Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by FormalDude (talk | contribs) at 04:47, 5 August 2022 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faisal Hamidi (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Coldplay discography#Promotional singles. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U.F.O. (Coldplay song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fairly unremarkable release in terms of independent significant coverage, there doesn't seem to be any. Information could be (and is already contained) at parent album page. See WP:NSONGS about the conditions that should be met for standalone articles. >> Lil-unique1 (talk)23:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Music of the Spheres (Coldplay album). Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People of the Pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The majority of this article is sourced from coverage of the parent album. There is little significant coverage which is specific to the song as an independent topic, which is one of the essential determinants of song notability for standalone articles per WP:NSONGS. Album page already mentions significant information from this article. There's also some inappropriate sourcing e.g. some synthesis (ref 5, leak of demo youtube and ref 10, a student newspaper). >> Lil-unique1 (talk)23:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 23:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven McKagen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Music of the Spheres (Coldplay album). Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biutyful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The majority of this article is sourced from coverage of the parent album. There is little significant coverage which is specific to the song as an independent topic, which is one of the essential determinants of song notability for standalone articles per WP:NSONGS. Album page already mentions significant information from this article. >> Lil-unique1 (talk)23:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 23:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastien Manabat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 23:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Loken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 04:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kynman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some trivial coverage in reliable sources, one seemingly significant role in CBeebies. Otherwise, doesn't appear to pass WP:NACTOR. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion does not address the reason for deletion. Sandstein 19:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of networking test equipment vendors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any indication this meets WP:LISTCRIT. We don't even have a separate article for networking test equipment, so I can't see how this is a relevant organizational category. ♠PMC(talk) 21:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. plicit 12:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wholecoiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncited cryptocurrency neologism. No evidence of currency in RSes. Declined PROD - decliner cited that there was "at least one good source", but that was an Investopedia article that literally didn't mention the neologism. Closest I could find in a WP:BEFORE was Forbes India, but that turned out to be a contributor piece. Are there any RS cites for the actual neologism? Even if it passed, it seems it would be a dictionary definition and not an encyclopedia article - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 04:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial sources establishing stand-alone notability outside of passing mentions. If this band is notable enough, then Markus James should be within an article titled "Markus James and the Wassonrai" listing discography and discussing the band and its works. While I would normally recommend a renaming, there is no content worth saving for this article as it is mostly puffery and establishes the bare existence of Markus James. Per WP:TNT, we would be better off just removing this article entirely. Jcmcc (Talk) 20:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Balkan Basketball Championship. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Basketball Championship 1959 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy WP:NSEASONS/WP:SIGCOV. – Meena12:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Weak consensus that we lack the sourcing necessary to verify Ziv's work Star Mississippi 02:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Ilan_Ziv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No way to verify that prizes claimed were actually received, even assuming they are sufficient to warrant this page

You're very welcome to disagree with me. We are often making things too complex and hold way too many discussions. We can use our time MUCH better in the article space. As I see it, without passing the WP:GNG, Ziv does not pass the bar. So this nomination happens to be justified. Don't take away from your ACHIEVEMENT by starting pointless discussions with both opinionators, who basically agree with you! I see the awards as an indication of notability. Coverage would be proof. Just had a similar case with a Dutch producer with a huge number of movies. One of these won a prestigious prize. He stayed away from publicity. That can't start at WP. gidonb (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 04:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Caution off the top that this is not the apparently current or imminent Hansal Mehta film, so any search for sources will have to be careful not to confuse the two.
This is an apparently never released film whose "sources" are more than a decade old (so it isn't just an upcoming release), and which is not shown as having sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films at WP:NFO. The four footnotes here are all either very short blurbs or dead links whose content is entirely unverifiable (one even leads to a Wayback link that still blanks out), and the article isn't making any notability claim strong enough that it would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance.
As I can't read Hindi, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find stronger Hindi-language sourcing than I've been able to find in English -- but while it was a good faith creation in 2010 as its intended release was still upcoming at that time, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to still keep an article in 2022 despite its failure to ever actually get released. Bearcat (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here, and no prospect of a consensus forming at this time. BD2412 T 19:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim Ekta Manch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short-lived political party that only existed between two elections. no indication of notability. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable - "The two main parties in Sikkim are : Sikkim Democratic Front ( SDF ) and Sikkim Ekta Manch ( SEM ) . " ([2]), "The formation of a political affairs cell of the ruling Sikkim Democratic Front and the likely merger of the Sikkim Ekta Manch with the Congress are ominous signals ." ([3]), "The opposition groups Sikkim Sangram Parishad ( SSP ) , Sikkim Ekta Manch ( SEM ) and Sikkim National Front ( SNF ) fought SDF candidate " unitedly " by supporting the Congress which was an ally of the ..." ([4]), "The much-awaited third force in Sikkim politics was formally launched on Wednesday with former state power secretary Laxmi Parasad Tewari forming the Sikkim Ekta Manch. Former minister and former Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee vice-president Thuchuk Lachungpa proposed Tewari's name as the president, which was unanimously accepted by other leaders." ([5]). Also, for the record notability isn't time dependent. If it was notable for a short period, it's notable for wikipedia. --Soman (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't verify some of your sources (I assume some sort of country-restriction), but the first three refs that you found are bare mentions (judging from your quotes). The last one is a bit more substantive, but it is only about the creation of the party. I agree that the party was anticipated to affect the politics of the state a lot. But what did it actually achieve in its 16-month existence? As far as i can tell, nothing of note. P.S. Since you've taken the time to find sources, you could add them to the article in question too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any evidence on IndiaVotes that this party ever stood any candidates in any election. It looks more like a breakaway from the Indian National Congress by two Sikkim nationalists who themselves then split, then both in just over a year rejoined the INC. Unless they did something truly notable in that year (seems unlikely) this is never going to be a standalone article. Possibly a passing mention in the INC article, but even that seems WP:UNDUE since it looks like they had zero impact on anything. SpinningSpark 11:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was able to verify all of Soman's sources. Given the location and time, it is more than reasonable to assume that there is further offline sourcing available.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Sikkim Ekta Manch urge Political Reform in Sikkim". Sikkim Express. 26 August – 1 September 1997.
  2. ^ Syangbo, Genevive (2010). The Sikkim Democratic Front and the Politics of Popular Mobilisation in Sikkim (1993-2004) (PDF) (PhD). University of North Bengal.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search of the rediff.com site turns up 6 Indian press sources from 1997-98 on SEM. Reinforces reasonable presumption that further offline sourcing available. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, SEM ran a joint candidate in the 1998 Lok Sabha election with Congress, the Sikkim Sangram Parishad and the Sikkim National Front. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)Bilorv (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's About Damn Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing shows no notability with the possible exception of Fortune, which is not verifiable (paywall) and by itself not enough. The PRH site - cited - lists blurbs, Goodreads and the book's Audible edition are not presentable sources. Backstage Capital is a VC with no editorial policy. Search shows no notability, no in-depth coverage, independent reviews or anything else that would get this book beyond WP:GNG. The song by Lizzo, clearly, IS notable... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
  • "It's About Damn Time: How to Turn Being Underestimated into Your Greatest Advantage". Kirkus Reviews. 2020-02-24. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

    This is a 315-word book review. The book review notes: "Refreshing in its inclusivity, Hamilton’s book offers wise and practical lessons from the margins to all “underestimated people” looking to make a difference in the world of business and beyond. Inspiring reading for budding entrepreneurs."

  • "It's About Damn Time: How to Turn Being Underestimated into Your Greatest Advantage". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

    This is a 213-word book review. The book review notes: "In this excellent debut, Hamilton, founder of the venture capital firm Backstage Capital, shares how she went from being on food stamps and sleeping at the San Francisco airport to running her own multimillion-dollar investment fund. ... Though any reader can use Hamilton’s sage advice, this will be a must-read for anyone interested in venture capital."

  • King, Rachel (2020-12-05). "The 10 best business books of 2020". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

    The article provides 171 words of coverage about the book. The article notes: "Despite the extreme inequality—especially for women of color—in Silicon Valley and the business world at large, Hamilton argues in It’s About Damn Time (Currency) that a privileged background, an influential network, and a fancy college degree are not prerequisites for success, further suggesting that being undervalued simply means that a bigger upside exists."

  • Clarke, Caroline (2020-05-01). "About Damn Time! Venture Capitalist Arlan Hamilton's New Book Is Filled With Crisis-Busting Advice". Black Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.

    The article notes: "Endorsed by big names like Fair Fight's Stacey Abrams and Shark Tank entrepreneur Mark Cuban, Hamilton's book is packed with lessons in cultivating independence, self-confidence, courage, and tenacity."

  • Adams, Jennifer (2020-05-01). "It's about Damn Time: How to Turn Being Underestimated into Your Greatest Advantage". Booklist. Vol. 116, no. 17. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Gale.

    This is a 173-word book review. The book review notes: "Readers will find it easy to be inspired by her success stories and admire her drive to continue after each defeat. ... This book will appeal to those her company encourages as well as young women seeking a fresh and motivating role model."

  • Kekana, Chrizelda (2020-10-11). "Book Bites". Sunday Times. p. 9. ProQuest 2449783305.

    This is an 85-word book review. The book review notes: "Hamilton does a great job of making the reader feel like they're a friend she's having an intimate conversation with, letting them into her truth. While her narrative is about helping black, LGBTQI+ women in a white, male-dominated industry, her rags-to-riches story will appeal to all. She does a fine job of weaving in her emotions and life experiences and does an even better job of outlining practical things she's done to improve her life and to become the successful venture capitalist she is today."

  • There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow It's About Damn Time: How to Turn Being Underestimated into Your Greatest Advantage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment These are routine coverage from a publisher's PR round, not non-trivial works, IMHO.

1. Kirkus sells reviews, is not RS.
2. A blurb written from PR copy, not a review.
3. Fortune noted in nomination.
4. This piece uses the immortal words, "Hamilton’s new book’s press release echoes data she often shares in interviews" - another PR copy.
5. Short review in Booklist, a specialist librarian's review title. Any publisher will submit titles for review.
6. Sunday Times Johannesburg - Book bites are short reviews, as noted, 85 words.
Despite Cunard's diligence, I still do not believe we are in "non-trivial published works" territory. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Kirkus Reviews, "Most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable. Kirkus Indie is a pay for review program for independent authors, its content is considered to be questionable and to not count towards notability, in part because the author can choose whether or not the review is published." According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 356#Kirkus Reviews, again, paid reviews such as this one are tagged "Review Program: Kirkus Indie". The review I posted is not tagged under "Review Program: Kirkus Indie", so I consider it an independent reliable source.

