Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 30	July 02 >

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 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. Daniel (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Box Canyon, Idaho

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

Topos and aerials show this to be a subdivision or maybe a group of vacation homes that didn't exist until construction appears to have started in the late 1950s. Searching is heavily masked by other features with the same name, all of which are pretty clearly not here; when I restrict the search to Fremont County it all but disappears from the restuls except for a few name drops. I can't see that this is a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete it exists on Google Maps, that's all I can say about it. Thousand Springs State Park in Idaho has a Box Canyon, but that's hundreds of miles away. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stadler Form

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

No references are available or proven, article contains too much advertising and it doesn't look like an encyclopedic entry. The company has no information about their sales and it is doubtful that relevance is generated here. –SDKmac (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SDKmac: I've fixed your nomination, which did not follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion § How to nominate a single page for deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Article about a swiss company, without an article on Swiss Wikipedia. There are no claims of notablity, my search for references did not find anything showing notability. Jeepday (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is written like an advert and contains zero references. I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE either. Except for a product reviews. Which aren't enough to pass WP:NORG. So this company clearly isn't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Graphics

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

I was originally going to redirect CustomShow to the parent, but I'm not sure Sales Graphics meets WP:ORG, so we're here for both the organization and the product, which were created by the same editor in early Wikipedia days. For Sales Graphics: This is not about the state of the article, which is a likely copyvio that could be addressed. I am unable to find evidence of independent, reliable source-based notability at the depth required for WP:ORG. While the name makes it a challenge, research beyond a BEFORE shows the awards not to be notable ones and possibly pay to play.

For CustomShow, again, not about the article's state, but rather there's no reliable sources discussing it from which to update it to the time it was acquired.

I am also nominating the following related pages because (see above):

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.

Star Mississippi 21:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the articles don't demonstrate notability and I can't find any good sources (though I agree with nom that "Sales Graphics" is a difficult term to search for). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No notability is demonstrated in both articles, and both subjects lack WP:SIGCOV from what I could find. Awards don't seem significant either.Yeeno (talk) 🍁 20:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nawal Kishore Dhawal

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

No sources since 2008 -- DaxServer (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "No sources" can generally be corrected through editing. Is there a valid deletion rationale? pburka (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to meet WP:V and WP:GNG My quick search https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Nawal+Kishore+Dhawal%22+-wikipedia found several reference that seem to support the content of the article. As mentioned by Pburka lack of source in the article is not delete criteria. Jeepday (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Zanetti

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

Seemingly non-notable mid-level military commander. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 23:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 23:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 23:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A retired Brigadier General is automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No such automatic notability exists. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, the old WP:NSOLDIER essay was depreciated a few months ago, so being a flag officer is no longer an automatic conferrer of ntoability. Curbon7 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He is an unelected candidate for political office, which in itself does not make him notable. But being a general is enough to pass notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was in the National Guard, I'm fairly sure there are thousands of retired USANG generals. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 04:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable as Joint Task Force Guantanamo and per WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BG and JTF commander, there will be plenty of sources on this one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per others Nexus000 (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not because he was a BG, but because he passes WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability and WP:GNG. Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to 2022 New Mexico gubernatorial election. Meets WP:BASIC. KidAd • SPEAK 01:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Colquhoun

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

Non-notable retailer. PepperBeast (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For the previous AfD, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur colquhoun. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG of the reference links that are not dead, they are mostly minor mentions, or do not meet WP:GNG. There are no claims in the article of notability (that would meet WP:GNG), My search for references did not find anything to add. Jeepday (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and not significant under WP:COMPANY LordHarris (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Texas (TV series). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Texas (TV series) characters

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

Relatively small and unsourced list that does not meet WP:LISTN, or GNG on a wider scale. – DarkGlow • 21:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 21:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 21:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Texas (TV series); the list article is unsourced and there's no size reason for the split. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Texas (TV series). Agreeing with 力 here that this article is better off being merged back to the Texas soap opera article. Pahiy (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Texas (TV series). This would not prevent more information from being added or from it being split out again per our LIST guideline in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Texas cast members

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

Relatively small and unsourced list that does not meet WP:LISTN, or GNG on a wider scale. – DarkGlow • 21:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 21:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 21:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 😊! This page has been on my list of "To Do" on Wikipedia and I already have been gathering information. When I start working on it (I can start working on it this weekend) I will add the characters and the duration, similarly to other USA soap opera Cast Member Lists pages, and I will also add sources. Please give me (and the page) a chance ! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lack of sourcing is obviously a problem, but the main reason I nominated it was due to the list not actually being that long. A criteria of WP:LISTN is that standalone lists can be made for navigational purposes, such as if the list is too long to include on the main article; but since the list is fairly short, I'd say it's best to make the table on the main page with the sources you were talking about.

– DarkGlow • 11:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Texas (TV series); the list article is unsourced and there's no size reason for the split. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and other vote. Jeepday (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Human knot

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

Redirect to icebreaker. Appears to be a non-notable game with minimal coverage in reliable sources. DonIago (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. Multiple hits for this in each of a regular Google search, Google Books and Google Scholar, including but not limited to [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Additionally, if this does end up as a redirect, it should point to Icebreaker (facilitation) and not Icebreaker, since the latter is about the type of ship. Lowercaserho (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the link; I used a similar AfD as the basis for that. DonIago (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per references supplied by Lowercaserho meets WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rialto Report

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

Non-notable podcast, sourced to interviews (i.e. primary sources) at blogs (i.e. not reliable sources), so the citations are double-unusable. Note in the interests of full disclosure that I chopped approx 50k from the article before nominating, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. A single-purpose account Bayview71 is the article creator and pretty much the only contributor since its 2015 creation, coming back to add entry after entry after entry. Would not be a bit surprised if this is an undisclosed paid editor situation. Zaathras (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - @TipsyElephant and Zaathras: (and others) - Thank you *very much* for your comments - and suggestions - as stated in my edit summary, the article seems sufficiently notable as presented - nonetheless - a casual Google News Search includes relevant news articles appearing in The New York Times (ref); Los Angeles Times (ref); PBS News (ref); CNN News (ref); The Guardian (ref);The Atlantic (ref); Vanity Fair (ref) - and more - further - a casual Google Search for "The Rialto Report" curently notes "29,000 results" (8pm/est/usa, 06/23/2021) - a substantial internet presence I would think - and includes major internet websites, such as the following: Apple PodCasts; Spotify; YouTube; WikiData - and a great number of other relevant results as well - adding greatly to the notability of "The Rialto Report" article I would think - there may be some room for improvement with the article of course - but seems sufficiently notable, in itself, for "KEEPING" the article - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Comments Welcome from other editors - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All you're doing here is a WP:GHITS argument, e.g. the CNN link that contains the line Journalist Lili Anolik and "The Rialto Report" creator Ashley West are behind the series.. That in no way whatsoever supports notability for the podcast, all you did was find a simple Google hit. Linking to their entry pages at itunes, spotify and youtube are also pointless, and not establishers of notability, as they are just directory services. By your criteria, every knucklehead with a Tiktok presence would be article-eligible. And finally, Wikidata? No, all Wikimedia sites are self-published, and this invalid for establishing notability. Zaathras (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TipsyElephant and Zaathras: (and others) - according to the text in the main article, "The Rialto Report" article covers, not only PodCasts, but also other related materials as well, including "Investigative articles" and related materials ("audio, photo and documentary archives") - a worthy (and perhaps unique) collection of historical material - with or without PodCasts I would think - also in this regard, seems "JSTOR" and "Google Scholar" contain relevant results - please understand that I'm flexible re the article depending on WP:CONSENSUS with other editors - the article could use some improvements of course - but nonetheless the article seems worthy and notable imo at the moment - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drbogdan: can you please provide a link to specific sources that contain more than a trivial mention of the podcast rather than continuing to link to search results? Please provide a source that contains at the very least a short paragraph dedicated to the podcast. If you believe this article meets WP:GNG could you cite (and provide a direct quote) of a wikipedia guideline, rule, policy, or even an essay that supports your belief? TipsyElephant (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: (and others) - Thank you for your comments - and suggestions - very busy with other interests (some real-world) at the moment - and not clear what you may think is particularly relevant - perhaps you can check out the links from the several searches noted above - there seems to be some links (of the many listed) you may find particularly relevant and interesting I would think - as before, Comments Welcome from other editors of course - Thanks again for your own comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drbogdan: provide a direct link to a source that dedicates more than a senetence to the subject rather than making us dig around for something that doesn't exist as far as I can tell. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Guardian article is by far the most in depth source that has been discussed above, and one could possibly argue that the source meets the minimum expectations of WP:100WORDS (with a total of 111 words). However, WP:GNG states that more than one source is generally expected and personally I use WP:THREESOURCES as a general rule of thumb. I would be convinced of notability if someone is able to find at least one more source that contains more than 100 words dedicated to the subject. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of any significant coverage. Sasquatch t|c 02:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes the GNG given the significant coverage in the aforementioned Guardian article, plus [8][9][10][11](requires institutional login) Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to write a brief article about it, and it looks like it's a frequent scholarly source too.Citing (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Concepcion Cruz High School

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

Same case as Mayor Simplicio Manalo National High School. It is non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. It is just another listing of a local high school. A quick Google search returns listings of the school on maps and directories only. HiwilmsTalk 20:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 20:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 20:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. HiwilmsTalk 20:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find is extremely trivial name drops in a few school directories and an article about one of their graduating classes. Which clearly doesn't work for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Adamant1. I am fine with objective of documenting most schools but here the logo appears to be a Non-free, and we don't have a link to the school web site or a georef. It is not our job to comment on the text however WP:WPSCH/AG would be helpful to anyone who wishes to write Manila articles and they would see that we don't —name students or faculty members. I suspect that is also a COPYVIO. ClemRutter (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small, run of the mill parochial school. I don't see how it passes my standards; at most I see it passes 6/10 factors. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mexican Dream

