentage of my edits have to do with wine. In my judgment, this person is not a notable winemaker. He won a publicity stunt contest and got paid for a while to do social media promotional activity for a well known winery. Since then, he has connected with various other winemakers and assisted them with their online public relations and social media activities. I do not believe that constitutes notability. The ongoing coverage following the publicity stunt is mostly hyperlocal. Cullen328 (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator. Weak notability, fails WP:GNG. 2600:4040:100F:9100:D0DF:37B8:3E03:1A9B (talk) 20:48, 20 March 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!} 06:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwath Bhatt

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

I don’t see any important roles. Role in Raazi film is not main role. And in coverage, it is only interviews which can be organised so easily these days with right connections for actors. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot see any evidence of multiple significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR requirements, would be willing to change my !vote if anyone can prove otherwise. Agree with the nom that interviews are not WP:GNG worthy sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

\

Delete per nom and above fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:22, 19 March 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. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas B. Manuel

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

This biography has been flagged as unsourced since the day of its creation, 15th November 2011. The article's content implies that the subject might be a notable person, but when I searched, I found only copies of our own article, content about the bridge of the same name, and someone's blog. Does someone have access to paper sources? If not then I think we should probably un-publish this somehow. —S Marshall T/C 13:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 13:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 13:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a candidate for WP:TNT, I have no idea how this article has been up for so long. This article was clearly written by a supporter of the article's subject and is extremely non-neutral, fails WP:NPOV. Even if this passes WP:GNG, the article should be deleted because of how much the whole article favors the subject. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 14:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh boy. Not sure whether to approach this from a WP:TNT or a WP:Notability angle. In terms of the first, the whole article seems to be one big WP:NPOV violation to a degree where TNT wouldn't be out of place. For the second, I wasn't able to find any sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. The POV language makes it really difficult to establish what the subject's status would be w/r/t WP:NPOL, but as far as I can see the chairmanship of the Turnpike Authority is unlikely to be sufficient without WP:SIGCOV that would also then fulfill GNG. That said, if someone is willing to take on the work to actually WP:HEY this to a place where TNT is no longer called for, and finds sufficient sources to establish SIGCOV, I'll happily change my !vote to keep.-Ljleppan (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC), striken 17:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thincat (below) found a number of obits that likely reach WP:SIGCOV, so I'll change this to keep. That said, the state of the article continues to be very bad, with some of the recently added references failing verification. I'll add some maintenance tags and remove the worst POV language, but won't have time to do miracles. -Ljleppan (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to be a nuisance but "Mr Turnpike" was quite a big noise in Florida and had quite a few obituaries published, for example.[20][21][22] And for those who deprecate obituaries he was good at publicity during his life too.[23][24][25] However, I'm not sufficiently interested to make hay before sunset. Thincat (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've just seen he became a "7-goal man" in indoor polo.[26] That surely counts under WP:NSPORTS. Thincat (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per wp:hey and notable on several points; his leadership (accolades) building the Florida turnpike system, as mayor of a U.S. city, founder of several banks, (that went on to become part of BoA), possibly his military achievements, etc., etc. Any one of these might not necessarliy be considered notable, but put all together could be enough to make him notable. - wolf 15:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't check the references; the Orlando Sentinel and the Sun Sentinel are blocked in the UK (which is common with US sites that don't want to comply with our laws about privacy and consent to harvest identifying information and personal data). The blocking is probably why those sources don't show up in a search for me. If there's a consensus among people who can see them that they amount to substantial coverage then ... well, I can't withdraw the nomination because others have !voted to delete, but I would change my own !vote to "keep".—S Marshall T/C 15:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think "can't check the refs" was a reason to question refs (and !vote "delete") at AfD. What's the difference between your situation and say... a paywalled site you don't have an account for, or a book you don't have a access to? GNG states: "Sources do not have to be available online". You may not be able to withdraw the nom, but you can change your !vote to "keep", buy doing just that up above at your opening comment. (imo) - wolf 23:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local personality fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 20:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:21, 13 March 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. Despite the sources added to the article, none of the "keep" voters were able to indicate them in this discussion for their analysis. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sukmit Gurung