    Publishers Weekly is a reliable source. It includes independent analysis such as calling the book an "excellent debut", "sage advice", and a "must-read for anyone interested in venture capital". The 171-word coverage in the Fortune article provides significant coverage of the book and was not contested in the nomination statement. The 173-word Booklist review is significant coverage. The book has received more than enough significant coverage in reviews to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which requires significant coverage in only two reviews. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. While it is overwhelming to have many articles on a similar subject nominated for deletion very quickly after each other, that is no reason to cut & paste the same response to each nomination. I think it would be better in cases like this to ask for a relisting for cases that will take longer to track down sources than to provide a generic response.

But I also think mass nominations should be discouraged as they can easily overwhelm editors who regularly participate in deletion discussions and who want to consider each individual case thoughtfully. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jauron Gayle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shemaron Carty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Less Unless (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kion Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. No rationale for deletion given, invalid nomination (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Austin (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

HeinzMaster (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bertie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Caesar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D'Andre Rowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Ebanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshewa Frederick-Charlery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karson Kendall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yazidis in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is not any source in the article about Yazidis in Turkey. About the population source, I checked it, there's nothing mentioned about Yazidis. Beshogur (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another one, I suppose.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 21:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Luksik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable perennial candidate/activist. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. All sourcing I could find after combing through multiple search engines was either run-of-the-mill campaign coverage, WP:PRIMARY sources, or secondary sources containing only brief mention of the subject. Found no (non-routine) significant coverage in WP:RS-compliant sourcing whatsoever. Sal2100 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn. I am withdrawing the nomination for deletion, and instead I will move the article to draftspace. (non-admin closure) ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 22:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Outlaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 28th, and he has not previously appeared in any of Sherdog's top 10 lists. Page was also previously deleted in January for not meeting the former guidelines. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by BBC. [51] and various other sites. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Ralph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although I am a long-term editor, we are all always learning and for this reason I am suggesting that my own article, Ethan Ralph, be deleted (created on 1 January 2021) for failing both the WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Before I explain exactly what led me to carefully consider these pages in light of Ralph's page, ultimately changing my mind on my own work, I will make the main argument:
  • the coverage of Ralph is not significant coverage, it is in almost all cases trivial. A WP:BLP1E, an assault on a police officer, resulted in the majority of the high-quality sources (WaPo, BI), which for the most part discuss only that incident; further…
  • the #Healstream controversy, which I once found significant proof of Ralph's notability, was not thought so by sources: all sources on this, such as WSJ, use Ralph only as an example to put his alleged abuse of Super Chats in a broader context; and finally
  • all other sources are either WP:SPS or make trivial mention of Ralph.
The content dispute which led to this realization in me goes as follows:
Bilby removed a good deal of one section of the article, writing right wing watch - questionable source. I reinstate the content as their edit contained an obvious grammatical mistake, and I thought this would be fine per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. However, Bilby then blanks the whole section because this is a BLP (sorry, I forgot this rule), so we have to discuss it on talk before reinstatement. I fail to convince Bilby of my idea to add {{Cite court}}. I then consider using WP:ABOUTSELF for the plea of no contest, but then, on further reflection, I decide: it is time to stop twisting myself into knots. Ralph was not as notable as I thought. I thought that WP:BLP1E would not apply as he seemed to be rising in notability in 2021. When no RS noted his guilty plea for dissemination of revenge porn, I should have read the writing on the wall: Ethan Ralph is a non-notable alt-right pseudo-celebrity and this article should have never been created.
Regards, Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ababkov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Surname page... but there are no entries. It's essentially just reciting its entry from the Dictionary of Modern Russian Last Names. WP is not a dictionary or name database and the article is not helpful. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Amaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions assert that the subject meets WP:GNG, but they do not explain by virtue of which sources she does so. These opinions are therefore discounted. Sandstein 13:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui Melksham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject seems to be notable only for a single event. Normally, I'd suggest that the page be redirected to the event at issue, but it seems that the game itself isn't notable enough to merit an article, so I think deletion is warranted. Plandu (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ So officiating in more than one match equals an automatic GNG pass? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Officiating the opening match of the world cup does.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, significant coverage in sources meets GNG. GiantSnowman 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of significant sources. She officiated the World Cup opening match. Definitely meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this trolling, or do you not actually understand what GNG is? JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of significant sources in the article.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Hmlarson, WP:GNG has been met indeed. And also congrats to England.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The FIFA source is not independent, ☒N. Worldfootball.net is a stats database, fails SIGCOV ☒N. The DFB.de site just lists Melksham's name -- trivial coverage, ☒N. No idea what's in the South East Advertiser, Question?. The ESPN opinion piece is WP:primary and does not contain SIGCOV, ☒N. The CBS opinion piece is also primary, ☒N. JoelleJay (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG due to a complete absence of significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. Participation-based criteria no longer exist for football and, in any case, referees were never covered under WP:NFOOTBALL so this would have been a 'delete' even before the recent WP:NSPORTS changes. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I don't see how GNG is met. I mostly agree with JoelleJay's analysis, except the South East Advertiser is a newspaper, very local, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt. 1 reliable source with possible significant coverage. I also don't think that PRIMARY applies to the ESPN opinion column nor the CBS piece. This quibble is really a point of order. They are opinion pieces, yes, and not reporting. Therefore they are not likely to have useful encyclopedic information, and I think these are no exception, because while the topic's actions are discussed for this one event, it doesn't make an encyclopedia article. I have some sympathy that the topic may pass ANYBIO#2 as refereeing a World Cup match is a rare accomplishment, but I just don't see this passing WP:WHYN. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @78.26, FWIW, I'm basing my PRIMARY analysis on opinion columns and editorials being included as examples of primary sources here and here, and therefore explicitly excluded from contributing to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay, that's fine, but better to cite WP:RSEDITORIAL then, not PRIMARY, in my opinion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The South East Advertiser piece (available via NewsBank) is about 280 words, but over 100 of them are Melksham expressing her feelings about the final etc. I couldn't find enough independent coverage in reliable coverage to argue that the subject meets GNG, although there were lots of reports covering her role in the US-Brazil match. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Opinion is mostly split between "keep or merge" and "delete". The former camp considers the incident notable because of the coverage it received, the latter believes that Ohio's abortion laws and their impact on the 10-year-old at issue are the story, not her alleged rape as such. These are prima facie valid arguments, and therefore I must consider their weight in the light of applicable policy.

In my view, WP:SUSPECT, part of the core policy WP:BLP, must be given great weight here. It provides that "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." In this discussion, only two people on the "keep" side undertake this consideration as mandated by the policy, and they both agree that the name of the alleged perpetrator is not material to the topic. Policy-informed consensus, therefore, is that an article with this title or with content that names the alleged perpetrator must not be kept.

This rules out a redirect or a merger, which would both preserve the name as a search term. The only BLP-compliant outcome is therefore to delete the article. This is, I dare say, no great loss to Wikipedia, given that the article in its entirety reads: "The [N.N.] sexual assault case is a 2022 event in the United States in which [N.N.], age 27, has been accused of sexually assaulting a 10 -year-old girl in Ohio. The girl traveled to Indiana to get an abortion, which was prohibited in Ohio." It should be no great trouble for interested editors to either create from scratch a much better new article that focuses on the abortion law issues raised by this case, or to add such content to e.g. Abortion in Ohio. Sandstein 19:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Accused non public figure. WP:SUSPECT. I prodded and an editor removed it. Reported at WP:BLPN and an admin suggested AfD. Bruxton (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what will more likely make this subject notable, is not the alleged crimeitself, but the doubts (see Washington Post article) surrounding the veracity of the case and the many political reactions related to the abortion debate that are stemming from it.Al83tito (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For one, whomever created this article in haste didn’t even bother to spell the suspect’s name right. Two, this is about a 10 year old child caught in the worst cross hairs anyone could imagine in American history. I do not think there should be an article about it without further details and commentary from the parents. Mind you, for weeks conservatives and a newspaper of record swore up and down this poor girl didn’t even exist. Trillfendi (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Separate discussion not needed An editor started a separate merge discussion. It is a duplication of this process and should be closed to prevent confusion. From WP:AFD: Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD. Bruxton (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - The articles says "accused". The consequences of Ohio's strict abortion law causing the victim to travel to Indiana are significant, so the article can be rewritten to encompass this. Notable crimes can be written as a single event, and we can take the name of the accused out of the title and article completely (i.e. 2022 Ohio sexual assault case). Assuming the page can not be kept, it can be merged into Abortion in Ohio. If this were a BLP violation, the name of the suspect would have been removed immediately. The story and name of suspect have nationwide coverage, so removing the name of the suspect would not protect the suspect very much, if at all. People claiming that this is a hoax makes this more notable. Dave Yost doubted the assault, then rejoiced at the arrest. The spelling of the name of the accused, doubts of existence of the 10 year old girl and lack of comments from parents is completely irrelevant. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or wait. The crime is horrid but not by itself unique, unfortunately. It does check a lot of other boxes, such as abortion debate, being politicized by the POTUS, by his opposition. The suspect appears to be an undocumented alien, and the doctor leaking the story is now facing a complaint for HIPAA violation. The content should be able to find other homes. Of course, we can also wait and see if anything more develops from it. Cobiexor (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article is currently titled "Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case". As such, this is (presumably) an article about the event / the crime ... not a bio of the Fuentes individual. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I read the news, the primary story is dealing with the victim dealing with the outcome of the sexual assault given recent changes in abortion laws, not on the accused perpetrator. Unfortunately, sexual assualts happen daily, even involving victims this young and we don't have articles on them all. At best, some of this content should be included in an article on changes in abortion laws and the effects of those changes, not as an article focused on the accused perpetrator. Liz Read! Talk! 15:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above ... this is an article about the event/crime ... not a bio of the perpetrator. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t call two sentences, one of which isn’t even about him, an article. Trillfendi (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how that addresses my point. It's obviously an article. That's why we are here, discussing an AFD ... that is, proposing an Article For Deletion. And, it's obviously a stub. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - WP:TOOSHORT. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article details it’s subject with facts, this is not even a stub. This was an attempt to the first to jump in on a political controversy, rather carelessly. In any other logical time, this would've been speedy deleted or PROD. Two sentences don't make an article. Trillfendi (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - WP:POTENTIAL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Abortion in Ohio. This, as a standalone article, screams WP:1E to me; it fits far better in an article where it can be focused on in context of the ongoing abortion debate. A section in the Ohio article will reduce a focus on the accused (who is, it should be noted, still just accused, and not convicted) and puts the focus firmly on the broader political issues involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. I do not think that I have ever seen a Wikipedia article about a crime that incorporates the name of an accused but not convicted person into the title of the article. I believe that the very existence of an article with a title like this is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. The article started at two sentences when nominated for AfD and it remains at two sentences six days later. I think that an acceptable article could be written about this controversy, but this isn't it and is not even the kernel of it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Cullen328's points. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I completely agree with the comment from Jax 0677 above. That one person was raped, and another accused of the rape, are not inherently notable events -- happens every day, alas. But this particular case is highly notable because it became such a political lightning rod. Supporters of reproductive rights pointed to the plight of a ten-year-old rape victim as an early indication of the consequences of the Dobbs decision. The response from prominent right-wingers was to deny that the girl even existed and to charge that the whole thing was a hoax. When the "hoax" narrative fell apart, the Attorney General of Indiana made threats against the doctor who had performed the abortion. All of that is notable and must be covered in Wikipedia somewhere. The name of the person who actually committed the rape is not important to that story, and the name of someone who at this stage is merely accused of it is even less so, but suppressing the incident entirely is not the answer. JamesMLane t c 15:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to reasoning by Liz and WP:PERPETRATOR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. It would be hard to name this article appropriately, but it's not an appropriate title, and there's not much to the article than that. With all due respect, though this is a shocking and upsetting thing to read about, Wikipedia is not news and it is not clear to me what the long-term significance of this case is. We can cover this as part of another article if, for instance, it leads to legal change or contributes to a social movement. My condolences to the ten-year-old who has suffered so much from this horrible crime, so much more from the U.S. government's war on bodily autonomy, and even further as the result of this intense media scrutiny. — Bilorv (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davidkhanian Mansion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Source for purported notability is the Navisargian book, which is self-published and therefore not reliable. agtx 17:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't immediately tell if this is explicitly on the Iran National Heritage List, but it appears significant for its architecture (evident already in photo of facade with columns, decorative motifs, and two-story porte-cochere), associations with important persons, and events having taken place within it, that it likely is on that list, and will meet general notability standards, and more. Unfortunately we in English Wikipedia have not much developed coverage of historic buildings and places in Iran; there was not yet even a Category:Historic buildings and structures in Iran until i created it just now. I will try to populate it. But this is like an AFD a year or two ago on a mansion in Delhi (i think), India, which dragged on until it was closed "Keep". There and here, we don't necessarily know the alternative names for the place in order run proper searches. Likely we won't have any participants who speak the relevant languages, or whi know much about built heritage in the country. This place is in Qazvin, formerly capital of the nation, and on historic Sepah Street. In the US it would be separately listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or a significant contributing building in a NRHP-listed historic district. By the way, it is likely old enough to meet criteria of the National Heritage registry, i.e. have construction starting before 1784, end of a certain Iranian dynasty; all such are automatically deemed to be listed whether or not they show in our English Wikipedia list. Let's save time and simply "keep", though sure you can tag it to call for more sources and development. --Doncram (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Martiros Khan Davidkhanian with his sons in front of the Davidkhanian Mansion. Other photo(s) and a painting of the house showing some degree of splendor were displayed in this AFD but have since been deleted from Commons for faults in their uploading and dating.
  • Comment Searching on "Davidkhanian building, Qazvin" yields this Teheran newspaper article that reports 11 new 2022 heritage listings in Qazmin, not naming them all but some being mansions, and with one less-impressive building having a photo displayed. This mansion is already or will be listed, IMHO. And there will exist plenty of sources about it, though much off-line and perhaps calling it different names (including perhaps with some part of name Alexander Khan Setkhanian). --Doncram (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question I see complaint in nomination re usage of source written by Navisargian. Perhaps that writer is not entirely independent or something. But is there any assertion of fact that is disputed, or questioned at all? Another source, not in article, is this January 2022 opinion/op-ed piece by W.D. Wright, titled "Between New York and Tehran", dated January 6, 2022, appearing in Armenian Weekly. W.D. Wright is a descendent. --Doncram (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far it looks like a Keep, but it would be good to get more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Broader participation need - 2 people is not enough to call it consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. User:Doncram understands articles about historic buildings as well as any wikipedian, so I'm sure their instinct is first-rate. The two sources presented in their comments are from solid sources. More is surely available in Farsi. BusterD (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was weak keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominated on behalf of IP user 47.23.40.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