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

Written by an WP:SPA, promotional tone, and no evidence of notability. Searching for sources only gives results for an unrelated book of the same name, I'm unable to find a single WP:RS that documents it at all, even in passing. Loafiewa (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM and WP:BEFORE. The large number of awards won by this appear to be non-notable (such as minor festivals and student awards). Anonymous 7481 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 00:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mamre Road

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

Non-notable ROTM road, sources cited are close and primary, and a search finds nothing more than a few mentions of the planned upgrade, which aren't sigcov — fails WP:GNG / WP:GEOROAD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generic roadway with no indication of importance. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another road with no sourced indication of notability. Coverage of upgrades and such are routine, and the only other mentions I find are passing. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:BEFORE, more time should be given to allow the article to grow. This was nominated hours after creation. Looks like there will be more coverage soon if that upgrade goes ahead too. NemesisAT (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BEFORE C.2 allows some latitude for new articles on subjects which can be shown or assumed to be notable. I moved this AfD on the basis of prior search, which suggested the subject is not notable; that is unlikely to change by passage of time alone. If the road one day does prove notable, an article can always be created then. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mamre (homestead) is notable, and I'm finding some coverage for a "Mamre Road Precinct" that is a neighborhood of some sort, but the road itself does not appear to be notable. Hog Farm _Talk 22:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete, but I've also left a post at WT:AURD in case there is something that we're missing. --Rs chen 7754 06:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While notability of a road is hard to define, this one has the following in its favour in addition to the proposed upgrade:
- It provides access to Mamre (homestead), and should be linked from there to remove “orphan” status.
- It must have existed in some form from the earliest days of settlement, and some documentation should be findable.
- If so, some history could be added to the article.
- With a length of 13.3 km there must be historical info about other parts of the road further south than the homestead. Downsize43 (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (Not indenting as it looks odd with the indenting style used above.) While the homestead itself is certainly notable, a road that provides access to it (even if it shares the name) would presumably not automatically inherit notability based on that fact alone. Also, the last three of your bullet points are hypotheticals that aren't supported by a WP:BEFORE investigation and are almost a reverse form of crystal balling. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Materialscientist (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayan Nayak

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

No reliable sources presented. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clear failure of WP:NACTOR. No reliable sources presented and according to non-reliable source IMDb has appeared in two films. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7- This a pure vanity page for an actor which has not achieved the coverage or employ to meet the criteria for inclusion of WP:NACTOR or the WP:GNG. There is even a lack of anything that is significant eluded to in the article eligible for CSD A7, however with that being said I see no issue with this discussion running its course to firm in on the deletion front and potentially salting the title of the author who has already been blocked for removing the AFD tag comes back and tries to promote themselves again. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NACTOR... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never Not Funny

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The article could potentially be kept based on WP:WEBCRIT except none of the awards listed have working citations and The People's Choice Podcast Award as well as the Weblog Award were nominations not wins. Even if this article is kept it needs extensive trimming and maintence. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The GNews link produces some good pieces off the bat from Vulture and LAist here and here. From Newspapers.com, the LA Times covered it pretty well in an overall Pardo piece on Friday, May 13, 2011 p. D3 titled "Jimmy Pardo is Warming Up" by Deborah Vankin if you want to search the website (I don't want to use up a free article). No issue with a significant trim, though. -- 2pou (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple more newspaper pieces: from The Gazette (Cedar Rapids) Sun, Oct. 29, 2016 p. 2C "Pardo never not funny" and Active Dayton Fri, Apr 18, 2014 p. 16 "'Never Not Funny' comedian comes to Wiley's". They may be available online. -2pou (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I did a thorough search before doing the nomination, but I don't know how I could have totally missed those Google News articles. I would agree that the subject is notable now based on these sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by 2pou. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete G5 by RoySmith after being moved into draftspace by Discospinster (non-admin closure). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WCC-FM

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

I considered moving this to draft, however, the creator has continually moved the article around all sorts of different Wikipedia spaces already so I have no doubt that it would get moved out of draft. Also, a WP:BEFORE search has yielded zero reliable sources about this radio station so I do not believe that the topic has any potential merit and I believe deletion is preferable to draftification in such instances. No evidence of WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - related SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/85.5 FOR LA Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Permanently salt A three-letter call station would not launch with new call letters in 2021, nor would a St. Louis station (which couldn't have a W-prefixed call anyways) somehow serve Los Angeles (though it's been deleted in article space, it's still in the history of the latest sock's sandbox). Enough of this, 85.5 will persist on this article and it needs to be put out of its misery. I'm also loathing the new preference of putting 100% clear hoaxes into draftspace. Nate • (chatter) 22:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. We should also salt Draft:WCC-FM. Enough is enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Girls Foundation

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

Non-notable organization, fails both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Very little non-trivial coverage and few non-passing mentions, so very few reliable sources exist. Curbon7 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like it easily passes WP:GNG; is this a case of WP:HEY? Curbon7, what's your concern with the existing sourcing? Looks to me like a journalistic profile and several journalistic covers of org activities. Suriname0 (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage exists, although some sections are unsourced and probably need more citations or shortening. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while the article definitely needs more sources, the sources currently there do show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splatter: Love, Honor and Paintball

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. –Mario Mario 456 16:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found one review here. Are there any others? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after a lot of researching I could only find reviews from self-published websites like blogspot, which is unreliable. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrafficDito

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

Fails WP:GNG, no third-party reliable sources could be retrieved providing in-depth coverage of this startup-created website/app. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched it on the App Store and there were no results. I don't think the website is even live. I assume the project is dead. There are also no available news or articles, HiwilmsTalk 19:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided in the article are primary, and there appears to be no other coverage. While notability is not temporary, this does not appear to have been notable back when the article was created, let alone now. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a guide of a non-notable app. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the app aside from a Tech in Asia article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Batman supporting characters. Daniel (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Essen

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

I am skipping PROD since this is a Batman character, but I doubt there is much to do here. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The article doesn't have any development/reception section, all I am seeing are plot summaries, and a minor one at that. A redirect to List of Batman supporting characters is probably the best option here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Redirection is not accomplished by deletion. If we were to merge the topic then a better target would be James Gordon (character) but as that page is over 100K, we're best leaving well alone. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons designated by Andrew Davidson. To keep relevant information much material would have to be redirected to the James Gordon (character) page, which could make it unwieldy.Bjones (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an argument for keeping. If there is too much WP:ALLPLOT-summarizing WP:FANCRUFT, it just has to be pruned away. We are not fandom and we are not a repository of excessive plot summaries. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Article largely relies on primary sources, and the article from Variety only briefly discusses the character. Fails notability guidelines. Waxworker (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to List of Batman supporting characters - Nearly all of the sources are primary, and the only one currently that isn't is just passing coverage. Searching for any additional sources turns up more of the same - outside of primary sources and plot summaries, there is only brief mentions of the character in reliable, secondary sources. The character is currently only listed on the Batman supporting characters list without any additional information, so merging a couple of sentences describing who she is would probably be needed. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman supporting characters as it seems the article does not pass GNG and the character list is a natural alternative to deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the suggestions of @Andrew Davidson: and @Bjones: or merge with List of Batman supporting characters while placing all her media appearances in her section like they did with Vesper Fairchild. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman supporting characters as it seems, the article does not pass GNG or merge if someone can find something to rescue here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NeuroQuantology

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

This article is promoting a SCAM journal that does not exist as journal with published article content. Instead, all DOI links resolve at a single title page at https://neuroquantology.com/. Archives link from the journal home page goes to https://neuroquantology.com/archives.php and reloads SCAM advertisements luring unsuspecting authors to submit their work for profit. The journal was de-listed from Web of Science because of the 2018 introduction of Article Processing Charge of 2500 GBP and publishing 390 articles in the year from Asian authors on topic that have nothing to do with the aim and scope. In the context that other issues contains at most 10-12 articles, particularly notorious is the monthly issue NeuroQuantology volume(16) issue(6) with 148 articles exclusively with Chinese authors, all of these 148 works can be verified as titles and authors in Scopus. From within Scopus, where the journal is still indexed, one can see how the article numbers varied for different years: 2021 (41), 2020 (126), 2019 (94), 2018 (390), 2017 (69), 2016 (69), 2015 (51), 2014 (52), 2013 (61), 2012 (77). Because the journal has no article contents online, I recommend Deletion from Wikipedia as it serves to promote the SCAM in Asian countries.

Fact 1: The Website home page fraudulently advertises Impact Factor and rotates without permission logo of Clarivate. Whoever maintains the site is fully aware that the journal is delisted from Web of Science and no longer has impact factor. This fact, shows intention behind the action.
Fact 2: The Website home page fraudulently advertises indexing by PubMed. This fact, also shows intention behind the action.