AfDs for this article:

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

No famous songs that have any news. This is a local singer with no reputation. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fade258 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She is prominent Nepalse female singer of 1990s. WP:INDEPTH coverage is available which I have added to the original article, please have a look. If possible, I suggest to remove the Afd tag. nirmal (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

coverage should not just be in depth. But it should also be reliable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Laptopinmyhands:-Yes off-course! [27] is the most reputable publication, a sister org of Kantipur Publications, hence reliable. In case you cant understand, use google translate. Other sources are often reliable, but not always. Why I use those sources? Because in this particular case, they are reliable. How I know they are reliable? Because I am from Nepal and have a good gauge when they are NOT reliable. nirmal (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what are the new sources? Can't judge notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I second ~~Laptopinmyhands~~ Nirmaljoshi. I am improving with sources. --Priya Ragini (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis required
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: source analysis didn't happen, but should for consensus. 3rd time's a charm?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A notable Nepali singer Passes WP:NSINGER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspect61 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 March 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 List of Phineas and Ferb characters#Candace Flynn. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Flynn

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

No in-depth coverage of the character in real-world contest. Has been tagged for improvement for over a decade, and still has the same issues. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:54, 5 March 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 Disney. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Phineas and Ferb characters#Candace Flynn - The current article has only a few sentences that aren't just unsourced, in-universe plot summary. And one of those, in the "Reception" section, is just sourced to a now unavailable "Top Ten" list. While searching for additional sources, she is, of course, mentioned in general reviews or discussions of the show and its spinoffs, but there is not much significant coverage on her specifically, with one exception - I found one decent source that does analyze her beyond simple plot summary in this book. But, one decent source doesn't really justify an independent article, and when you remove the huge amount of unsourced plot and cruft, there's really not much left that wouldn't be better covered on the main article on the show's characters. Rorshacma (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found some decent sources not being used in the article, mostly spawned due to the film: [28], [29], and [30]. These allow it to pass through WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful but borderline. I think I'd lean towards a merge, but if someone does write a reception section, do ping me and I'll reconsider. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Phineas and Ferb characters as per Rorshacma's comment. Pahiy (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for time to discuss Oinkers42's sources and if they add enough for a standalone article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list as said above. Some useful info on the page that can benefit the list, but not enough to warrant a split imo. – DarkGlow • 15:54, 13 March 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. Many keep !voters repeated "Accredited degree-granting university" but have been unable to indicate which policy requires that such organizations be kept. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geetanjali University

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

Page is promoting a group of colleges. No actual information. Didn’t find any solid news with good description of the university. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: as per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. But a second assessment can be made if this article is improved during the course of this AfD discussion. Suggested assessment guidelines: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:HEY. -Hatchens (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep accredited degree issuing university affiliated to the University Grants Commission (India).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Accredited degree-granting university. We invariably keep these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesn't look like anyone has improved the article since it was nominated for deletion and I can't find anything to do improve it with. So as things currently are there isn't a guideline based reason to keep the article. Circular nonsense like "keep because we usually keep these" doesn't really cut it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CONSENSUS. So no, not "nonsense". Consensus that these are kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consensus to keep? Interesting! Can you prove that. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Azad University, Mahshahr Branch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellington University, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Azad University, Mahshahr Branch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantonment College, Cumilla. All deleted. And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technological University of the Philippines – Taguig - redirected. I fail to see the consensus to keep no matter what. The Banner talk 13:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it is an accredited degree granting university.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOLS. Given sources are either listings, related or "we have a party"-type. A WP:BEFORE did not give any in-depth sources. The Banner talk 13:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A recognized University accredited degree granting program. JoyStick101 (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a commercial university so right policy would be WP:NCORP. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about that? I can't immediately provide a source for this but I thought that all private educational institutions in India had to be run on a non-profit basis in order to receive official accreditation. Have things changed recently? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to see if non profit v. commercial can be ascertained. Would also suggest more policy-based !votes would help with consensus vs. WP:THISISHOWWEVEALWAYSDONEIT,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete About the non-profit nature, it's common knowledge that the law is followed only in letter and not at all in spirit. From a brief search, I think this - Such pursuance of profit is often masked by a two-tier legal structure by setting up a trust that runs the school, and a company that owns the assets (land, building, etc.) and provides services (management and technology), thus receiving payment in return from here summarises the practice well, which is further elaborated upon in this op-ed. This ET article from 2010 carries specific examples (note that the company it delves into, Career Point Infosystems, services two universities. One was deleted in a recent AfD, other remains for now). I don't know whether NCORP can be said to apply, but feel entirely comfortable voting delete since I'm unable to see anything passing WP:GNG. Hemantha (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hemantha. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fully agree with Hemantha Ji. All such private universities pretend to be non profit but charge big fee to students. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charging a big fee to students does't necessarily mean that a university extracts a profit (look at, for example, many leading American universities). The owners of this particular university may do so, but that is something that should be sourced, not assumed. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:13, 17 March 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 moved back to draft and move-locked. The primary contention is not that the topic lacks notability, but that the article as constructed fails to meet standards for moving to mainspace. There is substantial consensus on that point among discussion participants other than the editor who moved it to mainspace in the first place. The article will be move-locked so that administrative review will be required before it can again be restored to mainspace. BD2412 T 03:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological operations (Russia)

