Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 20	December 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie Guys

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

This website or "entertainment and comedy brand" does not pass WP:GNG, WP:WEB, or WP:NCORP. I searched Google, Google News, Google News Archives, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com with combinations of "Movie Guys", "Paul Preston", "Adam Witt", "TMG Interview", and "Ford Fiesta" without finding any useful sources. Most of what I found were false positives and the rest were passing mentions. Of the current references, the Voyage LA and Shout Out LA sources are both WP:INTERVIEW content and therefore not secondary or independent. I'm also having a hard time figuring out who the author of these sources are or at least who did the interviewing and I'm unconvinced by the reliability of the sources. The Post-Journal sources is pretty clearly a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. The remaining sources currently being cited are primary, self-published, or promotional. I opened a WP:PROD, but Closedcap14 removed the tag with the comment "Added additional citations". I asked them to present sources to demonstrate notability on the talk page, but I had yet to receive a response so I decided to open an WP:AFD. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits in GNews, nothing I see telling me this is notable. Oaktree b (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons listed by nominator. Such-change47 (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Fernandez

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Lack of indepth coverage. sources provided include Facebook and video links. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite my due diligence, the subject fails WP:GNG. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not convinced that this subject meets notability guidelines for inclusion.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year! Missvain (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislao Nerio

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not so sure that this fails GNG, it could pass on the basis of the way he died. [1], [2], [3]. There are certainly sources that show more in-depth news there. Govvy (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of sources found by Govvy, likely meets GNG. Giant Snowman 21:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I couldn't find any significant coverage of him during his life meaning he fails GNG. Being allegedly murdered and having his corpse cut up and put in bags isn't a pass of WP:CRIME either. Dougal18 (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because despite coverage of his death, sources do not appear to meet WP:CRIME, which requires that a crime “victim …, had a large role within a well-documented historic event.” I’m not seeing that here. Further, I don’t think we should apply GNG over either the more specific guidelines that would apply to the two ways this person might be notable, namely football and his death.—-Chaser (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites blocked in the Philippines

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

Prodded by an IP user with rationale, "We dont need an incomplete list of cruft about this." That is not a good ratioanle, but the deprod rationale by single-edit account Aazph (talk · contribs) was even worse: "Proposing for deletion of information about censorship is utterly ironically an act of censorship." Nonetheless, it probably fails WP:LISTN, since coverage seems to be limited to a mass blocking of about 2500 porn websites in January 2017. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge raw info to censorship in the Philippines. Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE cherrypicking of famous websites (and some WP:OR-based crap about something called “ouo”) from possibly thousands. WP:LISTCRUFT fork of content that should have been used for improving the main article. Dronebogus (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: merged whatever meager notable content there was to censorship in the Philippines. Dronebogus (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the remainder of the article can be deleted; it has zero notability. Fails GNG. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 06:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. Ctrlwiki • 08:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory for maintaining these lists. Shankargb (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is little amount of verifiably censored websites. The major blocked pornography websites blocked in 2017 are already mentioned in the pertinent section in Censorship in the Philippines.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater ^(talk) 17:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Abdulnasyrov

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

BLP of the owner of a chain of car dealerships in Russia. The article doesn’t seem to have any real claim of notability and the sourcing does not appear to be in depth independent coverage. This appears to be a promotional article about a non notable subject. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete businessman, nothing more. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable business man. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ginbopewz (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The person is not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks in depth coverage, isn't notble. Juggyevil (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dara Fanka

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

I cannot find reliable sources in English. While reviewing the article I found that all the existing links failed verification, they were either dead or led to the general "Cubex" website. The more prolific editors on the article ("Studio cubex" (now blocked) and "KristinaWOX") appear to be employees of Cubex. Many IP edits as well. I think this is clearly a conflict of interest and promotional. The article for Ksenija Bulatović violates the same rules, but I haven't had time to investigate WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - there is nothing here to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. In addition the image appears to be a copy-vio. The uploader has contributed many images of variable quality to Commons but they don't have the very clear ownership stamp seen on this image. Looks like promotional editing. I PRODed this in 2016 when the English was exceptionally poor. The PROD template was soon removed by "Studio Cubex" without any improvement in sourcing.The quality of the English has now been remedied but there are no RSs to demonstrate notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get one hit in Google Scholar, but it won't open, not sure if it supports the notability or not. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite my best efforts, I can't see how this subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Perhaps there are sources in Serbian that show that she has works in major collections, etc, but I can't find anything. And she's also not a notable WP:NMUSICIAN, either. Missvain (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, all the links are dead or do not verify.Juggyevil (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not convinced this subject meets our WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR based on what I see in this discussion.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year! Missvain (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Anderson (Cal Scale)