EleOk6e3ih (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: Delete SCAM. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while scam is a bit harsh, and items published in the journal have had some media attention (from The Washington Post to The Sun (NSFW)), on searching the internet and perusing the Scopus profile I don't quite see how this passes GNG or WP:NJOURNAL.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It doesn't matter if it's a scam or not, a notable scam would still be notable. If anyone can find really good references indicating that this is an example of a scam publication that sets the standard for scamming and is a notable scam, it would deserve its WP article as a scam. But as a journal it doesn't. I can't find it in WoS's list of journals. Scijournal give it a dismal citation index, indicating that few people are referring to it; it therefore fails on criteria of being considered a reliable and influential source in its subject area, and in being frequently cited; it certainly isn't historically important either, which is the 3rd journal criterion. Elemimele (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to re-think my feeling on this, in view of @Headbomb's comments; the article is a fair reflection on the history of a pseudoscience clap-trap journal that does indeed appear to stand out of the crowd. Maybe it does qualify as a notable clap-trap. weak keep Elemimele (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, Elemimele. Just click on the link inside the article which says Journal archive: I copied it from the article here [12] Do you see the Journal archive - No? This is not a journal, this is a website for scamming researchers who want to submit their work somewhere. Having a Wikipedia entry just helps the scammers. Also, just open the journal homepage and see what animated adds go there [13] The animated gif starts with SCAM "Clarivate Analytics 2017 Journal Citation Reports Impact Factor 0.453" and then "Welcome to the Future of Science". The journal has no right to use logo of Clarivate at all, and it is a fraudulent practice to show Impact Factor from 2017 knowing very well that the journal is delisted from Web of Science and will never be listed again. I disagree with the judgement of Headbomb. This Wikipedia entry is not useful to anyone besides the scammers. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you if the article said nice things about the journal, but it doesn't. It describes it very clearly as a journal with a deeply troubled history facing serious accusations of publishing pseudo-science nonsense. I can't see how the WP article could conceivably be seen as helping scammers; it's the very opposite of promotional. I would delete if this were just yet another junk journal, but it does seem to stand out of the crowd and take junkiness to a whole new (notable) level. Elemimele (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are so many junk journals polluting the academic scientific scene at present that for any one of them to have an article to itself it would need to be very prominent. This one isn't. Athel cb (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a journal of nonsense, but a notable one being indexed in Scopus (and in the past in Web of Science/JCR), and is relatively well cited [14] for a nonsense journal. Coverage in The Lancet Neurology and others makes this pass WP:GNG handily. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Headbomb, please see my reply to Elemimele above, and just please click on the above links to see what I am talking about. First, this is not a journal -- it is a fraudulent website with predatory OA clickbait showing invalid Impact factor. Second, who does this Wikipedia article benefit? Certainly not me and you or anyone who comes to learn from Encyclopedia. Having a list of fraudulent sites and notorious scammers is one thing, but having a Wikipedia entry for every predatory OA journal is another. It is quite sad that Jeffrey Beall was forced to shut down his famous list --otherwise the journal would have been classified as predatory and immediately deleted per Wikipedia guidelines. And here is my challenge to you: Give me one example of a journal that has article in Wikipedia, which rotates animated GIF with a fraudulent Impact Factor on its home page. This sole fact says a lot - SCAM and not an academic journal. Whoever runs the website is fully aware of the fact that the journal is delisted from Web of Science, but does not care for those who will submit! Second challenge: give me one example of a journal that has article in Wikipedia, which is not indexed in PubMed, but fraudulently advertises on its home page that it is indexed in PubMed using without any permission the PubMed logo. Give me the examples, by pointing to Wikipedia articles and I will reconsider my vote. p.s. I have revised my rationale for the nomination for deletion explicitly formulating Facts 1 and 2. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"this is not a journal" It is a journal, or at least was one at some point in the past. The impact factor is likewise not "invalid", it is dated. The journal was covered by JCR even if it no longer is. As it being considered predatory or not, we've got plenty of articles about nonsense journals, like Journal of Cosmology or African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines. Lastly, concerning "promoting SCAM journals or whatever", this article is far from promotional, and I'd question the sanity of anyone reading this article and concluding that NeuroQuantology is a reputable venue to publish your research in. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Headbomb. It's actually a fairly prominent venue for this particular kind of nonsense. (As experience trying to clean this kind of nonsense off of Wikipedia has made clear over the years.) It's better that we document the scam rather than ignore it, and we have the references necessary to do so. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This actually made me pause and reconsider my vote. I'm still undecided, on the one hand this non-journal sounds like Medical Hypotheses if it was published by Deepak Chopra. On the other hand, Wikipedia has articles on those topics as well. But this still carries the risk that it might become a magnet for True Believers. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's always that risk, but empirically speaking, it seems to have been pretty stable. XOR'easter (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This fringe-science journal is indexed by Scopus, was indexed by the Science Citation Index Expanded (notability is not temporary), and even attracted attention from The Lancet Neurology. We have plenty of articles that are magnets for "True Believers". The solution is not to delete them but put them on your watchlist... As for the PubMed logo, I think that is owned by the US government and in that case is in the public domain. In any case, it's not Wikipedia's task to correct copyright infringements on third party websites. --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The logo itself may be in the public domain, but the impostor action does not become less fraudulent if the logo is free or not. I have revised the text of Fact 2 to be pedantically correct. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, if you look at the journal's NLM catalog entry you will see that some of its articles are indexed in PubMed. Not that it means much, this is because PubMed indexes PubMed Central (PMC), which accepts almost all articles published OA if financed by public US money. The important thing here is that the journal is not in MEDLINE, which in contrast to PMC is selective. As for your edit summary about OR: "click on the link" and look for your self is more or less a textbook example of OR. For all we know they have a computer problem and this is a transient error. --Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Randykitty, but I am afraid that you are not in the academic publishing business - therefore, you misunderstand the terms. "Indexing" by a service means that a journal is selected for inclusion after passing a set of inclusion criteria and passing formal evaluation by the agency, in this case PubMed. So, what I wrote is literally exact - NeuroQuantology is NOT indexed by PubMed. If you visit this PubMed official link you will read: "Not currently indexed for MEDLINE." However, it is mandated that articles funded by NIH have to be deposited in PubMed central. So, a couple of authors have reported NIH funding in order to get their articles in PubMed central, thereby circumventing the fact that a given trash journal is not indexed. This is how people can bend the rule and corrupt any evaluation system by finding exploitable loopholes in existing practices. If you do proper Search in PubMed as follows you will see only 3 abstracts appearing in 2011 and 2012. I think that the PubMed has realized the loophole and closed it for this journal. I hope that my explanation helps. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see I'll have to address my ignorance about academic publishing to counter your superior knowledge. However, "I think that the PubMed has realized the loophole and closed it for this journal" is pure speculation. A more parsimonious explanation would be that the journal simply did not publish any other articles financed by the US government, instead of being banned by PMC (a rare event; I only know of one publisher who had that happen to them: OMICS Publishing Group, but there may be a few more). Of course, that is pure speculation, too. As long as we don't have a reliable source clarifying what is going on, there's nothing that we can say with confidence. --Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I remember that you have been mistaken by others with a famous person who worked as a librarian in Denver. So, I accept that you are knowledgeable of the publishing business and because of that there is nothing more that I want to add. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry Randykitty, but I am afraid that you are not in the academic publishing business" is a pretty laughable claim to those of us who know Randykitty is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is interesting, from the standpoint that a bunch of harmful bunk has gained as much prominence and attention as it has. Honestly makes me quite mad due to my personal experience with the harm of stuff like this within my family. Nevertheless, noteworthyness has been well-explained by others here and I agree with them. Noteworthy is noteworthy. I also agree that given the prominence of this nonsense, it is better to have a wikipage on it so a neutral overview of what it actually is can easily be found, and possibly dissuade an uncertain person from falling for pseudoscience. I would hope that in the (near)future this article would be expanded and cleaned up nicely to include critizims the scientific community may have levied on this journal. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 08:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:FRINGE. I don't see how waiving your hands around saying that this could be improved works. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither spam, nor is there anything in WP:FRINGE that prohibits covering fringe topics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be spam if the people who run NeuroQuantology had written an article about how awesome NeuroQuantology is. This article is not that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination Ratnahastin(Cont) (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What, precisely, about the nomination makes the case that the journal is not notable? It makes an argument that the journal is not respectable, but that's a completely orthogonal question. And it admits that the journal is indexed in Scopus, which we generally take to be a sign of notability. Frankly, all that deleting this article would accomplish would be to make information showing that NeuroQuantology is not respectable harder to find, thereby assisting what the nomination calls a "SCAM" operation. XOR'easter (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Headbomb. Not covered under WP:FRINGE, and predatory journals can still be notable. Suriname0 (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is in Scopus and the subject of substantial coverage regarding how bad it is. That plus the need to have neutral coverage to cite in project discussions when people propose it as a source, justifies a keep. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@力: what substantial coverage? The coverage in The Lancet Neurology is limited to a single sentence: "January witnessed the launch of NeuroQuantology, an e-journal devoted to quantum neuroscience" (next sentence: "March saw the week-long Quantum Mind conference at the University of Arizona bringing in the crowds.") in "The last word" section (which coveres the fringe phenomena of "Quantum theories of consciousness" at large). Other than that we have skepticaleducator.org, which is a personal website, that devotes more space to this. A journal being indexed in Scopus or other databases, all with a low to non-existent impact factor, is not sufficient as it does not demonstrate impact. This level of sourcing does not demonstrate WP:GNG.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does demonstrate impact, actually. And yes, it does meet WP:GNG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A single sentence mention in The Lancet Neurology comprehensibly fails significant coverage (GNG), leaving us with skepticaleducator.org which is questionable in terms of reliability and significance. This predatory journal may have gotten non-nil coverage, but it still very close to nil. Basing a GNG claim off of a post on skepticaleducator.org is very weak. I'll flip my !vote if you show actual in-depth coverage.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 05:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Eostrix, the coverage in Lancet Neurology is hardly significant. Being listed in Scopus or Web of Science is directory-type information. It does not justify notability any more than a listing in the Yellow Pages justifies notability of a company. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that is not correct. To be listed by Scopus or one of the databases included in the Web of Science means that a journal has undergone an in-depth evaluation. This is therefore significantly more than a "directory-type" listing. Think of it as kind of an award (and in addition, those databases provide an in-depth analysis of citations to and from a listed journal, so it's not just a "directory listing" in that sense either). --Randykitty (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- According to Scopus, they have 23,542 journals in the database [15], so it is clear they are aiming to be comprehensive and inclusive. It is not an award or an honor list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of more than an estimated 100,000 academic journals at least, so Scopus is far from comprehensive... --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments for deletion are based on notability guidelines and are thus overall stronger than the arguments for keeping, which are primarily based on the fact that the individual statistics can themselves be sourced. WP:NLIST states One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, so coverage for the topic as a whole, not for the individual data points, it what is needed. Hog Farm _Talk 05:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of country subdivisions by population