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

Almost unsourced, seems to violate Wikipedia:No original research completely. Translated from the Russian Подразделения Психологических but without the additional sources of that article. Moved to Draft space where it could be worked on but moved back to main space, I think prematurely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page is essentially unreferenced with only one non-RS and creator's page says they are retired so unlikely to be improved. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. While I don't doubt that the country does have such a program, we need neutral sources to confirm it does. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dear Liz, "Translated but without the additional sources of that article" - it is original research? @Mztourist and Oaktree b: You could transfer the sources from the original article yourself. Are you aware of the template's existence? Best regards, --Pavlo1 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell if it is original research because of the absence of reliable sources verifying the content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Each field of activity has its own authorities. Dienko, Kolpakidi, Sever - are not authoritative authors, from your point of view? Encyclopedic Dictionary of Russian Special Services "Intelligence and Counterintelligence in Persons" (Russian: «Разведка и контразведка в лицах» — Энциклопедический словарь российских спецслужб) - not authoritative sources? Pavlo1 (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC) P.S. Maybe you consider the subject of the article irrelevant to Wikipedia?[reply]
I don't speak Russian so it is hard for me to fully evaluate the state of the Russian article. I didn't say that Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on this subject. My only comment is that I think the page was moved out of Draft space too early. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You an't competent in the subject of the article, you cannot assess its notability; don't speak the language and cannot assess the quality of the translation and the credibility of the sources. And you make such bold conclusions! The incompetence of editors is the main problem of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Unfortunately --Pavlo1 (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I let insults get me down, I would have stopped being an admin a long time ago. I'm sorry that you are offended that I nominated this article for deletion but it would have been better if you had spent the past week improving the sourcing so it didn't look like a page of original research. I don't need to know Russian to see that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An editor coming in and making personal attacks aren't likely to sway votes their way. Instead of casting aspersions, Pavlo1, why don't <you> use the template you referenced and transfer some sources or improve the article to bring it up to standard? In the meantime, I'd say either Delete or move to draft until such time as the article can be improved. Intothat darkness 02:01, 18 March 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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable possibility that a consensus to delete will arise at this point. BD2412 T 16:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gunilla Gerland