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

(Too complicated for PROD). At first glance, this looks well cited, however the latter citations are more about his wife than him. This man existed and and did some amazing model railroad work (documented here, although not sure it's a reliable source). However I am unable to find evidence that he meets biographic notability. He died in 2000, but there should be something on line relative to his model railroad work, and I'm unable to find reference to it. Much of Trains magazine is his writing, but he doesn't appear to meet notability as an author. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 14:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an unclear one. From a quick search, I'm getting results, but figuring out which are relevant and provide significant coverage, if any, will take a while. I will continue to look into this. NMRA is a long standing organization (founded 1935) in the model railroading world, and sets many standards for model train designs and production, I'd consider them reliable for anything pertaining to model trains. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Trainsandotherthings, especially re: the RS element. One thing I ran into when I found this in the backlog is that there's another John Anderson who is also involved in the model railroad world. If he's family and you find sourcing about either man, maybe there's something about the family's work? Just thinking out loud there. Star Mississippi 16:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm going to have to say Weak delete. I just can't find enough references to support notability. I can't think of any good redirect targets, either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Pakdel (Production Manager)

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

Appears to fail GNG. Created by blocked sockpuppet. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: Turn Mehdi Pakdel (Production Manager) into Mehdi Pakdel. Everyone in Iran knows his and is famous. Nejati20 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, nothing of note. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not satisfying GNG. Likely promotional. Ladsgroup^overleg 02:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there isnt significant coverage in the article.Juggyevil (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Bbb23 ✗plicit 00:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme the Loot (song)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Missvain (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The rapper's article was deleted a few days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Baby Tape. By the usual logic that means his works are non-notable too without verifiable sources. Delete this song; do not redirect to its parent album even though its article fell through the cracks and still exists at Dragonborn (album). I am going to nominate that album article for speedy deletion, ~~and if that gets rejected for some reason I will start an AfD here~~. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Album has now been speedy deleted, even more speedily than I expected. That means this song is also eligible for a Speedy Delete if any admin happens to notice this before the AFD's seven days are up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:A9. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Performance problem (organizational development)

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

Unsourced for 15 years - this is basically just a DICTDEF. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fifteen years ago, I split this off some other article becuase it was an irrelevant section. Seems like it's still a dictdeft, and I'm suprised it's taken so long for anyone to notice it doesn't need its own topic. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Devokewater ^(talk) 17:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Biorepository. Merge away...

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year! Missvain (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Resource Center

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

Can't find any coverage indicating that this is a notable topic Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment This comes across as jargon for something I might recognize if it were called by its common name. If it were expanded to the point of explaining what it really is, I might favor keeping it. Mangoe (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This term seems to cover what are more commonly known as gene banks and genomic databases. The jargon is too obscure for this to be the page title if the article is kept. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge, see below. - as written the article is only sourced to the OECD definition, which is really vague. You have to sort through all the University of X Biological Resource Centers, and the handful of bio departments that seem to have given this name to their study help/tutoring service/office hours, but there are some sources that discuss the concept under this name, often about genomics or microbiology collections - for example [4], [5], [6], [7]. Search results also overlap with a company called the Biological Resource Center which apparently got in some trouble a couple of years ago for misusing human remains, and which may itself be notable. (Even better, the owner of the human-remains company was apparently called Stephen Gore.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Biological Resource Centre" that got into trouble for misusing human remains is not the subject of this article. The other references you link are effectively covering gene banks, which we already have an article for. A redirect to gene bank seems appropriate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, okay: "...which may itself, also, separately, be notable, as the topic of another, different article" :)

This is broader than just gene banks - culture collections are for sure included, and the first article I linked uses a broad enough definition to include a 16th-century herbarium. I notice we also have biorepository, though, which does seem to be essentially the same subject (see [8], [9]), so I'd say merge there. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into biorepository. They have essentially the same scope, cover the same facilities, and biorepository has more and better citations/structure. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 13:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Flanagan (tennis)