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

WP:OR. This is made blatantly obvious by the fact that it cobbles together figures from different years, from 2017 to 2021 for one table and from 2011 to 2021 for the other. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Fails WP:NLIST too: no other such a ranking, as at least one keep lvoter has admitted. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article with original research issues is not a reason to delete an article. It should be addressed for sure, but deleting the article is unnecessarily drastic. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I apologize, but this article doesn't even have original research issues. Every single population figure used inside the article is cited correctly (in fact the tables used have their own Citation column). To an attributable source. Just click the Citation and you'll see a published reliable official source for the data! If you're talking about area figures, capitals, and largest cities, answers to those are typically found on the country subdivisions Wikipedia page itself. If you'd like me to add the source linking each of those specifically I'd be more than happy to do it (IMO it's overkill but if it keeps the page from being deleted its worth it)

And the other point you mentioned (which does not relate at all to the allegation of "original research" by the way), the source using different years for different subdivisions, these are just the limitations we have to work with. Not all countries release population estimates for their subdivisions as often as we'd like them to, or around the same times, and there are no international organizations which reliably make population estimates worldwide for country subdivisions, only countries. There is a methodology on which figures are used (stated in the introductory paragraph of the article), being the latest official governmental figures in every single case. In fact, this is the same methodology used used the list "List of countries and dependencies by population". We can see figures cobbled together between 2019 and 2021 (the only reason some countries don't have figures dating before 2019 in fact is that the United Nations does make reliable estimates for every country in the world, we can't use their estimates for subnational entities because they don't exist) in this list. Would you like to delete that list too?

I contend that the current methodology that we have in place is good enough for the article. If you have better ideas for which we can get the same date for every subdivision, I'd love hearing them. Thanks, Abbasi786786 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have either of you even read WP:OR? You are ranking "most populous administrative country subdivisions" (England???), which nobody else has (2021 apples vs. 2011 oranges). This piecing together of made-up rankings constitutes "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has only been ranked the way nobody else has the same way the List "List of the largest country subdivisions by area" hasn't been ranked by any organization. While the individual sources themselves on either article do not go by themselves to list every other country or country subdivisions, a larger, more clear picture is provided by putting the sources together with a consistent methodology. Is there anybody who's gonna deny that Uttar Pradesh is the most populated country subdivision in the world? Or that Presidency Division is the most populous country subdivision on the second level? We got sources to back this data up, and these are facts that belong in an encyclopedia. It feels somewhat excessive to follow these rules that we can do zero extrapolation of data to the letter (especially in cases where there are clear conclusions to be drawn like here). If you don't like the definitions that are used for country subdivisions, such as England being one of them, or 2011 data being used (this is the most recent data available) go ahead and debate that in the talk page so we can come up with a better solution. BTW this page has been around for a decade at this point. Why get rid of it now? -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You admit it's original research ("ranked the way nobody else has"), and you're still okay with that? Also, WP:ITSBEENHEREFOREVER means nothing. Lots of examples of vandalism have been undetected for a decade. Should we ignore them too? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions.

Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, everything cited, no real concerns from my point of view, at least. Issues mentioned by the nominator can be fixed without deletion. --littleb2009 (^she/_her) (talk • contribs) 19:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You can click any of the things on the list and see what the most updated population of them is in their main articles, if anyone wants to make certain its all accurate and up to date. No valid reason given to delete this clearly notable topic. Dream Focus 23:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list meets the notability criteria because each group is referenced. Lack of population update in some cities is not a plausible reason to delete the article. Per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal. I could rank fictional aliens by number of appendages. That also could be verified (and more accurately than this list). Doesn't mean the ranking is notable. Show me a sociologist or geographer who employs this ordering. Comparisons of like regions, e.g. the 50 United States, make sense; mashups like this don't. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like I'm going to be in the minority here, but I find the nominator's WP:NLIST rationale deeply convincing. As appears to be uncontested, no reliable sources have ever discussed the populations of these subdivisions as a set. (The references only cite randomly plucked statistics from individual countries, and my searching finds nothing.) That means that, under NLIST, the article has to go, regardless of any OR issues. I hope the closer recognizes that the notability argument here has gone essentially unrebutted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. I currently lean towards delete per WP:NLIST. Administrative divisions are a discussed topic, but this article has no sources defining the "group or set" as needed per NLIST. It even violates its own arbitrary rules by including England, as mentioned above. I did find this paper, and note it explicitly mentions the apples to oranges comparisons that these studies run into, and it specifically curates which countries it does detailed analysis on. Would be interested in seeing other sources, that might identify a group or set that could be used for this article. CMD (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Extraordinary Writ and CMD.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am tempted to say because it is a complete f***ing mess, but I agree with Extraordinary Writ and CMD. This should not be on WP. --Bduke (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems like a contrived topic for a list. See also the (semi?-)related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political and geographical subdivisions by population. Geschichte (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List doesn't make sense to me and seems like there no evidence this dataset has ever been used in this fashion. Sasquatch t|c 02:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Cornwall

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. A quick Google search returns mostly a different William Cornwall (1609 – 1678), founder of Hartford, Connecticut. There is one reference on the Wikipedia page -- to a book I cannot verify (Methodism in Galway, Dudley Levistone Cooney [1978]) and so cannot ascertain how important that reference finds him. He also appears to be briefly mentioned in Methodism and Politics in British Society 1750-1850 by David Hempton (2009), though I can only get a book preview there so it is again unclear how important the subject is. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In terms of the notability claims in the article, and while I'm unclear what claim to notability could be made, that the subject was a member of a particular religion (or even a minister or missionary for that faith) wouldn't seem to be a claim to notability which would even pass WP:A7. Or WP:CLERGY. Otherwise, in terms of the sources to support the article/notability/etc, I'm not seeing any. At all. The only source listed in the article, Methodism in Galway (1978; Cooney), is not a book. But a pamphlet. Containing 38 pages. While it does seem to be held by several libraries in Ireland, and I haven't "checked it out" to verify, even if the subject is mentioned in that work, it seems unlikely that (even if the entirety of the 38 page pamphlet was dedicated to the subject) that it would constitute WP:SIGCOV. Not seeing it. Mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, didn't pass WP:CLERGY and I couldn't find sufficient sources for it to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnab Mitra

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, sources in the article and from a search are either in passing, unreliable or primary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7, non-notable ROTM businessperson, search finds nothing that comes even close to meeting GNG (and that can be reasonably assumed to relate to this particular individual). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a search for sources doesn't find anything that helps towards WP:GNG, and the article doesn't make any claim that would satisfy WP:ANYBIO. --bonadea contributions talk 06:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Ezhava

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

Proposing the deletion of Sanjay Ezhava the owner of Surat Airport Action Committee. Not famous. RPSkokie (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RPSkokie: I've fixed your nomination, which did not follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion § How to nominate a single page for deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your help. Read and activated twinkle from preferences link. TW>XFD>AFD>Add reason>Submit Query RPSkokie (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reason to have this article, person is not notable, or recognizable enough to have a Wikipedia article. It only cited one primary source, and now the article is empty. There is no point on the article existing. Clear friend a ^💬 12:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 11:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 11:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM. I can't in any stretch see how a PR person who is pushing for the creation of an airport to support commercial interests is encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. JGHowes ^talk 00:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surat Airport Action Committee

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

Proposing the deletion of Surat Airport Action Committee. Not famous. RPSkokie (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RPSkokie: I've fixed your nomination, which did not follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion § How to nominate a single page for deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM. It seems to be some sort of for-profit advocacy group to build an airport. How is that notable? Bearian (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Manogaran

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

This BLP has been at the back of the NPP queue for months. From the lead section the subject sounds like he may well be notable though the sourcing is poor and I can’t find any better sources. There may be more about him in Tamil that I can’t read. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jemma Kidd. The "keep" arguments are weak: Who's Who, Daily Mail, "there are few". Sandstein 08:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Wellesley, Earl of Mornington

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

Not notable in his own right. He is a courtesy earl but there is no certainty that he will become a Duke and we should cross that bridge when we come to it. For now he doesn't seem notable (other than for who his father is) and I don't believe he passes WP:GNG. Very distantly in line to the British throne, like 485th as of 2011. Uhooep (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as he has an entry in UK Who's Who https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U28126 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned elsewhere having a UK Who's Who entry is not one of WP's notability criteria Uhooep (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid criterion - David Gerard (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lot of coverage in the Daily Mail, which admittedly doesn't count for notability itself, but suggests that there may be similar coverage in reliable sources: Griffiths, Charlotte (2021-06-06). "Earl of Mornington is seen holidaying in Ibiza with an employee". Mail Online. Retrieved 2021-07-01. and Griffiths, Charlotte (2017-05-07). "GIRL ABOUT TOWN: Family in legal row with Jemma Kidd may lose £2m home". Mail Online. Retrieved 2021-07-01.; also "MOVES-Oakley Capital Private Equity names new partner". Reuters. 2017-02-07. Retrieved 2021-07-01. ; also Venning, Nicola (December 8, 2013). "It's the model family home". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 2021-07-01. ; also ^[1] ; also a Google search through the Daily Telegraph's archives Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- From the deprecation: "the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability" - you're arguing against your own case here. And being in The Mail does not indicate BLP-quality coverage exists elsewhere David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Jemma Kidd. I can't find much about him outside the Daily Mail. An Elle Decor article even gives first billing to his wife.[16] If and when they make a Duke of Earl Mornington, maybe this could be revisited. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Clarityfiend - there's little evidence as yet of anything up to scratch to even have a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Turner, Janice (15 September 2007). "High society". The Times. Retrieved 2021-07-01.