This should be deleted due to poor notability. Tornado outbreak is well below notable and floods also arent really notable, plus is only one line. Any salvageable content can go to Tornadoes of 2021#June 18-19, but I doubt even that is needed. 47.23.40.14 (talk)

Note: Prior notability discussions on articles's talk page. Also small discussion on AfD talk page in request of processing this nomination. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know the 2017 Colorado hailstorm doesn't have an article. I will get to creating that actually. You do know Wikipedia isn't perfect right? We (some WikiProject of Weather members) just became aware in an entire different discussion that at least one violent tornado was completely forgotten from 1990, and it was one that an NWS office commented it could have been an EF5 on the EF-scale. The fact one topic doesn't have an article has 0 difference whether this should have an article or not. It just means no one had gotten around to creating it. Almost every billion-dollar disaster has some article or is apart of an article (ex: 8 of the 9 already listed for 2022 have articles.) As I stated below, I will 100% be recreating this article if it is deleted, so honestly, the AfD is just preventing WP:FIXIT from being able to happen with useless debates. I haven't seen a single actual reason why this is not directly notable for Wikipedia, rather, that the article just shouldn't exist. I would recommend you narrow your choice down to whether (1): $1.8 billion hailstorm just isn't notable for Wikipedia, which could spire to say some other weather disasters that caused less damage (like the Tornado outbreak of March 29–31, 2022 which caused $500 million less in damage than this hailstorm in question) OR (2) whether you just don't want this article in mainspace talking about tornadoes instead of the hailstorm, which just hasn't been added in yet because of this long and painful AfD debate. Please let me know which it is. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The tornado outbreak from March is different because it had over 70 tornadoes and caused fatalities. If notability can be demonstrated, it can be kept. However, as it is, it simply cannot stand. This article is such a mess that it should be WP:TNT. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge to Tornadoes of 2021#June 18-19, but do not keep. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just copy/pasted this into a userpage draft and if this is deleted, I plan to rework the article to make sure it includes the hailstorm then resubmit through AfC. Knowing it was accepted the first time, there is no reason it would not be again, so just saying this AfD will do nothing in the long run but prevent a WP:FIXIT as suggested in my previous comments. Man, I seem to not get a break from people always calling out my past from over a year ago, but either way, the nominator was/is most likely a troll from my past since one of their first edits was pulling up my past as a way to discredit my comments and they only have ever edited on the day this was nominated. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for broader participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 17:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify.. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone Party of Manitoba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable political party, fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep: The citations I found ([52], [53], [54], [55], [56]) provide a fair amount of significant coverage, particularly for a newly formed (and verifiably registered) party.Sal2100 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add as much as i could using the parties website, social media, CBC reports, and stories from Manitobans Newspapers. I listed 9 new sources of information, but it would appear someone took it all down. There is a lot of information about this party, its odd that people are unwilling to add more to this article. there are defunct parties in Manitoba with less information available, yet have better articles than Keystone. very strange MBpoliticsGUY (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it was necessary to remove all of this information, but most of it was not appropriate. The WP:ABOUTSELF policy specifies that articles should not be based primarily on sources like own websites and social media. Femke (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify.. Going with those coming late to the discussion and also because the nominator changed to supporting draftification. Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dikko Umaru Radda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Future political candidate so may be notable at some point, but not at the moment. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are appointed government offices viewed the same way as elected offices under NPOL? I'm not sure that this is a correct interpretation of NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it depends. There is precedent for accepting appointed senators and state senators under dictatorships. However senior civil servants are a bit like CEOs. Nobody gets an article just because they’ve run a large regional company. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — He was until recently the head of a fairly important government agency and only raised in notability as a gubernatorial candidate. Plus plenty of media coverage. Watercheetah99 (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First keep submission argues "partial" notability". There is no such thing. One either meets the standard for notability or they do not. Meeting NPOL #1 is not satisfied merely through appointment, coverage must also follow. Also, a government agency does not meet this criteria? This is a serious misapplication of the criteria which states "The person has been elected, appointed, or otherwise selected to be the head of state or government in any country". The subject has not. There is no meeting NPOL here and general notability also not established. First source is not independent, as it is a profile by his institution. Second source is primary. Third is trivial rehashing of some remarks made and does not address subject in detail. Fourth is trivial. Fifth also. No substantiated claim to notability can be made. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails BASIC. ––FormalDude talk 14:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide the sources if those exist or back your vote with policies
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notable politician. Katsina State has 5.8 million inhabitants. For context, being the APC nominee for governor in Katsina is like being the Republican nominee for governor of Alabama. --Soman (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Without multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, the topic still fails WP:NPOL. They'll be notable if they're elected, but for now it's too soon. ––FormalDude talk 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soman if the republican nominee for governor of Alabama had insufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines their article would likely be deleted too. Without proper sources, one cannot create a good article without engaging in original research. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I don't think the role at SMEDAN is the sort of political position that NPOL applies to, per above. Whether the available sourcing is adequate is a closer call, but at the moment Radda doesn't quite seem to meet the GNG/WP:BASIC: this article from Leadership has some non-trivial coverage, but most of what I'm seeing isn't in-depth or lacks independence. That being said, he'll certainly met NPOL crit. 1 if elected governor (which seems reasonably likely), and additional sourcing may appear in the near future as the campaign continues. In other words, it's a case of TOOSOON, and draftifying is generally the best response in these sorts of situations as it ensures that the article can be restored easily if and when the subject crosses the notability threshold. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good course of action. Mccapra (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I'm good with re-drafting this and looking for coverage in the upcoming election. Based on presented sources it's slightly short of NOTE but I see wisdom in going along with User:Extraordinary Writ's suggestion. BusterD (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can say notability exist per references from independent reliable sources, moreover, Umar Dikko Radda is contesting for Governatorial election in Katsina State, aired in different publications and newspapers, if deleted the articles will surely be created by some one in the near future. An@ss_koko(speak up) 11:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify As per Extraordinary Writ. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. General agreement that the article needs more work and sources with significant coverage in order to meet notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has a Wisden obituary, which is usually a sign that there is much more coverage available. It's not cited, and I won't be able to add it today, but it's a good indicator that if we were able to access sources - and we're almost totally reliant on printed sources for the era in which the bloke played - that we'd find scads. The commonality of the name and the era and where he played means it looks as if it's difficult to find early accessible internet sources however, which is a shame as with a career that long we'd find a bunch. I'm sure people will object to a redirect for various reasons, but I'm not sure what else we'll be able to do here - I guess a redirect to whichever team he played more most frequently in the Ranji would be best, unless any India-based editors can find more in paper archives or in local non-English language sources. I'll need access to CricketArchive to figure out which that is though. It would be a shame to lose an article about an obviously notable non-white, non-anglophone person however. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we were looking at a redirect here, the List of Hyderabad cricketers would be the best choice - that's the team he played much more frequently for. The list needs updating at some point as well. I am minded towards keeping based on the Wisden obit though. They really don't give those away these days. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Played in 61 first-class matches, which makes the nomination quite frankly odd. Given the amount of matches he played in, there is undoubtedly coverage in print media from the era. He was afforded an obituary by Wisden, which shows his notability as a cricketer. Passes WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this claimed likely existence of sources sufficient to meet WP:NRV which requires "verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability"?
It's here. You'll notice the different way the name is transliterated. You might want to double check if there are any other versions of the name - this is very common for names from the subcontinent and can cause all sorts of problems when you're looking for references. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per StickyWicket. StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that there is the reasonable assumption that this player should pass WP:GNG in offline coverage and non-English language coverage with the career he had and with the obituary that we already have as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify due to lack of significant coverage. Passing NCRIC does not mean that notability is presumed; that SNG merely tells us that SIGCOV is likely to exist. The probable existence of sources is not enough, they actually need to be presented here and at least one needs to be added to the article per NSPORTS. The obituary is routine and not sufficient to meet SIGCOV. I propose draftification instead of outright deletion to give folks time to add these sources so that the article might be saved. –dlthewave 12:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever opinion you might be of about other things, a Wisden obituary is not in any way routine. They don't give them away in any sense and tonnes of well known players don't get one. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "routine" wasn't the right word, but that very short obituary really isn't the type of in-depth writing that would contribute to SIGCOV. The fact that Wisden is selective about who gets an obituary doesn't mean that the person is necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards. Again, we need SIGCOV sourcing to be present in the article in order to keep it per WP:SPORTBASIC. –dlthewave 15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a jolly good indicator that much more writing about the person is likely to exist though - because of the selective nature. I mean, if we really have to have any form of sports notability guideline at all - and I'm not at all sure that any of them serve any practical purpose at all right now - then "got a Wisden obituary" is probably about the level to have them at. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I !voted to draftify instead of delete so that sources can eventually be added if they are found. We do in fact have a sports notability guideline and it doesn't mention Wisden obituaries or anything similar; you might consider opening an RfC if you'd like to add this, however it would be on a "sources are likely to exist" basis. The fact is that our guidelines don't presume notability in situations like this, and for sports figures community consensus is that sources actually have to be found and added to the article. This wouldn't even pass the AfC process as is. –dlthewave 22:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep per Blue Square Thing: if a high probability exists of additional sources that can solidify notability, it's better to work on the article rather than delete it. That seems to be the case here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per Dlthewave. A three-sentence obituary is just not SIGCOV no matter who wrote it. If it's truly "indicative" of further sources existing, then six months of incubation should be sufficient to find it. NSPORT is very clear that a source of SIGCOV must be in the article, and since that is not forthcoming the article currently fails our guidelines and should not be kept in mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And frankly, that goes against WP:NEXIST, which should take precedence. StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I have to agree with Dlthewave and JoelleJay. In its current form, the article does not pass the guidelines and is very limited. However, other users have insisted that offline coverage and non-English language coverage is likely to exist, which I do not doubt. Draftify will give users time to find, improve and expand the article, and if necessary, we can review the article again at some point in the future. Unfortunately, if it isn’t in the article and is only likely to exist, we cannot keep the article going forward, but Draftify will give users time to save the article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Wisden entry indicates that notability is possible, however the sources don't currently establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shazia Wajahat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TV producer. Fails WP:GNG, no independent, significant coverage. She did not, in fact, win a Hum Award, the film did. Producer, even of notable productions, is not notable. Sourcing is iffy, notability is not inherited from husband. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT But first what about you making a baseless sweeping statement above about both of them being FAKE Dawn newspaper websites? Where did you get that? Let's get real here, this is an encyclopedia and let's both focus on the above article's merits. If one of the 10 references added by the original editors (I personally have never edited this article) is not specific enough, that one reference can be very easily taken out and this article trimmed down. All I am hoping and expecting here on this AfD forum is that this article be given fair consideration per Wikipedia guidelines and policy...Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ngrewal1 I said the citation is fake misleading, not DAWN is fake. Kindly get the point. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333-blue at 06:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please back your vote with the policies
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FanCode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. WP:GNG not met Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Enough coverage from multiple reliable sources such as TOI, The Hindu, Forbes etc. It indicates that the subject has received substantial independent media coverage, meeting key requirements of WP: NCORP. Lorenzo the great (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)</> Lorenzo the great (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Akevsharma
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/dream11-launches-ad-free-multi-sport-aggregator-platform-fancode-119042500907_1.html Yes Yes Major national business daily Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail Yes
https://www.forbesindia.com/amp/article/take-one-big-story-of-the-day/how-fancode-is-building-a-onestop-destination-for-sports-lovers/76425/1 Yes Yes Written by Forbes staff which is reliable under WP:FORBES Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail Yes