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Neither she nor her work appears to have received any coverage in mainstream media. The article cites a few books which mention her; however, none of these are about her. Most seem to make only a solitary reference to her and would fall under the category of trivial mention (WP:TRIVIAL), which can't be used to establish notability. The article cites a review of her book in the Times Higher Education Supplement, but this one review does not meet the threshold for "significant critical attention." Her books haven't received any awards or been included in any bestseller lists. The article cites four examples of her work being cited, but this isn't enough to prove her work is "widely cited." Furthermore, this article is short and contains little information about the subject; due to the aforementioned lack of secondary sources, I don't believe this problem can be remedied without relying almost exclusively on primary sources. JMB1980 (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on my initial search of the Wikipedia Library and additions to the article, there appears to at least be support for WP:BASIC notability - there is a profile from The Guardian added and additional book reviews; the in-depth attention from scholarly sources, including for her autobiography, seems to add support for notability, because per WP:AUTHOR, she appears to be regarded as an important figure. Beccaynr (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC) And then I began to search GBooks, and there appears to be a lot of sources and information that can be added to this article. Beccaynr (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the article has been improved quite a bit, there is still a lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Many of the citations could be considered "capsule reviews" or trivial mentions WP:TRIVIAL as they contain little to no substantive and detailed information about the subject of this article. It should also be noted that many of the sources cited were published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers, which is associated with the subject of this article; they are not independent of each other or the subject of this article and, therefore, can't be used to establish notability (WP:SIGCOV). There isn't sufficient evidence to prove she is "regarded as an important figure." I would posit the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR still hasn't been met. JMB1980 (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources in the article at the time of your comment (while granting for the sake of this comment, without condoning, the idea that sharing a publisher deprives a source of independence), many of the sources are not published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers, e.g.