Keep- there are relatively few marquesses (a title he doesn't but could use) in the UK, and this guy will be a duke, which is even less common, and Duke of Wellington is one of the most prestigious titles in the UK. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment: He's a courtesy earl, it's like a title while waiting to inherit the family title. As mentioned previously, there is no guarantee of ultimately inheriting the family title. Uhooep (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW, WP:IAR. The tagger, CatFly86 (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, making this nomination moot. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar (organization)

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

I declined an A7 tag, tagger reverted it, so here we are. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While written with a subtle promotional undertone, it doesn't seem blatant. I think it's a borderline pass of WP:GNG considered in light of WP:ORGCRITE. As this source states, the organisation received national coverage on the NBC, and there are other sources in the article. I also would have contested the A7 tag, as claims of significance are asserted via the sources in the article. Local Variable (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any promotion is completely unintentional. Could you point out sentences you think are problematic? I moved to Cincinnati in 2019 and came across this really interesting article about the Over-The-Rhine neighborhood when I was learning more about local history. Most of the national-level coverage of Mortar is positive, but I also included coverage stating that only 7% of its participants were from OTR. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)·[reply]

It was more of a holistic impression I got reading the article. Although, as you've asked, I'll try pin it on something. I think interweaving quotes from the founders doesn't help - it makes it look a bit PR-like. It is so very subtle that I considered not even mentioning it, and views may differ. Anyway, certainly not a factor counting in favour of deletion. To avoid doubt, I didn't intend to suggest any impropriety on your part. Sorry if that's what was conveyed. Local Variable (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination does not give a reason to delete and so there is no case to answer. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, No reason was given because the nomination was procedural, your complaint should be redirected towards CatFly86 (talk · contribs) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - user:CatFly86 is effectively an SPA/newbie who has not come here to explain themselves. This nomination has no sponsor to speak for it and I'm not wasting my time guessing. Procedurally this is absurd as, per WP:BEFORE, nominators are supposed to do due diligence, not just edit war some complaint and then run away. The topic here is a respectable organisation doing good work for minorities, supported by people like Obama and winning an MLK award. The page has plenty of sources and so a strong case is needed for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how this meets WP:NORG (and larger WP:GNG). WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not explain clearly how the organization is important to others. It should be either deleted or expanded from reliable sources.

HappyMouse2 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyMouse2: please note I have moved your comment to the bottom of the page (rather than above the relisting notification) and have changed it to a bullet - see WP:AFDFORMAT. Local Variable (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article meets notability with several large articles about it. If anything the article could be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiddleheadLady (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sehat.com.pk

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP as it lacks reliable sources that provide independent and significant coverage. Notices of website launch and passing mentions are far from the level of coverage expected under WP:CORPDEPTH. The article creator is/was an employee of the parent company according to their user page declaration. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a promo page.EleOk6e3ih (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holdstrong

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can find no significant coverage online (closest thing is this short review) or other evidence of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - unable to find any indications of notability for this band. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I can find is the one short review also located by the nominator, and the band is only visible is the usual streaming directories and a few reminiscences from fans of their local scene. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 00:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pep/7

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years, and as far as I can see, this is not neglect but lack of notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a couple of references suggesting that it did actually exist so it is WP:V verifiable. But I don't see where it gained traction or notability. Fails WP:GNG for the computer related subject. Not that that is a similar usage Pep - 7 in non computing subjects that may or may not be notable. The article and incoming links are all computer related. Jeepday (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lucy Porter#Career as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many Questions

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, fails WP:GNG and is insignificant. Can't find more good sources and the wiki page only contains 1. Tautomers (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lucy Porter. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 00:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasm

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

Tagged with notability and unreferenced since 2011. I couldn't find any RS that support it. The sites in the external links section are just the tool's website and manuals, which doesn't establish notability afaik. (Some results on Google Scholar are about something else, which just shares the acronym.) -- LordPeterII (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. I was also not able to find any WP:RS that support the subject as written. Looking at the couple of incoming links, suggest the article is self promotion of a non-notable subject. Jeepday (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources no indication of notability Ratnahastin(Cont) (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After 19 years you find references everywhere, see https://qlforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3057&start=180 -- Polluks ★ 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please list two best sources here? Pavlor (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki, a blog and a repo -- Polluks ★ 14:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All user submited content - not reliable sources per Wikipedia definition. Any reviews or news articles in online/published magazines with editorial staff would certainly help there.

Note: Above comment by @Pavlor

@Polluks: You would need a reliable source, for example a PC magazine like C't. Blogs, repositories and the like are not allowed as sources on Wikipedia (see WP:BLOGS). I agree VASM looks like an interesting utility that has been around for a while, but it never gathered much attention outside of its userbase. Therefore, it does not warrant its own Wikipedia article. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the book in the references section? By the way c't lost its quality years ago. -- Polluks ★ 18:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a self published book - essentially worthless for notability. Pavlor (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Self-published essentially means someone voices their opinion.

@Polluks: I must admit I am quite confused about your stance here. Your participation in some other AfDs and elsewhere suggests you are well-versed, but right now you sound like you don't know about WP:SELFPUB? Maybe c't is indeed not as good as it once was, I merely used it as an example. But you clearly can not build an article exclusively on self-published content. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, how about this Vbcc#Refecences? I know, the books don't explicitly mention the assembler, but it's part of the VB toolchain. -- Polluks ★ 19:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think vasm could be mentioned in the vbcc article and its own article redirected there (eg. using some short news on amiga-news.de as a reference for their connection). Pavlor (talk) 05:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to vbcc - it's part of the vbcc toolchain and lacks the RSes needed to support an independent article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 00:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Bertolis

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

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in August 2018 and notability has been questioned since February 2019. Of the two external links, one is dead and neither link to third-party, reliable sources. I found this source via G-searches and added it to the article but I found no coverage in third-party, reliable sources. I searched under both the subject's birth name and professional name. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any notable professional appearances in the usual statistical database site searches. Looks to have just played at the amateur level. A GNG search brings up passing mentions but not enough for a GNG pass either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhimitër Antoni

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

While its clear that National Archives of Albania is notable, it's not clear that the founder is notable as notability is not inherited. The article lacks sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. A WP:Before search yielded nothing promising, but it is possible foreign language sources exist which I missed. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Sánchez

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

Fails WP:NBOX. Never held or fought for a major title. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since subject clearly meets WP:NBOXING's #1 criterion: Have fought for a world title for...[the] World Boxing Council (source). -The Gnome (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @The Gnome:. Chavez was not a title holder when Sanchez fought him in 2008....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quoting source: "Troy Wilson...tonight...takes on Albuquerque's Ray Sanchez for the World Boxing Council Youth welterweight championship." How can you take someone on for a world title if that someone, i.e. Sánchez, is not already the world title's holder? -The Gnome (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is the WBC Youth Championship actually presumed to meet GNG? And anyway even if he meets NBOXING he still must demonstrate GNG coverage; has that been found? JoelleJay (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reading the wikiproject boxing page it seems the scope applies only to amateur or professional championships; Youth is neither, so GNG can't be presumed and hasn't been demonstrated. JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A youth championship isn't enough to meet WP:NBOX and I see no evidence he meets any criteria of WP:NBOX. My search didn't find the significant, independent coverage I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. I found routine sports reporting and listings in databases, but that's not enough to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly fails NBOX. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sacha Stone

AfDs for this article:

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

according to wp:non notable, wp:fringe promotion Shrikanthv (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl by submitter was accidental AFD Shrikanthv (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The most policy-persuasive, and popularly-held, view in the below discussion is the article does not meet the notability and sourcing requirements. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cate Bauer