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/dream11-launches-sports-aggregator-platform-fancode/articleshow/69045506.cms Yes Yes The source is the third largest national newspaper by circulation Yes Discuss the subject briefly, which count towards GNG Yes
https://m.economictimes.com/news/sports/dream11-launches-multi-sports-aggregator-platform-fancode/amp_articleshow/69042709.cms Yes Yes Major business focused national daily Yes The article discusses the subject directly and in detail Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The sources are reliable comprehensive, independent, and they meet the criteria both for WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH]. Akevsharma (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NCORP's WP:ORGIND defines "Independent Content" and almost all of the sources in the article and above are based on interviews and information provided by the company and their execs. None of that is "Independent Content" when it is simply repeating information created and put out by the company. Saying "meets CORPDEPTH" doesn't amount to meeting NCORP if the in-depth information was provided by the company. HighKing++ 16:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • HighKing - your thoughts about this article and FanCode's involvement in that fake tournament. Forgive my suspicions – but claims of 50 million customers when the published number is 20 million customers and a $50 million investment makes me wonder, as does the fact that the nom +2 socks were recently discovered. I don't think WP should be used to promote startups or the shady activity surrounding it, so KUDOS to Girth Summit for his diligence in catching it. Atsme 💬 📧 12:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a source to assist in establishing notability? There's no in-depth details about the company in the article so fails CORPDEPTH. Not sure what you mean by the company's "involvement" in the fake tourney - they were tricked/scammed. Happens to a lot of companies. You also mention that you don't think WP should be used to "promote" companies - absolutely, WP is not a platform for promotion of any company or topic. Again though, I'm not seeing any reason to side-swipe the topic company over this. HighKing++ 15:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also not a reliable source (WP:TOI) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: According to Akevsharma's detailed review of the sources above, which points out the reliable significant media coverage. I agree some of them are are mainly interviews, but do not agree to the argument that these are not independent sources. WP:INDEPENDENT describes that a third-party source is independent if they are unaffiliated with the subject. These sources are published by some third parties with original analysis from editors who have no connection with this company. This makes them independent. Hence this meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. ChristinaNY (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey ChristinaNY, whay are you looking at WP:INDEPENDENT when NCORP is the applicable guideline? Check out WP:ORGIND which also include a definition for "Independent Content" as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You say that the sources contain "original analysis" from editors who have no connection with the company. Can you please point to a source/paragraph which you say is "original analysis"? HighKing++ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Majority of these sources provide detailed analysis along with statements from some interviews. How does this not make it an independent source.? A source is independent if it contain independent analysis and fact-checking. I'm clearly seeing that here. Some of these sources which included pieces from some interviews doesn't change the fact that they are independent. Highking probably only saw the interview part in it and missed the rest. Akevsharma (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That source analysis is deeply flawed. Look at the Business Standard article - the first in that analysis - it doesn't even have a byline! BS Staff is common practice as a byline to give to press handouts and that is certainly what we have here - press handout picture and clearly company announcement, totally stood up on officials from the company making claims about the company. That's the problem with the sourcing in this article - it cutteth not the mustard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title of some citations may give the impression that its just an announcement by the company. But many of them contains independent analysis and fact-checking. I have only attached four sources which is generally considered reliable. Other sources are also there in the article that gives more in-depth coverage. Akevsharma (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to one of the sources and the paragraph number that you believe contains independent analysis and fact-checking. HighKing++ 12:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Sources The four sources above all relate to the topic company launching their FanCode platform. Three of the sources refer to the announcement. All are dated 25th April. All contain the same facts and information albeit with slightly different wording. Similar articles using the same phrases and wording also appeared in order publications/websites such as animationxpress, Gutshot Magazine and hastalamotion. I'm finding it difficult to understand how on earth anyone thinks all of these regurgitated company announcements are "Independent Content" with claims that they contain independent/original analysis and fact-checking. The remaining source from Forbes India is entirely based on an interview with the co-founders and information provided by the company. There are supplementary comments about the overall streaming market from Raghav Anand of EY but he doesn't say anything about the topic company. Everything else might be said to meet CORPDEPTH but since it does not contain an iota of "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with PRAXIDICAE, and will add that I'm surprised this article wasn't a G11. WP is being inundated with these types of submissions. Look at the article and the sources - the bulk of cited sources are nothing more than marketing promotion under a thin veil. For example, read the Forbes India (updated May 30, 2022) source's headline: How FanCode is building a one-stop destination for sports lovers - the source writes about this start-up company (2019) and new software - And that’s exactly what the FanCode founders—Yannick Colaco and Prasana Krishnan—have set out to do: Build a digital destination for sports fans. It's unproven hype & marketing at this point in time, WP:CRYSTAL. It's a step beyond vaporware, so let it incubate and when it becomes notable and widespread beyond marketing hype, we can consider inclusion. Atsme 💬 📧 14:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Atsme for this better picture regarding Forbes. The first thing I noticed was this source from Forbes. I didnt had a second thought because Forbes (written by its staff) is considered a reliable source in enwiki. Now I understood how manipulating these sometimes can be. WP:CORPDEPTH is very tricky and confusing in may aspcets. HighKing, I have couple of question for you. I had read somewhere that notability can be established by combining the sources to get SIGCOV. Is'nt that applicable here? The second one is regarding WP:GNG. If a topic meets GNG, does it need to meet SNG too? Take this as an example itself. I think notability might be bordeline looking upon GNG. Regarding CORPDEPTH, Im having some second thoughts after seeing Atsme's opinion. Let me go through some past lengthy AFD after which I will consider changing my opinion. Meanwhile, I hope Highking can give me a clear picture for me. Akevsharma (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Akevsharma, you asked two questions - first one, if notability can be established by combining sources. As per WP:SIRS: Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below .... Second one, is it an either/or situation for GNG *or* SNG. Some editors (often after it has been shown that a topic fails an SNG :-) argue that because WP:N says a topic is notable if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right, this allows for an interpretation whereby a topic may fail an appropriate SNG but still be notable because it "passes GNG". When it comes to NCORP though, NCORP doesn't actually add or remove anything from GNG but provides clarification and examples and urges editors to apply a strict interpretation on sourcing. I would wager that when you say "borderline looking upon GNG", you are in effect attempting to apply a wooly interpretation of "Independent of the subject" and in effect dilute or even exclude the ORGIND "Independent Content" clarification .. as a guess. In general, consensus is that NCORP (and GNG) can be ignored as per WP:IAR in exceptional circumstances - I don't think this is one of those. HighKing++ 10:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Attaching one of the few sources and the fact checking in it [61]. As part of its sports data and statistics offering, FanCode provides access to information and data on sports leagues, teams and players for sports fans and fantasy sports users. This includes match previews, venue details, pitch reports, weather forecasts, player performances and post-match analysis. It also has about 20 experts on-board across sports categories to provide data and predictions through a detailed analysis of players and teams, supplemented by video representation, infographics, and even blogs as official authors. Since the launch in 2019, FanCode claims to garner over 15 million users. It has launched interactive live streaming of matches with multimedia commentary, live scores, news on the sports industry across the globe, bite-sized video content like match highlight packages, chat shows with sports personalities in a new-age format, fantasy sports research and expert opinions. Here is one hindi sources of the many [62].Silentone1995 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. After re-reviewing my AfD nomination, making new google searches and what not, I noticed Garry has received a decent amount of coverage in Irish media that GNG is met in my opinion. (non-admin closure) ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 01:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Garry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMMA. Page was created under the old guidelines that were abolished, participation based criteria was removed and we can't pretend like it didn't happen. Otherwise Garry fails the other criteria, his highest ranking by FightMatrix is 99th, which is far short of the top 10. Also never appeared in Sherdog's top 10. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 05:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before starting to nominate pages for deletion, let's at least try to get new guidelines that avoid the issue of participation, be it maybe having an X amount of fights won, or expanding the ranking eligibility. I'll start a discussion on the notability page HeinzMaster (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tons of coverage on Ian Garry [63][64][65][66] HeinzMaster (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I wouldn't trust The Sun, the other three articles shared above demonstrate significant coverage on Garry. NemesisAT (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the criteria in WP:NMMA and there is no significant coverage in the sources. The pre-fight/press conferences/announcement reports and post-fight reports do not provide significant coverage. The remaining articles are celebrity pieces about pregnancies and engagements, or very lightweight reviews of his fights so far. TigerShark (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The arguments in favour of deletion centre around the article failing NCORP (which I believe is the correct SNG, as the article clearly talks about the "brand" and "founding" of the organisation, rather than being limited to the product) and being overly promotional, whereas the arguments put forward in favour of keeping largely only state that the app is "relevant" and that it has "been in the media". Merely being relevant or having a certain number of downloads does not make a subject notable. firefly ( t · c ) 16:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Discovered this in NPP. Non-notable prayer app, written like an advertisement (see the paid contributions tag). Was somehow accepted by an AfC reviewer. Not convinced by the sources linked on the talk page by the AfC reviewer. I do not think they provide sufficient significant coverage to establish notability. Notice that the name of the account which created this article is the same as the name of the company which owns the app. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing is not reliable. Of the first four, there are two trivial mentions, one regurgitated press release from a niche industry publication and one interview-based article. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sure let me assist you with alleviate the concerns brought forth.
The account under which I had initially started was when I was new to writing in for wiki. So, I had created the username under the company name thinking it needed to be relevant. Than, somehow there was a paid contribution tag that came about with more rigorous guidelines. I had followed through with the guidelines after which.
The initial comments was that it was advertisement like. I had eventually removed anything that made it feel that way. There is no part of being listed on wikipedia that is meant for any advertisement whatsoever. So, I have no issues deleting or removing anything that is not within guidelines. I will go ahead and further edit the article with anything that feels as such.
I understand the portion about the sources being not relevant enough. As such, I will edit the sources and the portions of the article that are referring to that portion.
I am here to abide by the guidelines. I do wish to author more articles and this is a learning platform and these learning moments are great.
Do let me know if there is anything else besides these that needs changes. Bitsmedia (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should I also, remove the whole portion on features as I am citing the muslim Pro website itself. There is no where else that speaks of feautres. I am good to remove it if it is not within guidelines as that portion might seem very advertorial. Bitsmedia (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The articles content is written in a way to promote the app, violating WP:PROMO. The page merely discusses the apps features and the reception subsection is just references to generic ratings. The parent company and affiliated managers have no notability - WP:NCORP. ElderZamzam (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is a relevant religious and culture-related app. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, not on our personal opinions as to if the app is "relevant". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm repealing my delete vote, not because I think the material is particularly worthy or the sources fantastic, but in appreciation of the fairly large scale of this enterprise, the likelihood of much better coverage in foreign language sources, and the very real prospect that this enterprise is only set to grow and deleting the article would be an exercise in futility that would only presage its recreation at a later date. Since delete is not a likely outcome here in any case, best to speedy keep and end the expenditure of community time on the subject.Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Iskandar323 You took the right decision. This is large scale of this enterprise.