Not published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers

Ann Robinson, 1997. "Health: Plight of the outsider: People who suffer from autism are made to feel isolated in many ways - not least, as Ann Robinson reports, when diagnosis confirms they are 'different'". The Guardian. An in-depth profile with biographical information that has been added to the article.
Deborah R. Barnbaum, 2008. The Ethics of Autism: Among Them, But Not of Them, Indiana University Press. Includes a subchapter starting at page 106 titled "Voices of Autism: Gunilla Gerland", and other mentions of her autobiography.
Allen Shawn, 2010. Twin: A Memoir, Penguin. Includes mentions of the importance of her autobiography, in context.
Nicholas Tucker, 1998. "Prisoner in an inner world". Times Higher Education. I am not able to access this source, so I am unable to use it to expand the reception section.
Fabienne Cazalis, 2017. "The women who are autistic but don’t know it". Scroll.in/The Conversation. A paragraph that presents her with a link to her autobiography in specific and general context.
Stefan Svallfors, 2020. The Inner World of Research: On Academic Labor. Anthem Press. More than two pages of in-depth coverage of her, including but not limited to her autobiography.
Jones, Simon (2013). "Secrets to Success for Professionals in the Autism Field - An Insider's Guide to Understanding the Autism Spectrum, the Environment and Your Role". Nursing Standard (through 2013). 27 (43): 28 – via ProQuest. A review in a scholarly journal focused on one of her books, that also includes information about her career in addition to being a writer.
Trudy Klauber, Maria Rhode, 2004. The Many Faces of Asperger's Syndrome. Karnac Books. The previews available for the eBook indicate her autobiography is discussed in Chapter 4 and there is discussion of her life experiences. The 'about the authors' section states: "Trudy Klauber is a Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist in the Child and Family Department of the Tavistock Clinic, where she is also Acting Head of Child Psychotherapy. Maria Rhode is Emeritus Professor of Child Psychotherapy at the Tavistock Clinic and the University of East London."
Hilary Hart, Kingsley Whitmore, Guy Willems, 1999. A Neurodevelopmental Approach to Specific Learning Disorders. Cambridge University Press. This book clearly cites Gerland's autobiography, but based on the previews, it is unclear how substantial the references are.
'Saliendo del closet' en el espectro: el autismo, identidad y revelación. / 'Faire son coming-out' sur le spectre: autisme, identité et divulgation. By: Davidson, Joyce; Henderson, Victoria L. Social & Cultural Geography. Mar2010, Vol. 11 Issue 2, p155-170. 16p. DOI: 10.1080/14649360903525240. , Database: SocINDEX with Full Text. Gerland's autobiography is discussed in context, i.e. "Alternative social strategies for negotiating tricky environments appear in other accounts, as when Gunilla Gerland describes enlisting the help of an unwitting other when she wants to visit a gallery or a town she could never tackle on her own: 'I've been able to pretend that I want their company while in fact what I've needed is an escort' (Gerland [22]: 247)."
Wing, Lorna. "Reflections on Opening Pandora's Box" Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders; Vol. 35, Iss. 2, (Apr 2005): 197-203. DOI:10.1007/s10803-004-1998-2. Gerland's autobiography is discussed as one of several by people with "high functioning autistic spectrum disorders" and "These authors have used their own experiences to help others with the same problems." This is a limited mention, but it does not lack context and it is found to be 'worthy of notice' by the author.
Bower, Bruce. "Outside Looking In". Science News; Vol. 170, Iss. 7, (Aug 12, 2006): 106-108. Her autobiography is discussed in context, i.e. "People with autism-spectrum disorders often can't tolerate cold, heat, pain, tickling, itching, certain textures on clothing, and even the touch of other people. As Gunilla Gerland wrote in a 1997 memoir of living with Asperger syndrome, "To be just lightly touched appeared to make my nervous system whimper, as if the nerve ends were curling up.""
Hagström, Torbjörg (2004). "Att inte känna igen ansikten – ingen bagatell för den drabbade" (PDF). Läkartidningen (in Swedish). 101 (41): 3191. This source was in the article before I began working on it, but her autobiography is cited and appears to be discussed.
Stubblefield, Anna (2013). "Knowing Other Minds: Ethics and Autism". In Anderson, Jami L.; Cushing, Simon (eds.). The Philosophy of Autism. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 158, 159. ISBN 9781442217072. Not only is Gerland's autobiography discussed, but a work analyzing her autobiography is also discussed. However, the previews are limited.
Forder, Colette (September 27, 1997). "Also out; Books". The Times – via Gale. A book review focused only on her autobiography, more than a "capsule."
Marijke Kinnaer, Stijn Baumers and Ann Heylighen. "Autism-friendly architecture from the outside in and the inside out: an explorative study based on autobiographies of autistic people." Journal of Housing and the Built Environment Vol. 31, No. 2 (June 2016), pp. 179-195 (17 pages). This is a study, with her autobiography used as a subject, and the article can be updated to more clearly reflect how her autobiography is analyzed in-depth by this source.
Chapman, Robert (July 2019). "Autism as a Form of Life: Wittgenstein and the Psychological Coherence of Autism". Metaphilosophy. 50 (4): 421–440 – via Complementary Index. Two full paragraphs directly analyzing her autobiography.
Kluth, Paula. Autism, Autobiography, and Adaptations. Teaching Exceptional Children; Vol. 36, Iss. 4, (Mar/Apr 2004): 42-47. Multiple references to Gerland's autobiography, with analysis and context.
Chamak, Brigitte; Bonniau, Beatrice; Jaunay, Emmanuel; Cohen, David (August 2008). "What Can We Learn about Autism from Autistic Persons?". Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 77 (5): 271–9 – via ProQuest. This is another study in which her autobiography was included as one of the subjects of in-depth analysis.
Levere, Ruth (July 2004). "Finding out about Asperger Syndrome, High Functioning Autism and PDD". Tizard Learning Disability Review. 9 (3): 44. doi:10.1108/13595474200400027 – via ProQuest. A book review focused only on one of her books, more than a "capsule".
Rose, Simon (2014). "The Asperkid's launch pad: home design to empower everyday superheroes/Intellectual disability: ethics, dehumanization, and a new moral community/The early identification of autism spectrum disorders: a visual guide/Secrets to success for professionals in the autism field: an insider's guide to understanding the autism spectrum, the environment and your role". International Journal of Developmental Disabilities. 60 (1): 54–56 – via EBSCOhost. While this book review is included with several other book reviews, it is in-depth and far more than a capsule.