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

Not all actors are notable. This one had only two roles in notable works (as far as our entry is concerned), one of which was just a voice for an animated piece, the other is a single TV episode. That's scratching the barrel of being a professional actor. In other words, the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – I built this article up, and there are plenty of RSs on her already listed, including newspaper coverage from her stage career (which could be expanded upon). Fact is she had a title role in a major Disney blockbuster. If this was an article about an actress with a title role in a 2021 Disney film, nobody would be questioning the notability. We shouldn't let the fact that the film is 60 years old give weight to an unfair bias. Also has Wiki articles in 4 other languages. --Jkaharper (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is about to be deleted from Polish Wikipedia, not that it matters except cleanup will be needed in others too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep but the reliance on Ancestry.com for all the biographical details is problematic. pburka (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of high-profile roles ≠ lack of WP:NOTABILITY. It's a pretty notable voice role and this article is fine. Leaving a redlink or no link on the 101D article for her name would be an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Nate • (chatter) 20:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please show us a single reliable reference that states this was a "pretty notable voice role". That the film is relatively well known is irrelevant per WP:NOTINHERITED _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Not inherited" doesn't mean that artists aren't notable for their work. She co-starred in one highest grossing animated films of all time. pburka (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pburka, Again, that's pure not inherited speculation. Was she one of the higest paid actresses? Was her voice role one of the most widely reviewed in the movie? (Note we don't even have articles about those individual fictional characters from that movie, which suggests the role itself wasn't that notable...). That would be relevant, as it was would be about her. The fact(s) about the film are not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a screaming violation of no original research. We are using the family created obituary of her mother as a source. When you have this many primary sources used in an article that in and of itself is a sign of non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WilliamJE, I appreciate you agree with me. But since I am also a believer in WP:KEEPPER, could I trouble you to maybe clarify which of my arguments (or all?) you found convincing and such? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mere mentions are not coverage. Fails the significant coverage test. --Bejnar (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – as per my point above, I believe having a title role in a major Disney blockbuster is in itself justification for notability. You're right however on the lack of significant coverage, but that's only because the film was released 60 years ago and so there are a scarce few articles discussing the film or her stage career online. Bauer is still alive according to the residency records on Spokeo.com (which can't be used on Wiki, hence why she's in possibly living people). Given that she's 92 in September, odds are she will pass on pretty soon. When that happens, I imagine there will be plenty of coverage on her to beef up the article. Until then, more newspaper sources can be peeled from the archives. I've looked, and there are more there. --Jkaharper (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she does not pass WP:NACTRESS, and there is not the coverage necessary for her to pass GNG. If more coverage is available once she's dead, the article can be REFUNDed. At the moment, keeping the article for that reason would simply be a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are roles that make the actors playing them significant, and starring role in Disney high-grossing classics is one of them. There is also other role in a celebrated TV series. There are references in the article, and there are also references in google books. There is an argument that the character Perdita is not that notable, but it is written in the book A Brief History of Walt Disney about the dog, who voices it and how many spots the dog has, so there is non-trivial coverage even in the book about Disney and this contradicts to the statement about non-notability. Кирилл С1 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Кирилл С1, "There are roles that make the actors playing them significant" Only if there are reliable sources saying this. Nobody has presented a single source saying that her role was significant. All that remains is a WP:NOTINHERITED fallacy: "she played a role in a major film so she has to be notable by the extension". Nope, notability doesn't work like this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - But there does not necessarily need to be specifically said that the role is significant. Written text about is fine. It was written in a book about history of Disney abou the character, with Disney having made tons of films that means something. Starring role in a major film is obviously significant, and it is fair to say the film is a classical one. Кирилл С1 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of those times where a subject should be notable but isn't. She fails WP:NACTOR because she only had one notable role. She fails WP:SIGCOV because frankly the sources just aren't there. Magazine and newspaper reviews of 101 Dalmations didn't address her performance at all (I read reviews in Variety, The New York Times, etc.); making only mention of her in cast lists. Her theatre career was entirely regional at minor venues and without coverage beyond the local paper. Even books covering the film later have very little to say about her other than she was brought in to replace another actress.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is one of those times where a subject should be notable but isn't." But somehow, it sounds contradictory. If an interview, or a in-depth article emerges about her (and it is possible), that does not mean that she becomes notable then. If an actor with 100 or 150 roles gives an interview to a famous newspaper, that does not mean he was not notable before. There may be some signs of notability, when we can say that a person is notable without researching everything about person. Кирилл С1 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 19:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources used do not cover all the information used.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is the same as with numerous other articles, say Nead Beatty or Frank Bonner. There are also other sources providing information not used in the article, such as book by Thomas S. Hischak named Disney Voice Actors: A Biographical Dictionary It is written in the book that she was born in London. Кирилл С1 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Кирилл С1, "But this is the same as with numerous other articles". See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I'll paraphrase - the fact that the sources used do not cover all the information used is not connected to the notability and is not a definite argument for deletion, as we can see in other articles. There is no obligation for all the information to be covered by the references. Do you have to say something on the new source found, how does it contribute to the notability, in your opinion? Кирилл С1 (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Кирилл С1, "There is no obligation for all the information to be covered by the references". Please see WP:CITE and WP:V. And feel free to paraphrase again... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you want to comment on the source I found or should I cite what is given there - it is something that both provides verifiability and gives new facts. Кирилл С1 (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Since I don't know what source you are referring to, by all means, place list it here, with a quote if it is not open access. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The book that I mentioned earlier, Disney Voice Actors: A Biographical Dictionary by Thomas S. Hischak. It is open access. "provided the voice for London canine Perdita who gives birth to fifteen dalmatian puppets in One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)". The book can be used as reference to the role in Third Man. Кирилл С1 (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Кирилл С1, Can you link the open access page for this publication? Also, is there anything else about her in this work besides the one sentence you cite? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The page 19, it is named "Beatty 19", on it are also Barbara Beaird, John Beale and Ned Beatty. The naming is Bauer, Cate. Also, "The London-born Bauer's only other film or television credit is appearing in one episode of BBC TV series The Third Man in 1959." Кирилл С1 (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Do the found sources change your opinion? Кирилл С1 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Кирилл С1, Nope, I am sorry, one (or is it two?) sentences is not WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She played Perdita, the mother dog, in 101 Dalmatians. She is one of the higher-billed actors in that film. The film is notable not just by Wikipedia standards, but beyond. Voice roles count towards notability, but coverage of this era often didn't provide extensive reviews of the voice actors, especially if they weren't celebrity voices like her doggie husband in the movie, Rod Taylor. To be morbid: There would probably be more and possibly "enough" by some of your standards if she had died--we'd have obituaries and maybe more than that. Just saying. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing her well, but this does suggest we could draftify it for x years and then hopefully we could restore it with the new sources, assuming they appear then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perdita is a great role, no question about it. However, being in a single great role doesn't establish notability under our policies or guidelines. For that we would need more and better sourcing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per consensus we are not voting but having a discussion to ascertain the quality of arguments as viewed through the lens of policy (and guidelines). Merely asserting that there is enough coverage to justify an independent article is ultimately insufficient at AfD. This was relisted twice in order to provide the numerous people asserting that Khan qualifies for an independent article a chance to demonstrate that; only one editor attempted to do so. On the other hand a significant number of editors suggesting delete use reasons supported by our policies and guidelines. As such there is a consensus to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Khan

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

Being a founder of a newly created organization is not enough to justify notability. Fails WP:GNG. Recently moved to Draft. GermanKity (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited from the company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He got enough media coverage and also every source are reliable. So, don’t delete. P.H.TARU

Please provide WP:THREE. GermanKity (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- He got enough media coverage and also every source are reliable. So, don’t delete. FardousTWG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.25.250.246 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Keep vote by ip address. GermanKity (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the coverage seems paid and do not independent of the subject.GermanKity (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Though he's a founder of a newly created organization, this guy got some good coverage and seems like pretty much famous. Also, google search results of his name is quite vast. So, passes WP:GNG in my opinion.

Seems like this comment is added to increase the 'Keep' votes.GermanKity (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough independent news media coverage there for him from reliable newspapers and third party independent sources (8 references) to show his notability. Passes WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Few lines about Asad Qureshi below here are a left-over from the previous AfD already officially closed. The AfD closing person forgot to clean up? Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he got significant coverage from secondary, reliable and independent sources, Article passes WP:GNG. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He meets general notability guidelines; there are articles about him by secondary reliable sources.--Eastview2018 (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: useful and improve-able —¿philoserf? (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some very average-on-a-policy-level contributions above, and not enough good ones to form a consensus. Relisting for 7 days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He got enough media coverage also his foundation which meets general notability.
Keep: Significant news coverage exists. Peter303x (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had draftified it and seems like it was moved. Even if it is assumed that the project he is CEO of is notable, that also doesn't grant him automatic notability since it can't be inherited. None of the sources indicate any contribution towards notability for biographies. Randoms keeps above are distraction and should be ignored until and unless sources are presented accompanied with the logic on how that source contributes to notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Enough independent news media coverage there for him from reliable newspapers and third party independent sources to show his notability. Passes WP:GNG.Check out again and keep that article. He got coverage form 'Michigan Daily' newspaper.User:P.H.TARU (talk) 4:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

User:P.H.TARU, saying that sources exists and go and check them is not a valid argument and is simply an attempt to gaslight. Please provide them here at this discussion for everyone to look at. And you can't vote twice. You have already voted once. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments such as "Has coverage" or "meets GNG" are mostly useless. Please tell us which specific sources cover the person in sufficient detail to allow us to write an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep Check out number "1" news maybe it’s enough.
Redirect to Paani Project. The article reeks of self-promotion, as do the sources. Apart from the non-profit (which recently survived AFD), there's nothing of encyclopedic note, just some nice points for a college student's resume. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep This should have already been ended and kept with so many Keep votes. I agree with the keep voters. Here are examples of Good indepth coverage: [17], [18], [19], [20].Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those links are to a university student newspaper, and one is the sympathetic biography from an award he won. The fourth is the Jackson Citizen Patriot giving a high-school-student award to a high-school student. NONE of them are at all useful for meeting GNG. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hearing the word 'student' in above comments to de-emphasize and undermine the accomplishments of this young man. We were all students at one time or the other? How many of us were able to found a non-profit organization like he did? In my view, this young man was able to accomplish and do something extraordinary. Also The Michigan Daily was founded in 1890 and is definitely a Reliable Source from The University of Michigan - a top university of the United States. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BASIC. A promo article an unremarkable business executive; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Notability is not inherited from Paani Project, and there's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of indepth secondary sources demonstrating notability. I agree with power's analysis of the sources at 23:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC). As I noted when I relisted this a few weeks ago, there has been a barrage of poor-quality 'keep' !votes wth little or no reference to policy, and this continued post-relist too (as noted by Sandstein). Daniel (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student newspaper coverage of activties by students at an academic institution are generally not considered signs on notability. This article is overly promotional and on-encyclopedic and needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Kabeedies

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

Does not meet notability requirements. All references are to bands own publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir.copic (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator didn't sign their statement; I have corrected this. I note that The Kabeedies discography should be deleted along with this, and will be eligible for A9 if this page is deleted first. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and also delete The Kabeedies discography. It's true that they played some important festivals, but they were probably low in the schedule and usually were only mentioned as present: e.g. [21], [22]. As for their actual performances, I found this BBC review: [23], but that is all I can find that is about them specifically. Otherwise they are only visible in their own social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current state of sourcing in the article does not mean the subject is not notable. No evidence of WP:BEFORE here. There's plenty of coverage around, e.g. [24] (which confirms that the band recorded three sessions for BBC national radio), [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. --Michig (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig; WP:BEFORE was insufficient, and the band meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on new sources presented above and the fact that they played BBC radio 3 times, they meet WP:BAND. Lesliechin1 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as majority of the references supplied by Michig are small live reviews from regional news sources. Most artists who have ever played would be able to muster similar clippings. Even the BBC sources are from BBC Norfolk, a regional news outlet, and comment only on how a local band is gaining some national traction. Very small reviews of an album that did not chart nationally. There are thousands of artists from that time who could have WP:BAND if this is the standard. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, you can't also !vote Delete - your view will only be counted once. --Michig (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As there is plenty of significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG as per a source review. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There have been no reliable sources presented for analysis, nor has there been a credible refutation of the analysis presented by the nominator. By strength of argument, consensus is the topic fails MUSICBIO and GNG, and there are no other policy-based reasons presented that indicate notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea (Macedonian singer)