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

Not notable as a tennis player and definitely not notable as a financial analyst. His ATP page shows that he never cracked the top 700 in singles or top 400 in doubles and earned only 4K$ in career prize money. He fared a bit better as a junior and college player but nothing that generates the kind of in-depth coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, has received no significant coverage and doesn't meet GNG. --JonnyDKeen (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. No indication of notability either as an athlete or as a businessperson. Does not appear to meet GNG, and no substantive sources on which to base a BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing presented in this discussion convinces me this subject meets WP:GNG nor WP:NACADEMIC.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year! Missvain (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yatsuhiro Nakagawa

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

Delete The article about this person in jawiki has been deleted cause the lack of notability. Se also [10] and [11].--Harada Daisuke (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~No Position - ~~assuming the article is correct that they hold the position of "Distinguished Professor," that is a pass under WP:PROF.~~ Changed based on discussion below. PianoDan (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tsukuba University automatically give the position of "Distinguished Professor" for safely retired professor. See the article 94 of this [12]. For that reason, Tsukuba University is turning out in great numbers of "Distinguished Professor." This person have not noticeable academic achievements.--Harada Daisuke (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I don't seem to be able to cut and paste that into Google Translate, and I don't speak Japanese. Are you saying that in this case "distinguished professor" is the equivalent of "emeritus professor" at western universities? PianoDan (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know in detail about "emeritus professor" at western universities. But in Japan, the position of "Distinguished Professor" is surely given for retired professors in very many universities. "Distinguished Professor" is almost completely careless position in Japan.--Harada Daisuke (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

「名誉教授」in Japan, see this [13].--Harada Daisuke (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Removed unreliable description that "He once served as a science and technology deputy under Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita." Noboru Takeshita cabinet was established in November 1987. But Nakagawa had been became an associate Professor at Tsukuba University in 1980 [14]. This is biography by Nakagawa himself, and there isn't any source that "He once served as a science and technology deputy" in Japanese.--Harada Daisuke (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Depending on our basic researches, I don't see any notability for this author. The article as it reads is also nothing more than puffery. Dear Debasish (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Ingo

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

Notability concerns. This is technically a BIO1E - the only attestation is that one obscure sonnet was written by a person of this name. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The person's abbreviated name appears once in a local interest reference book as the possible writer of a local folk ditty that is itself non-notable. The article admits that the person's full name is unknown and there is no information available about his life. Therefore there is practically nothing to search for, and the mystery man does not qualify for an encyclopedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Going with the keeps to allow for them to improve, expand and grow this article with the "exhaustive" citations that supposedly exist.

Also, in the future, please keep it civil in deletion discussions.

Thanks everyone for participating. Unhappy with this decision? If one wishes to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. I will defer to other administrators to review it. I will not re-review my decision. Happy holidays. Missvain (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makhtumkala