From my view, these sources, as well as others that appear to be available, at minimum support WP:BASIC notability, which includes If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability and in fn7, Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail. From my view, per the notability guidelines, the secondary context, synthesis, and commentary in the various sources help support notability. It does not appear to be trivial when her work is the subject of scholarly study and analysis, and the sustained coverage of her and her work helps show how she is important to the field of study in a variety of ways. Beccaynr (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many of these are trivial mentions and "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." This cited source, for example, says only this about:

"Although autistic children are more resistant to this phenomenon, the pressure to conform is so strong it still ends up influencing their behaviour, as illustrated by the case of Gunilla Gerland. As a girl, this Swedish woman did not want to wear rings or bracelets because she hated the way metal felt on her skin. Observing that adults could not fathom that a little girl might not like these things, she resigned herself to getting gifts of jewellery, and even learned to thank the giver, before stashing the object away in a box at the earliest opportunity."

This would qualify as a "mention in passing," not significant coverage, and "does not discuss the subject in detail." Furthermore, this source contains no usable information for an encyclopedia entry. This is representative of most sources cited in this article which only mention the subject is passing and provide little to no substantial information. JMB1980 (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You referenced a section from an essay that includes, Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers [...] are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections [...]; common sense and editorial judgement should be used to reach a consensus about the sources available, which is similar to what I am trying to convey about the significance of secondary context, synthesis, commentary, and analysis that accompanies discussion of Gerland and her work, which makes it nontrivial and therefore supportive of her notability. Also, the Scroll.in source is not representative of the scholarly sources and the critical attention from book reviews. It is also unclear how you have managed to assess 'most sources cited in this article' to support such a broad statement. Beccaynr (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three sentences about her not liking jewelry in an article that isn't about her is not "critical commentary," it's "being mentioned in a source whose primary purpose is to cover an entirely different subject." This is indeed trivial, not significant, coverage. This applies to many of the sources cited; more examples of trivial coverage include Twin: A Memoir and I Am Special. Gerland's name appears few times in these sources, and each time it's in a list of people who write about autism. These sources provide no substantial or detailed information about her. These are passing mentions, not significant coverage or commentary. JMB1980 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly meets the criteria for general notability.--Ipigott (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Looking at the sources helpfully organized by Beccaynr, through the lens of WP:NBOOK, I see an NBOOK pass for A Real Person with Forder and Lanham as the 2 sources, and a pass for Secrets to Success with Rose and Jones as the 2. For Finding Out I only spot Lavere; Beccaynr, would you be able to point out a second review for Finding Out? Two NBOOK passes can be enough for NAUTHOR but it would be nice to have three. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I started looking for more sources, I found a book chapter that covers Gerland, her autobiography, and study of her autobiography, and refers to her as "one of the pioneers of autistic participation in research on autism". (Anne Stenning (June 2020). "Understanding empathy through a study of autistic life writing". In Rosqvist, HB; Chown, N; Stenning, A (eds.). Neurodiversity Studies: A New Critical Paradigm. London: Routledge. Retrieved 14 March 2022.) This appears to be WP:SIGCOV, e.g. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and I think it helps confirm WP:GNG notability and also supports the importance of her autobiography for an WP:AUTHOR#1 pass. So while I have not yet found more book reviews for other books, I also agree with your analysis of WP:AUTHOR#3, but I am finding research a bit challenging due to the attention her autobiography has received. Beccaynr (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR. Inspect61 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, as article clearly meets GNG and NAuthor, and a note that this nominator has made several AfDs, all of which are of a similar tone; lack of checking and due diligence, primarily targeting biographies on the same general topic — authors with connections to autism. Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 18 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oda al Gato

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

Delete or merge to Pablo Neruda. One poem out of a large body of work, not itself so significant as to warrant an article. No references other than links to the poem itself. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to new article on Navegaciones y regresos or Neruda's odes - searches in GScholar and my library database don't turn up anything about this poem individually, and the events mentioned in the article (eg being displayed for Poetry in Motion) seem like slim grounds for notability. A "keep" does not seem warranted, so I want to weigh in on the best alternatives to deletion. Such a minor poem doesn't seem worth mentioning on Neruda's bio article. But, the book itself has at least one review for WP:NBOOK: [31]. And I found several sources discussing Neruda's four books of odes as a unit: [32][33] (this one cites several other works on his odes), plus two non-RS dissertations on the odes: [34][35]. So I think the book is a great merge target if a second review is found, or a more ambitious article on all four volumes of odes if not. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm seeing references specifically to Oda al Gato both as a particular work of interest for Spanish learners (1) and more generally in Spanish-language works (1 2 3 4. It's apparently a significant enough ode of Neruda's to be semi-regularly referenced on its own by even modern Spanish newspapers (though this may be due to popular fascination with cats), so I'm inclined to keep it as a standalone rather than to merge it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 13 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Holland