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 01:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes N:MUSICBIO, because her songs have charted on the Ex-Yugoslavia Artists Chart [ https://popnable.com/macedonia/artists/69979-andrea-koevska/charts]. Furius (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be coverage as well. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has seven references pointing to a range of English and Macedonian language sources... I don't find your (extremely laconic) case very persuasive. 12:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep: There are articles on Wikipedia much more irrelevant than the existence of this article. Especially about living people.Dandarmkd (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We will take a look at the references, which are shockingly bad. scope_creep^Talk 14:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ex-Yugoslavia Artists Chart is NOT a national Charts , almost all the sources on the artcle are from crappy website , this article has NO significant coverege on WP:RS, it Fails WP:GNG & WP:RS , it Fails WP:MUSICBIO i see NO evidence of Notability . the blogs and dozens of unrelieble sources provided on this article has shows NO sign of Notability , they are all unrelieble sources , from a crappy websites -- there is No significant Coverege on WP:RS, , it Fails WP:GNG & WP:RS , it Fails WP:MUSICBIO Ex-Yugoslavia Artists Chart is unrelieble charts , from another promotional site , another crappy website, wish also Fails Notability Samat lib (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Most of the sources are well-respected music blogs, including BlackPlastic, which is listed on the reputable Hype Machine. A simple google search turns up dozens of other articles in English, as well as coverage in Spanish, French, and Portuguese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davids4211 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Blogs are non-rs. There is no coverage. scope_creep^Talk 12:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article can be improved, it meets the standards for music notability. She has charted in North Macedonia multiple times and is in regular rotation on nationally recognized radio stations in Bulgaria. The citations are not to personal blogs, but industry publications. AlekGru (talk)

Above user is a 1-edit WP:SPA. Possibly a sock? scope_creep^Talk 12:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not a sock, thanks.AlekGru (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes N:MUSICBIO and good notability.Idunnox3 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability standards.davids4211 (talk)
Comment the blogs and dozens of unrelieble sources provided on this article shows NO sign of Notability , they are all sources from a crappy website, unrelieble sources , -- there is No significant Coverege on WP:RS, , it Fails WP:GNG & WP:RS , it Fails WP:MUSICBIO Ex-Yugoslavia Artists Chart is unrelieble charts , from another promotional site , another crappy websites , the topic of this article Fails Notability rules , it Fails WP:MUSICBIO . Samat lib (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets look at the ref.

Ref 1. This is review site. Doesn't have author. Looks more like a profile. It doesn't have editor.

Ref 2. Infrared magazine: Press Contact: Dawn Jones, Pressed PR Non-RS.

Ref 3. This is an annoucement.

Ref 4. This is a blog.

Ref 5. Ref 5 is Spotify. A non-notable podcast.

Ref 6. Ref 6 is an annoucement of a release of song on a clickbait site.

Ref 7. Ref 7 is the same clickbait site.

Ref 8. Ref 8. Same clickbait site.

Ref 9. Ref 9 is the same clickbait site.

Ref 10. And again the same site.

There is no sources that arenot created by PR and no secondary sources for a BLP. It is all indicate of a pop singer has only started, and there is no independent coverage. scope_creep^Talk 15:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Andrea is the only macedonian artist that launched an international career in the middle of a pandemic.

For such a short period of time she has done more than most of the local pop artists and she is constantly present on domestic radio stations as well as on pop playlists around the globe. I would not rush on deleting the page at least for a year. Don't be surprised if she represents the country on next year's Eurovision Contest. Give music a chance in these tough times for the industry.

Comment: Conversely, we could delete the page and then she can be added again in a year when she's actually notable. ExRat (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Subject meets multiple criteria for notability. Sources are in 5 languages, none from other ex-Yu countries, and include largest TV station in Albania and largest independent press agency in Bulgaria. As to the first comment, agree that ex-Yu is not a country, it's 7 countries, so it actually enhances notability. As to second comment, that site is scraping data, no reason to question its veracity, though I too find the ads annoying. Yes, subject is relatively new, but has had 7 songs chart, with coverage around the world. If time were spent culling through other Macedonian artists with entries, at least 95 percent, probably more, do not have this level of notability or accomplishment.AlekGru (talk)

Where is the coverage? Put up three references per WP:THREE so we can have look at them. Quality references are important for a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AlekGru, you don't get two votes in a deletion discussion. You have already voted once. ExRat (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of the references that meet notability for WP:MUS for being a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment on national TV (refs 9, 14, 15, 23 and 27), I would choose 9 - a 20+ minute (redacted, so the original is likely longer) appearance on one of the most popular shows on Televizioni Klan, Albania's largest broadcaster. Hundreds of thousands watch live, YT subscribers number over 1.3 million, and it's virtually unheard of to invite a Macedonian guest, particularly one who is not of ethnic Albanian origin. Of the music reviews that contain original material (refs 4, 5, 7, 8, and 30), I would pick 30, though the others would work as well, as it also confirms national radio rotation (a second, unneeded qualification for WP:MUS notability) in Bulgaria and Macedonia. Of the podcasts, I would choose ref 12, a U.S. podcast broadcast regularly for 7+ years and distributed on multiple platforms. I would note that this subject has dozens of other source materials, including other national TV and radio appearances, and the article can continue to be improved. The article is vastly more sourced than any other subject listed on Macedonian pop singers, and subject is notable now as having put together the best year of any Macedonian pop singer since Toše Proeski.AlekGru (talk)

Remember to add a signature. There five references are all Yutube videos.

Ref 9 has 64k views, which is not indicative of rising pop star,
Ref 4 is a blog is WP:SPS and non-rs.
Ref 14 has been watched by 217 people.
Ref 15 by 73 people.
Ref 23 is facebook. It is non-RS. I don't know who got to add this in, but they have no idea of wikipedia policies.
Ref 27 by 1219 people.
Ref 4, 5 and 7 are junk.

These are very very low viewing for a supposed muscian. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and more so WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 03:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The viewing numbers of the YouTube videos (and the fact that they are YouTube videos) isn't really relevant if they are copies of segments broadcast on national TV (we don't care how many people read a published book on google books, we only care that it has been published). Furius (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do. When there is nobody watching it, there is no fans. That is the core it. Only fans generate coverage. Magazines and Newspapers don't generate coverage unless fans first generate some waves. Up until that point they are unknown as this person is. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:No, you are making up guidelines that do not exist, and you are not addressing the argument that was made (ie, YT views are irrelevant, when it's a re-broadcast from a major station, which is true. There is a reason the guidelines state national broadcaster). You asked for WP:THREE, and got refs 9, 12, and 30. Your only response to these is to the YouTube views on a popular show on the largest broadcaster in Albania that is watched by hundreds of thousands of people live. Your conclusions are overly broad and not justified by the guidelines. Televizioni Klan is a reliable source, it is a national broadcaster, and she received significant coverage on it. She is the subject of multiple appearances on national broadcasters and is in rotation on multiple national radio stations. All of this in more than one country. This meets multiple stated criteria of notability WP:MUSICBIO despite your protestations.AlekGru (talk)

Dude, if I thought for 1 second that she was notable, I would be fighting to keep the article, you can be sure of that. scope_creep^Talk 14:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is very poorly sourced, and much of it is unsourced completely. If it must be kept, I would suggest strongly that the closing admin stubbify this page. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Bearian, a very very poorly-sourced BLP, no WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources (instead the keep !voters seem to be trying to slide through blogs, social media, etc. as RS). Daniel (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ahsanullah2015 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Ugale

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

The article is on a non notable businessperson who has mostly received sponsored coverage. Couldn't locate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep the person is notable businessman and is covered by many Indian newspapers and magazines. Many sources are offline, but I am sharing some for Wikipedians reference.

i. Young boy has started a company which has made more than 30 software, published in Punyanagri (Marathi) on 13 May 2019 (Scanned copy link:https://drive.google.com/file/d/11sjkzeOIRlskq3-kYcyxSQt83pG5W-FY/view)

ii. Farmer's son has launched home security app, editor: Amol Yadav, published on 20 June 2020 (Scanned copy link:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-SU9zHtg826Z4b4U8MGC_vgAvXM6yuIn/view)

iii. Software company's turnover now over 1 CR annually, writer: Vilas Patil, published on 6 May 2019 in Deshdoot (Scanned copy link:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_7BUl5GPMs1w31MWdijvijrY80vdlwQs/view)