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

Not finding anything (legal recognition or GNG) to establish notability aside from the single travel guide entry that's cited. Coordinates may be off, since there doesn't seem to be a village at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The travel guide is by Paul Brummell, former British Ambassador to Turkmenistan and that he found the village worthy of an entire paragraph is an indicator of notability in itself.
Sources concerning Turkmenistan are in Russian/Turkmen and shall not be expected to be found online. This is a result of systemic bias as well as censorship practices of Govt. of Turkmenistan — for example, their National Library does not have any presence in internet! It is for the former reasons, that we presume populated, legally recognized places to be notable, even if their population is very low.
I do not assume the nominator to be proficient in Turkmen to know where to search for "legal recognition." [Turkmen Legal Code features an apparently exhaustive list of villages but presidential/parliamentary resolutions and decrees often mention other villages.] These are the coordinates of Makhtumkala (var. Magtymgala) and I cannot be held responsible for a (rogue) bot. This news-article from Turkmenistan Government discusses the settlement and the mausoleum in significant detail. I am yet to start listing offline sources including archaeological reports on the mausoleum - stop wasting my time.TrangaBellam (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam, I'm confused by your "stop wasting my time" comment. If you created an article based on a single travel guide source, then surely you either had sufficient sourcing on hand to establish notability (3 reliable sources is a general rule of thumb) or planned to add it in the near future. How is anyone wasting your time by asking you to do something that you were going to do anyway? Were you expecting others to do this work for you? –dlthewave ☎ 17:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further,
МАГТЫМГАЛА - [..] Кака районында магтымларың яшаян обасы, гала [..]
— Атаныязов, Солтанша (1970). Туркменистаның географик атларынын душундиришли сѳзлуги [Toponym Dictionary of Turkmenistan]. Ashgabat: Turkmenistan Academy of Sciences. p. 201.
and
In West Kopetdagh in the 1970s, leopards were spotted in [..] next to the village of Makhtumkala in the Sumbar Valley (June 1976, one adult) [..]
— Rustamov, Anver K.; Sopyev, Ovez (1994). Fet, Victor; Atamuradov, Khabibulla I. (eds.). Vertebrates in the Red Data Book of Turkmenistan. Monographiae Biologicae. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. p. 208. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-1116-4_13. ISBN 978-94-011-1116-4. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
TrangaBellam (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TrangaBellam, ill-feeling could be avoided if you'd incubated this article in draft-space until after you'd finished listing the offline sources. It is reasonable for someone to bring it here if they consider it inadequately supported, and if they cannot find sources themselves, even if there are political reasons why those sources are hard to find. I'd therefore suggest draftifying until you and/or others have completed the work. Elemimele (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and if they cannot find sources themselves - WP:CIR. The editor has been nominating tens of articles from different geographical regions in the belief that they violate GEOLAND - it is impossible that someone will be competent enough to ascertain legal status of territories in so many countries and such a bull-in-the-chinashop approach is only indicative of hubris. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TrangaBellam has identified only passing mentions of the location. What is required for a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass is evidence of legal recognition, but no evidence of that is provided here. Similarly a pass under WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources, but again there is no such evidence provided here.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here that any populated place is notable: this is not the case. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer, it does not include articles on localities with no legal recognition and about which no encyclopaedic article can be written. The entire point of what we are trying to achieve here is that we are supposed to be writing encyclopaedia articles, not directory listings. FOARP (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had linked to a pdf about legally recognized places. Did you read that or do you expect me to read it for you? Maybe, teach you Turkmen language? You wish to claim that the Government of Turkmenistan is ignorant about its own villages when it describes the settlement and the mausoleum in five paragraphs? Or, that the Turkmenistan Academy of Sciences is similarly ignorant? Wow. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow indeed. You posted a 404 link (to openstreetmap.org . . . ). Maybe lessons in HTML and Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources are called for? Or since the Turkmenistan govt website does not mention the topic of the article by name at all, a lesson in reading? And since this is a government website pitched to tourists, a lesson in what an independent source actually is? Followed by a lesson in how to discuss things on the internet? FOARP (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this link work for you? Since you have some inability in reading English, let me quote the passage:

Modest mausoleum called by native people as Magtym – mayazem stands alone in the Sumbar river valley near Magtymgala settlement. In translation from Arabic, “mahdum” (magsym) means “master” and “myaezem” means “great”. The mausoleum was built in honour of holy patron of magtyms, whose name occupies seventy-eight position in the chain from Adam where Prophet Mohammed is on forty-nine place. People used to call him Mahzum Agzam or Imam Agzam as it was forbidden to say own name of powerful and respected representative of Sufi clergy.
However, it is known that he was born in Gorgan two hundred years after Mongolian invasion and was not only Sufi by birth but also passed judgement for 10 years while being ruler of his velayat in the interfluve of Atrek and Gorgan rivers. The Holy man died in XV century and was buried at place of mausoleum, the legend says that white camel carrying the corpse of deceased has stopped and laid down there, much probably, following his will to inter him in certain place. Close disciples and associates of Magtym Myaezem considered stop of camel as a sign.
There were three attempts to build mausoleum on top of the grave but all of them ended up feebly. Another attempt was undertaken in XVI century and as it mentioned in one of the manuscripts of genealogy, it was organized by Seyitguly – sopy, rahmanguly – sultan and Temirbeg – yuzbashy, Musa Bin Abu Muhammed from Isfahan was an architect.
Uniqueness of modest looking mausoleum is that it resembles some of famous monuments of XV century by its planning composition. Entrance portal peshtak with vaulted niche dominates on main façade; there are smaller arched niches in two rows on both side of it.
Two spiral staircases inside the walls lead to miniature balconies and the roof. Cruciform hall is covered by double-layer dome based on shield - shaped pendentives, which are decorated by gunch plaster. Looking at the dome while standing in the centre of the hall, one can see that its edges make sixteen points star.
The Magtym Mausoleum has entered the history of national architecture as sample of classic constructive forms.