    I appreciate your decision. Kyle154 (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing a pass of WP:NCORP here. Coverage of Muslim Pro's selling customer data doesn't contribute to NCORP unless they describe the company in detail, which I'm not seeing in any of [70], [71], etc. There's CEO interviews like [72], [73], but these don't count toward NCORP. Now, foreign-language sources... I'm afraid I can't help there. But I'd err on the side of deletion. Ovinus (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about a product, not the company. WP:NPRODUCT, not the more stringent WP:NCORP, should be applied. ~Kvng (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, there are a whole four paragraphs in the Vice article on how the app's data is being hoodwinked. That's also a sign of balance in the sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Keep voters need to understand this article and the AFD is not a reflection on a religion. This app may be important to many follows of Islam. Deleting the article does not make the app irrelevant to its users, or diminish its importance to Islam and its followers. The article subject simply does not meet NCORP as coverage while there, is not significant. If this is a super important app to followers of Islam, find an appropriate article and add a sentence or two on the app there in a neutral way. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Passing GNG or NCORP?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As written, the article is about a corporate entity, not just a product (to the extent that that hair can even be split). A piece of software does not autonomously decide to "collaborate with UNICEF", for example. Accordingly, the notability guideline for corporations applies. Muslim Pro is only one of the apps implicated in data harvesting; Others include a Muslim dating app, a popular Craigslist app, an app for following storms, and a "level" app that can be used to help, for example, install shelves in a bedroom, as the Vice article says. There's enough to warrant mention in an article covering that practice, but the available sourcing doesn't warrant a stand-alone page, and the existing content is promotional. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean delete (again): Clearly a speedy resolution of this was wishful thinking. Having attempted a bit of editing, the combination of weak sources and advert-like writing is a bit grim. This AfD also does not seem to have encouraged any of those voting keep to actually go out there and find better sourcing, which does not bode particularly well for the prospect of any near-term improvement of the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PROMO, does not meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kissidougou Ethnology Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Could not find any coverage except a listing in gbooks in Museums of the World directory. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to the latter article. There is also a published journal article available at JSTOR which might cover it somewhat. I don't have access to that article, but the Google blurb reads: "Publics des musees africains by R Suteau · 1999 · Cited by 2 — rekore et de Kissidougou et de prospection sur les conditions de creation d'un musee prefectoral et ethnographique 'a Macenta >>30. Au cours de ". --Doncram (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I’ve read the JSTOR article which does mention the museum in Kissidougou but it’s only a passing mention, so no help with notability. On the other hand this is a public museum in a remote area of a country with low literacy and little tourism so I would not expect much coverage. Mccapra (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I’ve added another ref which is only to a directory but a Google books search shows that this museum has appeared in many directories and is mentioned in many specialist art publications. It’s not what we’d normally look for to demonstrate notability but given the context I think it’s sufficient. Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think I still support delete, a couple of trivial mentions aren't enough IMO to show notability (GNG probably?) If possible, could some directories be added? Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bran mac Finsnechta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searching finds nothing but WP mirrors, and the List of kings of Leinster does not include him. Unsourced and possibly a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Blade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the current sources are database entries, interviews, and award rosters. Industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for better sources and found only trivial coverage and passing mentions. Cheers, gnu57 17:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Kaushik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACTOR. References are primary, early stage PR, puff pieces. Note tag added several weeks ago. scope_creepTalk 17:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting nominated does make you pass WP:GNG. There is must coverage per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. scope_creepTalk 11:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination isn't a pass for WP:GNG. scope_creepTalk 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Alia Shawkat. Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Cactus Cove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced article about a short film, not making a strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As usual, we don't always want an article about every single film that exists -- we only want articles about films that can be properly referenced as having a credible notability claim, such as notable film awards (which is not the same thing as all film awards) and/or critical attention from reputable film critics in real media. But the only notability claim being attempted here is awards from small-fry film festivals that aren't being properly sourced to demonstrate that they're seen as notable awards in the first place, which isn't enough. We're looking for major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Toronto or Sundance when it comes to film festival awards, not the "Angelus Awards Student Film Festival". Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Albeit a short film, this was Alia Shawkat's first starring role, and is thus a major part of her career. If others think the film does not meet notability then, instead of deleting, redirect to Alia Shawkat. --Bensin (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced films don't get notability freebies just because of who happened to be in them. The notability test requires the film to be the subject of media coverage, and who was or wasn't in the cast cannot exempt a film from having to have sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Notability (film), one inclusion criterion to consider is "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." That's why I mentioned that is was a major part of Shawkat's career. The requirement for sourcing has not been disputed. --Bensin (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no issue with this redirecting to Shawkat's article, however the film itself just isn't notable. The catch with the part of NFILM mentioned above is that there would need to be coverage to show that this is actually a major part of their career. There would need to be sourcing that discusses the film in relation to Shawkat, Shawkat herself discussing the film, and so on. The film is listed as part of her filmography, but there's no mention of this being a landmark role for her. She doesn't really discuss it, nor is it really covered in any of the books or articles out there about Shawkat. There's no mention of it being responsible for launching her career, nor really anything at all. This part of NFILM is meant to cover things like Jim Carrey's Rubberface, Tom Hanks's Mazes and Monsters and Sandra Bullock's Hangmen (film), films that haven't gotten a huge amount of coverage but are frequently mentioned as some of their early roles, particularly Mazes and Monsters. I suppose another unsaid thing is that to give notability by association the actor would have to be extremely notable, as the more notable an actor is, the more coverage there would be of them and thus the more likely it would be that they would start talking about their first major roles. I just don't see this being the case here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 12:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK! I see your point. I am fine with redirecting to the article about Shawkat. --Bensin (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted under CSD G5 by Ponyo on 22 July 2022. (non-admin closure)NJD-DE (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Izin Hash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable actor with a single role and little to no coverage, definitely too soon. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm able to find mentions of some of their shows, but no sourcing at the level that would approach WP:CORP for information about ATV Star Mississippi 16:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Otago Rambler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NMUSIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul W (talkcontribs) 15:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nursultan Ruziboev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:MMANOT, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. The sources don't look reliable to me. There are MMA-specific outlets and they aren't covering him. Profiles don't count. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Sardinia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG. Political parties are not presumed notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@49ersBelongInSanFrancisco Maybe you should inform yourself better before commenting: I can't edit only on the "List of political parties in Italy" page due to a dispute. I am free to create and edit any other page related to this topic. Your speedy deletion request has already been rejected because this is not a valid reason...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Scia Della Cometa, in WP:TBAN it states "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic... For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather." I am not an administrator, but I would interpret your ban to include not only the literal list of parties, but also to include disputes over what are or are not parties. I defer to actual administrators whether any further enforcement is warranted. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The party, which participated in a regional election and elected one regional councillor, is sourced and definitely encyclopedic. Unfortunately, similar parties with similar electoral support, like Trentino's Taverna List, have been deleted (interestingly enough, the AfD proponent was the very same editor who has written this article and I do not understand the logic), but I hope that at least this article can be kept. --Checco (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not so strange, the Taverna List did not elect any councilor and the page was practically devoid of sources, while this party has elected some of its own representatives and has participated in political summits with other local parties. When I propose an Afd, I do not rely only on mere electoral data. Obviously it remains a small party, its deletion would not be a serious loss, even if usually such parties are not deleted. As the author of the page I will refrain from voting for its keeping, after all it would be inconsistent with the activity I am currently carrying out (a very light cleaning of the categories on Italian parties). I would not have intervened in this Afd, if there hadn't been any out of place user's intervention above (I am still free to create pages of any topic).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco: You have a topic ban, so I have to discourage your opinion in this matter. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, User:SDC and I have been blocked only from the pages List of political parties in Italy and Talk:List of political parties in Italy. There is no topic-ban upon us. --Checco (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 14:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of novels considered the greatest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list is completely subjective and fails WP:LSC. A comparable deletion discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television series considered the best. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a remade article along the lines of the video games article or the films article (both use slightly different criteria) would work well. Can always ask that the existing version be userfied / draftified if you want to keep the history, although nabbing the existing sources used is probably the most valuable part. SnowFire (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Express Flight 4933 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. This was a minor flight incident and the sources are primarily local and short-term in nature. User:Namiba 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this was a unusual and unique incident where the aircraft completely missed the runway and the fact that there was flight instrument errors. The aircraft was also written off and three occupants were injured. The NTSB report took more than three years to come out which is way longer than most “minor incidents” and even some major accidents which results in a total loss of life. ThePoi (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, community consensus at WP:AVIATION holds that hull-loss accidents involving airliners are typically considered notable even if there are no fatalities, and the circumstances are unique as ThePoi said; as I discuss in the Talk page, I'm at a loss to find a single similar accident where an airliner missed the runway completely(!) due to a combination of pilot overconfidence and ILS problems. Carguychris (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Quite an interesting and unusual incident, or rather accident, that is unusual enough to warrant its own article. The human factors contributing to the accident, in addition to the faulty ILS system, solidify this article as an important case study for Aviation Accidents. Yobbin (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 14:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Vargas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mexican football manager. Fails WP:GNG. Single source, no SIGCOV. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 14:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll L. Hurd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hurd was mayor of St. Louis Park, Minnestota. A suburb of Minneapolish which had about 25,000 people when he became mayor. It would grow to about 43,000 people by 1960, but he was mayor for only a short time in the early 1950s. Mayors of places this size, and actually pretty much all mayors, are not default notable. The local history source and the "political graveyard source", neither would add to notability, I found a 1 line mention of him having retired in a general report of multiple mayoral changes at the time he left office and I found a photo of him in this issue of the Rotarian [74] on a page with 63 photos. This is not the stuff notability is made of John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 12:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Ka Dhaba case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable event to have a Wikipedia page. Fail to pass WP:GNG Jimandjam (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not notable? Sufficient media sources are provided. Even highly reliable ones also. Ryan990110 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. plicit 12:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @PRAXIDICAE, thanks for your response. I am the owner of this article. I respect your comment only if it is unbiased. As you had already (recently) opened another deletion page for me. I know you had a long history of user-targeting, violent discussion with everyone as "evidence found on your own talk page". Anyway, have a nice day!Ryan990110 (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. plicit 12:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You own nothing on Wikipedia. Further, if you have issues with my behavior or edits, WP:ANI is the place to discuss it, not here @Ryan990110. I suggest you remove your ridiculous accusation or go to ANI and substantiate it with WP:DIFFs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, sir. And please don't mistook me: I said "owner" instead of author. Sorry for that. I didn't accused you, I am just telling what maybe true! Apologies, if you hurt. Again, have a nice day. Ryan990110 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. plicit 12:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 12:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WELSIM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only independent sources are trivial mentions. In my searches, I could find only more trivial mentions - various researchers noted that they had used WELSIM, but provided no detail about the program. This doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. Previous AFD was in 2017 and was closed early as a G11 speedy. MrOllie (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing many other listed FEA software that has no independent sources at all, deleting WELSIM seems lack of fairness. Goeasyon (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MrOllie (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:* Keep: independent academic literatures from various authors sufficiently prove the authenticity of a finite element analysis/simulation software. Reviewing many other listed FEA software, either no independent sources or paid sources. If WELSIM page is deleted, those pages may be supposed to be deleted by first. Here are the far unquantified software if applying the same or lower criteria: Calculix (no independent sources), DIANA FEA (trivial independent sources), Dune (no independent sources), Elmer (no independent sources), FEBio (no independent sources), FEniCS (trivial independent sources), FreeFem++ (no independent sources), GOMA (trivial independent sources), GetFEM++ (no independent sources), SESAM (all failed reference links), Range Software (no independent sources), FreeCAD (FEM source from an individual blog), Advance Design (no sources, no content), Autodesk Simulation (no independent sources), SolidWorks Simulation (no independent sources), Quickfield (no independent sources), Pam Crash (no independent sources), RFEM (no independent sources), SimScale (trivial independent sources, many paid articles from engineering.com), VisualFEA (no independent sources), JMAG (all independent sources failed), SDC Verifier (no independent sources). Goeasyon (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Goeasyon (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