Looking forward to positive comments from Wikipedians. 182.70.36.210 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP all. Offline sources are obvious examples. Gondulfo Cortesi (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Gondulfo Cortesi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Keep. The person is a notable businessman and is regularly featured in Hindi-language. Upon searching in Hindi sources I stumbled upon this source. Easily passes WP:GNG. 122.162.179.48 (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sufficiently happy with the "keep" comments so far, more discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources cited in the article itself alone, but even further clinched by those additional sourced linked to in this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources are either paid partnerships or unreliable. I don't think a few hundred words in a non-national newspaper count demonstrate notability. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 13:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4. I've tidy-up the article. We have to find Hindi/Gujarati-speaking person before we decide offline sources are reliable/or-not. 2A00:23C8:2218:CE01:86EA:97FF:FE95:C39A (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Berrely. This one seems have an extensive promotional coverage and the article is entirely sourced through paid promotions, including in unreliable source. For instance, take a look at this article in The Hindustan Times or this article in the Business Standard both of which are marked as sponsored posts and the content of these are replicated in the references within the article which unlike them hasn't disclosed that it's paid promotion. I don't see anything in reliable sources on the subject which aren't marked as sponsored posts. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the "offline sources", all three are articles in Marathi newspapers. Pretty much every major Marathi newspaper has a website and any recent article would be available online. The pictures don't provide any information about which newspaper it has been published in, on what date and in what section of the paper. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't agree with Tayi Arajakate. The article creator hasn't attached Hindustan Times and Business Standard with Wikipedia article as they're definitely paid. 4meter4 has summarized the situation well and I agree with them offline sources (major Marathi newspapers such as Punyanagri and Deshdoot) alone are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. We just have to assume good faith WP:AGF. 51.154.28.70 (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, no. Those article are a word to word match with this article from Zee News which is used as a citation, in general it is not a reliable source. Further affirmed by the fact that it hasn't disclosed the paid promotion. Other than it, there are two obscure sites called News Track and APN News, their content similarly matches an article posted on The Statesman's inspiration hub section which is dedicated to user generated and other sponsored content. Note that the inspiration hub section is on the blacklist which is why I assume these two sites had to be used.
  Punyanagari and Deshdoot are local newspapers, even among Marathi newspapers. Not to mention both of them do have websites where those articles should be available, so why not link them here? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the link to Newspaper PunyaNagri , Date 13 May 2019, Author - Amol Yadav (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RzR780Dt5Adcb-sDxCWyMtWaZMD7UVv4/view). 2405:201:AC01:91B1:E8A9:EA37:30DB:4639 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games developed in the United Kingdom

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

See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games developed in the United States. This list appears to largely duplicate an existing category, Category:Video games developed in the United Kingdom, which has more than 3700 items in it. It is very unlikely that this page will be adequately maintained to support over 3700 entries without errors, spam, omissions, etc. The category hierarchy is a stronger way to support such an extensive category. Otherwise this list will become crufty. I suggest a tighter inclusion criteria than simply "in the UK" if the creator wants to build something along these lines. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is also absurdly broad as a list. I agree with the nominator. Either we tighten the inclusion criteria or we delete the list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. OceanHok (talk) 12:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Faaaaar too indiscriminate. Categories are better for this. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category material. The content does not fit in a list/article. Wario-Man ^talk 02:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Graham Bensinger. Daniel (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Depth with Graham Bensinger

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

"In Depth with Graham Bensinger" is an American sports interview television program hosted by Graham Bensinger.

That's it, that's the entire prose text, with four sources: a passing mention on a story about a surfer: a HuffPost writer bio page on the host which isn't even a bio, just three one-sentence blurbs about the show host; an article written BY the show's host; and a local magazine's short Q & A with the host, which mentions the show itself in passing. Calton | Talk 02:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Calton | Talk 02:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons outlined by nom. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 02:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Graham Bensinger as a section. It doesn't need much more coverage as an independent program until shown otherwise with a split request and GNG sources. Compare with all the programs and websites that Dan Abrams has created. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Graham Bensinger per above. Show is not independently notable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Baker (talk radio host)

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

Insufficiently notable person. To the extent that he is notable, its for a WP:BLP1E incident where he got fired for a tweet, which is ho hum and an ephemeral one-day wonder. The only reason for this page to exist is to attack him and make him miserable. Whether he deserves that or not I'll leave as an exercise for the reader, but even if he does it's not our job to dish out justice. (He's an extreeeme-right-wing radio talker, if you're wondering what I mean.)

I am basically unable to find any NPOV sources whatsoever on this person. All of the sources I have found are basically raking him over the coals and calling him names. For a BLP, those are not acceptable sources for anything -- being so POV that you're calling the subject names makes everything else in the source suspect, including basic facts.

Over time, all the POV sources have been redacted, leaving an unref'd BLP. It needs to go.

For my part, I would say that even if some NPOV sources can be found, I doubt the person is Wikinotable beyond the WP:BLP1E, and anyway the article if it continues to exist will be a constant attractive nuisance for editors to come along and attack the guy, and it's just a headache, so yeet it out of here per IAR as just not worth the trouble and expenditure of editor time for a very-marginal-at-best person. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: forgot to add the subject wants the article taken down, see below. Herostratus (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I see at least one RS about the firing, but that is BIO1E; the rest of the entry (before stubbifyibg) was not suggestive of notability anyway, and in brief seems as tho it will always be subject to the coatracking Herostratus takes issue with. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m on the fence, given amount of sources now identified. They almost all talk about a series of similar incidents, which doesn’t exactly give a well-rounded bio but it’s not 1E either. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is this the same Chris Baker? There might be a case for WP:GNG if this is the same person. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and yes. However... I have to wonder if the "feature movie" documentary actually exists (the ref you cite just says he's announced it). The only other mention I have is this, again just an announcement. That ref does have a three minute trailer tho. The only other ref I found was this which is some 2007 lawsuit about it. I'm not finding anyone saying that that they've actually seen the movie, and it's supposedly existed for 13 years now. IMDb has never heard of it.

Yeah, coverage is coverage, but it'd be kind of misleading to imply that he's made a movie if he hasn't. But the first ref looks good.

Oh and by the way -- this is important -- the subject (says he's the subject, and seems legit) says here that the article (as it stood then) was "defamatory and damaging my professional reputation.... This inaccurate and damaging information needs to be removed". The info wasn't actually false, but it was damaging. There doesn't seem much you can say about this guy that doesn't make him look pretty bad, it seems. Anyway, if a subject wants his article removed, per the spirit of WP:BLP I think we should consider that very strongly. The GNG is a guideline, we are not robotically bound to it. Even if he does meet the GNG, the downside of having this article outweighs the upside. Herostratus (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mikehawk10, yes same person. I personally would like to see a bit more beyond hometown coverage but it’s true that even those verify that this was a person seeking the limelight, so saying that now that the coverage isn’t favorable, he should be accorded privacy is an arg that holds a lot less water for me. IMO there are RS (eg 1, 2) on his firing so the question to me is just, is there enough to write up an encyclopedic biography or is it really 1E? Innisfree987 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Innisfree987 and Herostratus: Going back through the history of the page, I also found this source describing his nomination to the Texas Radio Hall of fame, this article from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation describing something I won't repeat here out of WP:BLP concerns for Magic Johnson, there's possibly another Houston Chronicle article describing his return to Texas airwaves (though I can't find it), he apparently left KSEV to go to Omaha without warning, and all the references got purged from the article in 2015, which rendered it looking as if it never had citations. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Yeah: using a time-delimited search to exclude the recent flap, I found ... more coverage of his departures from more gigs: 1, 2, 3. As far as promo, the original page might’ve been written by a fan, but if there is solid RS coverage of more than just one event in his career of going on the radio on a regular basis, the fact that that coverage isn’t entirely positive is not a reason to delete. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based off of the response to my question above, I'm inclined to either keep or draftify. The page was recently kinda nuked, but it's clear to me that this isn't WP:BIO1E, since there's more than one event here. The page needs work, but also I can't possible see how something how WP:TNT applies in terms of deletion. The subject is notable, but we need a better page than what we have, which currently says very little at all except the guy's (former) profession. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For additional reasons why I'm not super sympathetic to deleting on the guy's request, the earliest version of the article was blatantly advertorial. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is correct. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the subject is a paradigm of virtue. However, "serves him right" is not a good reason to have an article. In fact, it's a point against. This person's supporters are not going to be respecters of the Wikipedia's mission, and it's going to be very hard to keep the edits to the article NPOV, whether from the political left or right, and keeping it BLP-compliant will be a constant timesink for editors.

The very first words of WP:N are "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". If there's ever going to be occasional exceptions, this'd be one of them. Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus:, again, I don't think that the reason for inclusion is serves him right, but instead that he's notable, as established by the repeated, in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. I understand that WP:N is a guideline and I understand a desire by the individual to not have an article on Wikipedia containing his misdeeds, but if he's notable then I see no reason why he should not be included in our encyclopedia. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, we can agree to disagree. If he was more notable it'd be different, but he's just marginal. Herostratus (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mnmh, since the article is essentially empty right now, I suppose a case could be made to burn the rest, and let somebody start from scratch if the they want to. Leaving a BLP stub around to be turned into an attack page, maybe not so good. If anybody wants to do, or promise to do, a WP:HEY rebuild, that'd be different and there'd be a fair argument for keeping. I can't be assed, anybody want to step up? Herostratus (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been adding to it from sources located to see how far we could get. I will take further discussions of what to include to the talk page to limit wall of text in hopes more ivoters will weigh in. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is excellent. Yes WP:HEY is in play now and... the notion of keeping the article after all seems right. It will have to be watched. Herostratus (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY and reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:BIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per past precedent; we have tended to keep articles about drive time DJs in major radio markets. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added sources are enough to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version of the article shows abundant sources to establish Notability, and spot-checking sources shows extensive coverage entirely dedicated to the article-subject. This guy is a media professional, and he has succeeded in generating a noted public profile for himself. Alsee (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Power Station

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

Proposed power project, was abandoned six years ago. Not notable as a particular environmental battle, or as an unusual project -- IdiotSavant (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's subject has been covered by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject itself, and it thus meets WP:GNG. These sources include Radio New Zealand (1, 2), the New Zealand Herald (1, 2, 3), Stuff (1), and trade magazine Oil and Gas today (1). It also appears to have generated a New Zealand Supreme Court case involving Greenpeace. The sources make it seem notable, in line with WP:GNG, and I think that the supreme court case adds to the notability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any good size power station proposal will always generate a lot of media coverage. Thus it meets GNG. Schwede 66 18:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per others Nexus000 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content. Might consider a proposal to merge into another article, but outright deletion – no. Nurg (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this would definitely be a good read, would suggest keeping this article. NZDF1985 (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2021 (NZST)

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

[1] Turner, Janice (15 September 2007). "High society". The Times. Retrieved 2021-07-01.

[1]