It might be new knowledge to you that there is no independent media or scholarship in Turkmenistan. Almost everything that you will ever have on post-independent Turkmenistan will be either sourced to Turkmenistan Government and scholars affiliated to them (either directly or via various missions) or travel guides by former diplomats. Concerning politics etc, you have some Moscow based specialists. Of the few western scholars—Victoria Clement, Slavomir Horak et al—who specialize on the country, none has been allowed access to the State Archives despite intense diplomatic efforts and that says something. Now, it is your call whether you want to start nuking 80% content belonging to Wikiproject Turkmenistan or apply common sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A search for МАГТЫМГАЛА in that document brings up no hits, so we're still where we were. Quoting from a tourist website (i.e., essentially an advert) does not substantiate notability. I have no problem with deleting poorly-sourced non-notable Geostubs en masse, regardless of what country they apply to. User:FOARP (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak a lick of Turkmen, but when I search for Magtymg-, I get multiple hits. Google Translate's limited Turkmen-English translation capabilities mention that it's next to words like village. I'm not sure if this is what it refers to, but I can't tell what else it could be. But it does make me wonder why the article name is Makhtumkala instead of Magtymgala. Dege31 (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Search better. Till now, you were stating that the govt website does not mention the topic of the article by name at all. Now you are proposing that the government source describing the village and associated mausoleum be discounted because it is an advertisement?

How did you ascertain it to be a tourist website? The website is of "Altyn Asyr", mouthpiece of the National news agency. TrangaBellam (talk)

(edit conflict)You want more "legal recognition?"

Sany we onuň üýtgemek ýagdaýy [of ÇYPAR AGŞAMÇYSY]: Ýary-ganatlaryň ýek‑tüki Magtymgala oba-synda (Sumbar jülgesi) [...]
Number and tendencies to change [of COMMON NOCTULE]: Single occurrences were registered in Magtymgala village (on Sumbar river) [...]
— Atayev, K; Kokanova, E., eds. (2011). The Red Data Book of Turkmenistan. Vol. 2: Invertebrate and Vertebrate Animals (3 ed.). Ashgabat: Ministry of Nature Protection, Government of Turkmenistan. p. 314.

Even more?

Gerkez obasynda, 10 kilometr Gündogarda Magtymgala obasy ýerleşýär. Obada XIV asyrdan galan ýadygärlik Magtym Mäzemiň aramgähi seleňläp dur. Rowaýatlara görä, bu mawzoleý ozallar türkmeniň magtymlar tiresiniň keramatly şyhynyň aramgähimiş. Aramgähde 3-4 sany mazar bar. Geçen asyryň ortalaryna çenli aramgähiň içinde arça agajyndan ýasalan uly sandyk bardy. Şol sandyk kitapdan doly eken. Ol kitaplar soň ýok edilipdir. Aramgähiň çep tarapyndaky uly gaýanyň üstünde ir döwürlerden galan galanyň sudurlary bar. Şol obaly ýaşuly Öwezberdi aganyň aýtmagyna görä, bu gala hem berk goralýan, barmasy aňsat bolmadyk bir dagyň üstünde ýerleşipdir. Muny basybalyjylar şunça synanyşsalar-da, alyp bilmändirler. Her çozuşa galanyň ilaty berk gaýtawul bermegi başarypdyr. Galanyň töwereklerinde, Sumbar jülgesiniň ugurlaryna ekin ekipdirler, mal bakypdyrlar.Ýagy çozan mahalynda bolsa, hemmesi gala ýygnanar ekenler. Galada juda köp adam bolupdyr. Ätiýaçlyk suwlary gutaranda olar Sumbardan dürli suw gaplarda suw alyp, hatara durup, bir-biriniň eline berip, galadaky daşdan howza guýar ekenler. Gaýra ýurtly bir kerwen mydama şu gala gelip, söwda-satyk edip, iküç gün dynç alar eken. Şeýdip, ol kerwen galanyň hanynyň, ilatynyň ynamyna girýär. Olar gije gelse-de, eglenmän, dogry gala goýberer ekenler. Bir gezek ol söwda etmäge gaýdanynda, ýurt görer diýip, öz oglunam ýany bilen alyp gaýdýar. Gelşine-de eglenmän, gala girýär. Dynç alanyndan soňra geçip gidýär. Onuň ogluny alyp gelendigini bilen duşmanlar oglanjygy alyp, söwdagäriň öňünde: «Bize şol gala girmek üçin ýol tapyp ber, bolmasa-da ogluňy öldüreris» diýýärler. Täjir kerweni bilen gijäniň bir wagty gelip, galanyň derwezesini kakýar. Derweze açylanda, duşmanlar gala girip, galanyň ilatyny gyrýarlar. Ogly olja, gyzy ýesir edýärler. Şondan soň, ol gala öňki kaddyna gelip dikelmändir. Bu oba Magtymgala diýen adyň, bu ýerde iňňän ir döwürlerden bäri «magtymlar» tiresiniň ýaşanlygyndan galan bolmagy mümkindir. Galanyň Gündogar we Günbatar taraplarynda birki metrden beýik bolmadyk daşlardan gurulan diwarlaryň galyndylary henizlerem bar.
— "Geçmişiň gözli şaýatlary". serhetabat-dovletabat.gov.tm. Retrieved 2021-12-05.