*keep After lookup business data, WELSIM and WelSimulation LLC are legit. It is very impressive for a small company being able to develop such a FEA software. Zjjchen (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Zjjchen (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

:*:KEEPWELSIM is very good and promising engineering software specialized in very sophisticated numerical simulation of structures, fluids, electro-magnetics and coupled physics. It has a very modern pre and post processing user interface. It has an advanced meshing capability and provides interfaces to various CAD systems. It has a considerable user bases and is growing rapidly. I would like to see Wikipedia can display more information about WELSIM. This will help many WELSIM users and many other engineering software users and developers. Ongurouth (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Ongurouth (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

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

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bukunmi Oluwasina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor References, Failed to Pass WP:GNG. None of the sources are independent. No lead role. Jimandjam (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This biography of an actress should not be judged because it was once nominated for deletion and got deleted when it was created by another user years ago.It should be critically checked and the nomination should not be biased. Aderiqueza (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Fellow Wikipedians, I had intended not to comment on or persuade any of the decisions of the AfD opened on any of the articles started during the #AfroCreativesWiki project because we had intensively trained the participants and I don't want the standards that has made Wikipedia what it is to be bent.
    This article was created as a part of an ongoing #AfroCreativesWiki edit-a-thon (where I happen to be Wikipedian in Residence) and I chimed in to say two things.
    • The topic has been nominated for significant awards (however they are for works that have not been significant enough to make it to Wikipedia)
    • The reincarnation of this article may not be much different than it was when it was deleted 2 years ago. It is left to the discretion of this discussion keep or delete it.
    • Because the editor is new, we might rather move the article to draft rather than delete.
    Whatever the outcome, it will be taken as a lesson for other participants.
    Thank you. Danidamiobi (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 12:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Chamber of Exporters of Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Earlier G11, G12 violation deleted page again recreated. The page earlier deleted with this log: 2014-11-16 07:38 (Jimfbleak): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.nce.lk/. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 11:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please don't accuse, I have accepted money. My connection with this institution was, I was a speaker at an event organized by them in 2000. I have sent screenshots of a newspaper and a photo (which published my speech) to ArbCom via email.Eesan1969 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eesan1969: You must declare COI and UPE which you haven't done yet. Now, as you have admitted that you have clear COI when you say "My connection with this institution was, I was a speaker at an event organized by them in 2000" - that confirms the COI. Please have a look at COI and ask yourself why you are forbidden to create and edit such a page and what to do when you are connected with the subject. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 16:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Sri Lanka. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the substub article cites three refs, first one is non-indepedent, second one can't be opened (might be my laptop's issue, or is it a dead link?), third one mentions a minor, trivial award. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP, which is more demanding than GNG (the latter this also fails). The creator probably has a WP:COI, evident from the disclaimer, that alone isn't a deletion rationle, as it's not enough for CSD under G11, but notability criteria are failed, so delete is definitely suitable. VickKiang (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 11:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Covelya Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. --Bears (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss USA States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no reason for this article to exist. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 10:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Florence and the Machine discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-TICE CUBE) 11:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Wiltern (Florence and the Machine album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There isn't an obvious place for this to be redirected to except perhaps the discography. No significant coverage beyond its existence, not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS >> Lil-unique1 (talk)10:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 11:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Western Australian machinery of government changes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure how this ever got an article - it's the kind of routine new-government departmental restructuring that happens after every change of government, and there's nothing that was unusually controversial, interesting, or notable outside of primary sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources at the time would contradict your assertions - it was substantial change, and the sheer number of changes were and still have ramifications as to how the wa government operates if you ask a senior public servant. Its all very hohum, if there is need to delete it, maybe some of the content can be reassigned, I have no interest in defending or asserting anything about the article - maybe someone else has more interest to go one way or the other, there's a lot more rubbish on wp than this that needs attention. JarrahTree 09:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like there was public attention at the time, let alone after the fact - if its ramifications are only known to senior public servants in the state, then that's probably not indicative of notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was actually an election promise by McGowan in order to reduce costs. I seem to recall some public attention to if at the time, but I can't seem to find much evidence of that using Google. The content is certainly relevant to Wikipedia, but I don't think there is enough there to justify its own article. All it needs is a paragraph or two on Mark McGowan and a few sentences on the relevant departments. Steelkamp (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 11:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Róża Maria Potocka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded by User:XxTechnicianxX with "Absent of sources for 16 years and 10 months.". Depodded by User:Espresso Addict with "Deprodding; enough here to merit full discussion at AfD". Sadly, the PROD nom seems to be correct - nothing in the article suggests notability (per WP:INHERITED, being a part of a noble family is not sufficient). My BEFORE only confirms she existed (is mentioned in genealogical trees), but I can't find any WP:SIGCOV-meeting discussion of her life. The article is still unreferenced and has no pl wiki equivalent. Could redirect to the article about her notable husbandson, perhaps. I know, I know, but nothing else we can do given lack of sourcing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume you are right to delete and maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but I found more searching for ""Potocka Róża Maria" but gave up due to language barriers. CT55555 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GBooks seems to return the same results for me for both searchers, interesting, but not helpful in finding new sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per consensus. If this comes up again, please scrutinize the sources. The fake references are disturbing, indeed. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autopix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence found of any notability. Sources seem to be added randomly, e.g. "In 2018, 3sixtyfactory project was joined by Adam Finch." is sourced to this from 2011 which mentions nothing about any of this, and "In 2022, 3sixtyfactory merged with Autopix as one company. Autopix offers free training in technology and innovation, to people facing financial hardship in the Philippines." is sourced to this book from 2013 which again has no information on autopix or 3sixtyfactory or Bakke, never mind about what happened in the Philippines in 2022 obviously. While I can't access the 2022 version of the book used as source 2, the 2013 version again doesn't mention either the prof or his software. Looking for better sources only produced primary sources. Fram (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Mohammad Shafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GEOLAND#1 as it is not a legally-recognised populated community (such as, e.g., an incorporated town), and also fails WP:GNG as there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Part of a violation of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT by Carlossuarez46 - see this ARBCOM case for details and this talk page discussion where Farsi-speaking editors explained to Carlos why the creation of these articles was a mistake.