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

Non-notable YouTube musician fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. KidAd • SPEAK 20:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leaning on the edge, but appears to meet GNG, at minimum. Citations are weak, dominated by youtube videos, however there is some semblance of being multi-faceted. Subject itself did return somewhat better-than-mediocre internet search results. Holland received coverage in a Virgin article, here, and here (also potentially here, however the source is somewhat dubious provided they accept press releases for publication). He also had a collaboration with Meinl Percussion. Artist also has coverage in numerous articles in Alternative Press, some of which appear more independent than others. With respect to WP:NMUSICIAN, I am inclined to say that the first criterion is met and therefore notability established. Alternatively, a redirect to The Word Alive may be appropriate. Bgv. (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Word Alive. I think the previous voter's analysis supports this redirect option more than keeping. The drummer did get some media coverage, particularly from Alternative Press (e.g. [36], [37]), but it was during his time with The Word Alive. After he left that band, he became a YouTuber and session/backup musician, and just about all of his media coverage from those years is actually about the songs he covered or the notable musicians he backed up. Also, outside of the info about The Word Alive, the rest of this article is either fancruft or self-promotional, and rather shameless too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 01:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IShowSpeed

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

This page was tagged CSD G7 by an IP editor and the page creator protested, asking for it to be taken to AFD instead so I'm obliging them. I don't think this article has WP:SIGCOV for this person though I think that is common with streamers, especially the numerous teenage streamers. He is mentioned as being a "rapper" but there is no information in the article about any music produced or released by him so I guess he is an amateur rapper. This article probably should have started as a Draft and gone through AFC review but here we are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to Draftifying. As long as it is in main space, I think it'll be tagged for speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and Michigan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I knew this article was going to go to AFD as I was creating it—pretty much every article about a YouTuber/streamer does.

Unfortunately, this YouTuber is definitely notable, he's all over YouTube right now. The thing is that there's just not a whole lot of coverage. There certainly are several articles about his Twitch ban as well as very minor coverage of his song and the biography article, I'm just not sure if it's sufficient enough. Some of the Twitch ban articles I found do talk about him a little though, outside the main coverage of the incident. This probably isn't a good rationale for keeping this but I'm sure he's going to get much more popular than he is right now and will likely get more coverage.

Anyhow, I feel like what's in the article right now is just enough to at least warrant a weak keep. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uses KnowYourMeme and a really obscure website, namely Mixedarticle, as sources, with the former being marked as an unreliable source (per WP:KNOWYOURMEME) and the latter appearing to be bot-generated. In fact, Mixedarticle claims that he has a daughter, despite him being a minor, which is enough to render the source unreliable. Fails WP:NBIO. Jurta talk 10:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mixedarticle source is obviously of extremely low quality and unusable for an article, but it should be noted that it's quite possible (and common) for children to be born to teenage parents. jp×g 20:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not sure what I was thinking when I said that. Jurta talk 10:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify All YouTuber/Influencer articles should go through AfC. I can see this being notable in the future when there would be better sources but it’s not ready to be an article right now. SK2242 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Numerous hits, in non-notable sources. Clickbait type stuff. No reliable sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Jerta. SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 06:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify While obviously failing GNG at the moment, he is a very popular figure right now, and so I think it's better to draftify in case he does pass it in the relative future. Pladica (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Draftify per above consensus. Sources currently found on the subject are non-notable and unreliable. Being popular recently doesn't guarantee media coverage or instant article creation. Sparkl (talk) 19:00, 19 March 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.