The name means literally "Mohammed Shafi's Pump" - pumps are very common land-marks in Iran due to its dryness and are not necessarily associated with villages. Sources are GEONet Names Server (which is unreliable) and the Iranian Census, which (as explained in the above-linked talk-page discussion) simply counts people around a named location that need not be a community of any kind and can be e.g., a teahouse, farm, factory, petrol station, oil rig, railway station, or pump. The article comes with co-ordinates, but the co-ordinates are an empty field roughly equidistant between two large farms/small villages (it is impossible to tell from the satellite view which they are). The location is part of the larger village of Anbarābād which is in a totally different county, not even a neighbouring one, to Arzuiyeh County where this supposed "village" is supposed to be.

NB. - an FA wiki version of this article exists but it is cited to the English wikipedia article, which shows just how dangerous this kind of fake article can be as it leads to the creation of fake on-map locations through citogenesis. Arguments that this kind of article is "harmless" are completely wrong and a common Wiki-fallacy. FOARP (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jitto Arulampalam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are routine news for a WP:BLP. scope_creepTalk 07:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Application Programming Interface Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ADMASQ, WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 07:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2XL Swagger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NCORP - no independent coverage. Sourced to press releases and paid content. KH-1 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NCORP. Gameindustry.biz (GIBiz) is the only reliable source covering the company, and it is an interview. While the company may have released one or two notable games or hosted several showcases, notability is not inherited. So far no independent secondary sources discuss the company's history in a significant manner. OceanHok (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep. The article is currently on the main page, so WP:SK#6 applies. This shouldn't be nominated until after its run is over, or consensus for removal gained at ERRORS is the issue is so egregious tha it needs actioning now.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrath Month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not actually a thing. The sources consist of tongue-in-cheek treatments and reporting on a Twitter meme. There is no actual celebration, organization, or establishment of this "event". It's basically fake and a hoax. It definitely does not merit a standalone Wikipedia article. Elizium23 (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Nibagwire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. There is this New York Times video of her, but no article [75]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadis & Goldberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A run-of-the-mill law firm with no refs that clearly establish WP:NCORP. A mix of PR and dubious industry awards. Wikipedia is not attorney advertising. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ant run of the mill, it is serving only buyside clients are not at liberty to saar or draw too much attention .
I created and contributed most in this article imperviously, Ron Geffner who heads the legal practice with 800 funds regularly comments on legal topics on mainstream media is the go to person for such matters AND was linked to two other prominent directors of a Canadian fintech regulated payments business.. Ron Geffner, Managing Partner of Sadis also previously served as the non-exec director on the board TSX.V listed fintech company Midpoint (company). Enhanced DD and forensic investigation The shareholders benefited immensely from his actions' at the material time as a shareholderdispute and board proxy battle was resolved with the Sadis lawyer as an independent. Sadis' manageng partner also had the highest number of shareholder votes despite not being management, but wwas nominated by shareholders

https://www.globenewswire.com/fr/news-release/2017/09/27/1288190/0/en/Midpoint-Holdings-Ltd-Appointment-of-Officers.html https://www.globenewswire.com/fr/news-release/2017/09/27/1288190/0/en/Midpoint-Holdings-Ltd-Appointment-of-Officers.html Recommend this stays, with a proper update on reputable sources and a cleanup. It is the largest law firm servicing hedge funds and the alternative sector only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerousrave (talkcontribs)

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Gaspersz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pro forma nomination on behalf of this addition to the logpage by 174.4.152.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). jp×g 04:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural close, please open a new AFD discussion.. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular monarchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was nominated for deletion in 2010 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular monarchy). Has had OR and lack of source tags since at least 2010 and after having 8 years to resolve issues, has simply never been done. As editors have remarked: "this entire page is based on a misconception based on a random idiosyncratic article published in 2005. Not encyclopedic", and "I really don't see much that is salvageable here". Any information that is remotely encyclopedic is already covered in other articles, such as the Martin Kingsley article, or articles on royal titles. It was also nominated for deletion eight years ago and was kept only in the hopes that it could be improved, which it clearly has not. trackratte (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was never transcluded to a logpage, meaning nobody ever saw it, commented on it, or closed it (ergo it is still open).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR indeed and impressively longstanding a piece of OR it is. Also I hate this style of proto-referencing. I mean, who the hell are Upchick, Clissold and White? Unverifiable cruft is what we have here and it needs to go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete prose seems to be predicated on a distinction drawn in one paper by one scholar, not a scholarly consensus. Remaining citations lack sufficient information to have any value. List is largely WP:OR. Though the shift from 'King of the (people)' to 'King of (country)' has been commented upon with respect to how a nation-state viewed itself, the different titulature can likewise represent nothing but the whim of the monarch or scribe. Grouping an early-medieval tribal leader with a modern monarch trying to make some political statement, just becasue the two appear with the same syntactic titular style, is apples and oranges. Agricolae (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune. The first modern Greek monarchy was King of Greece, but the second was king of the Hellenes. In France, the traditional title was King of France, but when Louis XVIII lost his throne to Louis Phillipe, the title became King of the French. This is a real distinction, but I do not think it is useful to encumber the article with a load of medieval examples, particularly English ones where the title might vary from one charter to another. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peterkingiron. The fact that the article's cited using a weird old format is, well, annoying, but it seems quite trivial to fix. There are a few sources cited, and not just the one guy. jp×g 18:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No policy-based reasons were made for keeping. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kumar Yadav (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic, fails WP:NPROF, books listed are non-notable. User4edits (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the google scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Z-fh2-kAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao But I was concerned to see most of the elements referenced on this profile are not attributable to him (but to other academics under the name R Kumar) as shown by the fact they are from totally different fields such as chemistry, psychiatry, etc. I could not find the academic contributions listed on the Wikipedia page in google scholar.
Under those circumstances, I do not think the subject passes criterium 1 of WP:ACADEMIC. JamesKH76 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With papers going as far back as the 1950s. Thank you JamesKH76. KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There seems to be some massive discrepancies
[] His Wikipedia says he is Dean at some Baba Mast Nath University, but the reference (2) cited shows the name only as Dr. Raj Kumar, and not Raj Kumar Yadav (most educational institutes will put full formal names).
[] His profiles at Vidwaan (cited) and SSRN (both verified by his full name and image) show his designation as Assistant Professor at a different university -- Central University of Punjab.
[] At the website of Central University of Punjab, he is NOT the dean, but merely an assistant professor while someone else is Dean. His full name and photo can be verified at his profile at the University website.
Edit: On his SSRN profile he has mentioned his Wikipedia page (calling him dean at some other univ) but has not updated his affiliation (had it been changed), this rules out that the probability that he was earlier at a different university and now a dean at some other university.
This takes me to ANI Notice on talk page of the User who created this page and their recent behaviour indicating promoting Non-notable individuals, perhaps paid. User4edits (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He was Dean in a private university and he joined Central University of Punjab at initial level i.e. Assistant Professor. He is having 14 years experience and books are circulated 8n various libraries of different countries.I love to be honest (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does not explain why did you not update his Wikipedia page, despite being so closely aware about this person? User4edits (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As my talk page received the nomination I came to know and updated. I love to be honest (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under WP:A7 by admin Ged UK. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepti Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deepti Malik

This is one of three versions of an unreferenced biography of a living person that do not explain why the subject satisfies musical notability or general notability. They could be tagged for BLPPROD, or for A7, but a claim of significance seems to have been made, so we might as well go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other two versions are:

@Robert McClenon: It says "participation in mega music event in December 2019", implying that it was a collective record (like the largest number of performers in an event, or the like). Searching the Guinness website, the only musical record mentioning Mumbai in December 2019 is [82], which is the "longest karaoke marathon by multiple participants" (with Virag Madhumalati being listed as the recipient). There is no mention of Deepti Malik, which indicates that they were one of many participants. jp×g 04:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:JPxG - Then the article, as written, is making a false claim, which is being verified to be a false claim in the process of this deletion discussion. The author is blowing smoke and waving their hands. I would !vote Delete except that I have already !voted by nominating. I thought of tagging the three turds stubs as A7 and didn't. Another editor can still tag it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" case is weak: it makes reference only to publications by this self-declared government. These are not sources that are independent from the subject of the article, and therefore not reliable sources. In the absence of such sources, WP:V mandates deletion. Sandstein 19:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions of the Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unreferenced fork of Donetsk People's Republic#Administrative divisions, which cites only unreliable sources; unencyclopedic; it’s like WP:SYNTH but not from reliable sources, giving the appearance of legitimacy to a fake country; borderline WP:HOAX. This information is not found in WP:reliable sources

This is a detailed expansion of a decree by the “authorities” in a Russian puppet state in Ukraine about territories they only partially control, which can be summed up in a single line in the main article: “the DNR authorities issued a decree rejecting Ukraine's 2020 reform of administrative divisions in Donetsk Oblast and only recognize the older division into raions: see Administrative divisions of Donetsk Oblast#Administrative divisions until 2020.”

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrative divisions of the Luhansk People's Republic. —Michael Z. 03:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as Per Alaexis Cryw 9 (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This article (1) serves no tangible purpose and (2) can be described as fringe. The comparison between Donetsk PR and Somaliland is quite frankly offensive. The Somaliland situation is entirely different; it is a civil dispute with Somalia, with no obvious foreign interference. On the other hand, Donetsk PR is clearly a puppet state of Russia in Ukraine, which classifies it as an example of Russian imperialism rather than a civil Ukrainian dispute. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. plicit 04:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyzstan–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, another bilateral largely based on primary sources. There really isn't much to these relations except a detachment of soldiers at a base. Even the article says "Relations between Spain and the Kyrgyz Republic are still poorly developed. ". LibStar (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 03:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural close as this is a reopened AFD and this page isn't even an article any more. Start a discussion at WP:RFD.. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David DeFalco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear lack of notability, failing WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. With only one significant acting role, no major fan base, no awards or recognitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryskies (talkcontribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was created in November 2019, but was never added to a daily logpage, and never commented on, so I am relisting it now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is not an article, it is a redirect so this AFD should probably be procedurally closed as invalid. Liz Read! Talk! 01:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. Please do not relist old, forgotten AFD discussions without starting from the beginning. It's better to procedurally close this and start a new AFD which includes tagging the article under discussion.. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stock solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The original article's subject is intended to be diluted, so therefore the article itself should be. Who's with me? RealSanix (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have no idea what's going on here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. This AfD was created in 2019, never linked to from anywhere, and seems to never have been edited by anyone other than its creator. Additionally, it seems like a joke, rather than a serious proposal to delete an article. jp×g 03:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with mention to Solution (chemistry). As the first edit summary states ("part of joke project") this was indeed a joke, and an inappropriate one. But, with the relist and the article being properly tagged, indeed some action is warranted here. The unsourced stub is unnecessary and misleading and violates the spirit of WP:NOTDIC. Importantly, the article seems to conflate stock solution with standard solution; you can have a stock solution that is also a standard, but not all stock solutions are of precise concentration, such as buffer solutions. So define the term (correctly) at the main article and redirect there. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mdewman6 - as much as I don't want to reward an AfD launched as a joke, the page itself deserves removal, as a glorified dictionary definition that, as Mdewman says, muddles distinctions, and nothing in it is referenced or expressed in a manner that we would want to copy it as part of a merge to the target, but the namespace is a possible search term so a redirect would serve a purpose. Agricolae (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. jp×g 02:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A malformed AfD header was fixed. This AfD was also placed in the wrong category — S instead of T. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. This is somewhat confusing but I’m going to close this as 'speedy keep' citing WP:SKCRIT#1: Absence of delete rationale. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should not be deleted.

The fact that this article is considered for deletion is somewhat confusing: no justification has been given for deletion at all, and, to my knowledge, all ongoing issues have been discussed extensively in the talk page, in which there has been consensus between the two main disputants (i.e., CensoredDog and Huon) to seek Dispute Resolution. Furthermore, ongoing discussion has only lasted 4 days, from March 7 to March 11, 2019.

Additionally, there is an apparent inconsistency between the treatment of this article and that of Morrison Academy's other campus in Kaohsiung. If Morrison Academy Kaohsiung's article stays, then the Morrison Academy article, which is about the original campus, should also stay.

On my view, every article--even those about schools--should remain open to different views. A caveat has been inserted on this page before that this article is written like an advertisement. Yet, upon the insertion of certain sections and passages whose content may be controversial (i.e., the school's stance not to condone certain issues of LGBT or divorce as well as its affirmation in a science curriculum that God is the creator of the universe), content that refers to reliable (absent further objections) primary and secondary sources, and that has not been proven to put undue weight, there has been resistance. Now, rather than considering improving this article, some user(s) are attempting to get it deleted for no apparent reason. This seems nonsensical to say the least.

CensoredDog (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC) CensoredDog (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CensoredDog, GB fan, and Blueboar: I'm a bit confused. GB fan nominated the page for deletion, and then blueboar reverted adding the AfD template because the AfD page hadn't been created. It now exists (here), but only contains CensoredDog advocating that the article be kept. What is supposed to be happening? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, you got things a little backwards. Blueboar added the AFD template to the article. About an hour after the template was added CensoredDog created this with an explanation of why the article should not be deleted. About an hour later I removed the template because Blueboar had not explained why the article should be deleted nor listed it on the AFD log. This page wasn't created correctly. If it was fixed with the proper templates and listed it would be quickly closed because there is nothing on it that advocates deletion. What needs to happen is up to anyone who wants to advocate for deletion. If no one wants to put forward a case for deletion then this can probably be deleted. ~ GB fan 00:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GB fan: sorry for messing up the timeline; thanks for explaining. Blueboar do you still think this should be deleted? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies as well... I got called away from my desk with real life work issues half way through the nom formulation process, and I still don’t have time to explain my rational (why I think the topic is non-notable). Just ignore the current nom and I will re-nominate when I am less busy. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This nomination was never actually listed on a daily logpage, and it was never closed; it is therefore technically still open, even though it was created in 2019.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Hodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, lacks WP:SIGCOV. This source would be more than a trivial mention [83], but that is still not enough to satisfy either criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found these sources which show he is notable in Trinidad and Tobago and USA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. In addition, he is a 16-time internationally capped player with an ongoing fully professional career, and is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Less Unless (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Barrigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as this [84] are trivial at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janouk Charbonneau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonella Alonso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
LaSirena69 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe this subject meets our notability standards for adult entertainment industry performers. Notability seems premised on the fact that she wrote an undergraduate paper touching on the industry that she ended up working in, at a relatively unremarkable level with relatively insignificant awards or recognitions. BD2412 T 16:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Contrary to what the nominator suggests, her notability also comes from her awards in the industry: Being listed as a Penthouse Pet in February 2021, her an AVN Award, and nominations in both said awards and the PornHub Awards, as well as being featured on the cover of magazines. The AVN Awards are on of the most important awards in the pornographic industry, and with all the awards and recognitions the biography should meet WP:ENT. Her undergraduate paper is only an interesting part of her biography and how it is related to her current job, but notability has not been argued based on it. -NoonIcarus (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep, awards and coverage show that she's notable. 89.139.131.44 (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC) 89.139.131.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
So what? I'm not a registered user, but I made hundreds of edits even this year; my IP is not a constant one. 89.139.131.44 (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such a claim is not verifiable, hence the tag. Zaathras (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what? There is no h-index here, we are not in academia; number of edits also doesn't give you any higher rank or position. Both voices, yours and mine, should be counted as equal, even if you don't think so. You can dislike unregistered users, but I'm no vandal and don't like to be treated as one. 89.139.131.44 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to be considered like an actual person and not a random number that could be anyone or no one at any given time, feel free to register an account. Otherwise, your "vote" and subsequent replies are the totality of your Wikipedia contributions, nothing else exists. Zaathras (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's because of users like you I prefer to be anonymous. The fact that you made 1000 or ten thousands edits doesn't give you any rights or superiority, you are not an admin if I'm not mistaken. 89.139.131.44 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an user that is voting to keep the article, I also advise you to create an account. It gives you more credibility in the community, and it is actually more anonymous than your IP address, which can tell your geolocation. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Crondall. Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Park Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG; not notable just because it exists WP:ORGSIG ZimZalaBim talk 17:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Bia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Socialite, club promoter and Olivia Rodrigo's boyfriend. Notability is not inherited from a partner, but that's pretty much all we have to get past WP:GNG, which this article, tagged for notability since May, lacks any evidence that its subject meets. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated - and in today's world, the charge of kindness is sort of not the worst of things! ;) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I-d magazine, seems independent [89] Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and yet it is an interview, comprised largely of the subject talking about himself. I'm also underwhelmed by RS articles credited to "staff." It's a vague enough definition that it can be either legitimate coverage or promotional without revealing one way or another. It is worth noting, though, that a quick perusal of the site reveals most articles on I.D. Magazine are credited writers with bylines. The few credited to "staff" tend to be content pulled from other sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Unhappy to weigh in with a keep -- I'm with Oaktree b on the minor celebrity thing -- but he (just barely) meets GNG. The Complex references are solid, as is GQ. There's a photo feature in Interview, references from WWD (questionable reliability) and brief mentions in the New York Times [90], the LA Times [91],and others that I accessed through the Wikipedia library. Not suggesting those refs demonstrate notability, but they do suggest it. JSFarman (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While the sourcing isn't great, it is there and, with 22,000 pageviews over the last month, the page is clearly of value to our readers which to me is an important factor. NemesisAT (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as even the "weak keep" voters pointed out, sourcing is extremely weak. Whole article reeks of self-promotion. At the very least, it's WP:TOOSOON. I don't see "Complex" as a reliable source - it looks like a website built to promote products under a thin veneer of "reporting" lifestyle "news". It's certainly not journalism and appears to have minimal editorial control. In other words, it looks like a site that would take money from Zack Bia in exchange for promoting him. Wes sideman (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of those things is justification for keeping? "record label that has notable artists signed and developed" - notability is not inherited. "being a recognized DJ and and club promoter in the Los Angeles socialite scene" - where's the sources that say that? "Olivia Rodrigo stepped into his personal life" - you must be joking. None of those reasons are valid. Wes sideman (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The only previous responses were to keep. Despite relisting twice, nobody has taken any interest in arguing otherwise. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lagrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Evaluating the page under WP:CRIMINAL, I cannot see that this case is fit for coverage on Wikipedia. The guideline begins: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person (emphasis original). There is no such article, so let's move on.

Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: either The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure (not true here; these are low-profile victims) or The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

A WP:BEFORE shows not much more than Haunted Spy has found and included: routine coverage about the initial killings, rapes and trial, and a small amount of coverage when Lagrone was executed. It seems Lagrone never confessed, the motive was not "unusual" or "noteworthy" (however evil it was) and nor was the method. — Bilorv (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Vinland. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vinland (1010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same rationale as the AFD for Battle of Vinland (1003). No decent sources and the date looks like OR. Unbh (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow time for further discussion, including redirect vs merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Heroes characters. Liz Read! Talk! 01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Parkman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a BEFORE, topic lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. Consider redirecting to List of Heroes characters. ––FormalDude talk 01:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to White Wizzard. I know that this decision doesn't have full support here but I'm going with a redirect as an alternative to deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Wallner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nothing to indicate notability. autobiography created by the musician himself. -- FMSky (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural close. This article should be renominated to a new AFD if editors believe it should be deleted.. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Kaiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD fot Gunnar Kaiser. Has been deleted 4 times just in 2020 at his home .de Wikipedia and finaly has been locked. Not notable - https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch&page=Gunnar_Kaiser

Dcddiegxo1e3d (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Malformed nom from 2020 that was never transcluded to a logpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 01:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ATK Mohun Bagan FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant page created with false information to create vandalism. The original page is Mohun Bagan AC. This page must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmPushpak (talkcontribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Malformed AfD nomination from 2020 that was never transcluded to a logpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 01:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Euro TV Moldova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one sentence and no sources or references.--E789999 (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Malformed AfD from 2020 that was never added to daily logpage
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 01:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodLife Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two sentences and nothing else --E789999 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Malformed nomination from 2020 that was never transcluded onto a daily logpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 01:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 00:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Holiday at the Sea EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG, the article is unsourced and a search brought up no reliable secondary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete for lacking any evidence of significance (criterion A7). XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Jupiter Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A BEFORE search did not turn up anything beyond the job listings/database records/etc. that you always find for companies. Fails GNG and NORG. HouseBlastertalk 00:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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