TrangaBellam (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page FOARP. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round, please. It would be great to have some fresh eyes on this that aren't involved in the article itself. Also please keep it civil.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article is a stub. The notability is questionable, and were it not for WP:NPLACE's option for legal recognition there would be little else showing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Apologies to TrangaBellam but that's how it appears to my eyes. Suggest moving it to Draft space where improvements can be made, including providing a robust source for the legal registration, and hopefully some further interesting facts about the place and its history, economy, transport, wildlife and people, all backed up by lovely, lovely, cited sources. Chumpih. (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chumpih, independent of the subject? If you are pointing at non-govt. sources, you won't get any: media is controlled by Turkmen Government directly (or indirectly). Robust sources: if Government publications mentioning it as a village are not robust, I don't know what it is. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as independent as possible. Once in Draft space this can be brought up to spec, then go through appropriate review via AfC. Chumpih. (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to give definite arguments; not handwave at policies and claim violations. What is as independent as possible? What are the specs? I have cited at-least three sources which devote more than a paragraph to the village and the mausoleum - why do you feel that they fail to establish WP:N? Draftspace is not a IDONTLIKEIT junkyard. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is made. Chumpih. (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about going for WP:THREE. Please reply with the very best 3 sources, all working, non 404ing. Optionally provide them via a translation service. Please don't copy-and-paste the contents. Just 3 URLs that satisfy WP:GNG for Makhtumkala. Chumpih. (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GEOLAND do not require a GNG pass. That being said, consult the article for the sources? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, per WP:NPLACE there needs to be legal recognition or satisfy WP:GNG. What source shows legal recognition? Chumpih. (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is your claim that sources authored by Turkmenistan government noting it to be a village in their publications do not make it one? Or is it your claim that individual villages are not recognized in Turkmenistan? Or is it your claim that I am yet to provide any source from Turkmenistan Government noting the subject to be a village?

As I wrote at the outset, Turkmen Legal Code features an apparently exhaustive list of villages but presidential/parliamentary resolutions and decrees often mention other villages. They haven't conducted a census since '95 - so you won't be getting fancy tables etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the first. And therein lies the issue. The fact that something gets a mention in some decree or brochure might not necessarily give it legal recognition. The slippery slope argument would cry: "every property address mentioned in every court case could end up with its own wiki page". There has to be some threshold - some definition for legal recognition. Do we know of any?

That said, the additional citations that today appeared in the article help with WP:GNG. Chumpih. (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck convincing others. The sources were already cited in this AfD but whatever. Please have the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am convinced by the arguments and sourcing that it is a recognised settlement and therefore passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: For the sake of clarity, which particular source showing legal recognition did you find convincing? Chumpih. (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those cited above by TrangaBellam. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a clarifying answer. Chumpih. (talk) Chumpih. (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh no it wasn't..." Chumpih. (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - adequately sourced as it stands - no need for draftification. There is no ban on stubs - articles don't have to start as, umm, Start class. I must also comment that in my view the treatment of TrangaBellam above, who there is no reason to doubt is a GF editor, is coming close to bullying. Ingratis (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If folks are concerned about "bad faith" nominations they should take it to WP:ANI.

Regardless, I am not convinced this subject necessarily meets WP:NGEO but I'm also not convinced that it "doesn't." Just more rehashes of prior AfD discussions with not as much discussion specifically about the nominated place.

I suggest folks do their best to expand and improve the existing article. If someone wishes to renominate this article again with a policy-based rationale for deletion, after improvements are made, you are welcome to do so.

Thanks for assuming good faith in this decision and happy new year. Missvain (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tasharvat

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

Only source is an entry in a travel guide; I did not find anything that would establish notability in my WP:BEFORE search. –dlthewave ☎ 03:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Nomination in bad faith. As I detailed at another similar AfD, the nominator is ignorant about accessing sources concerning Turkmenistan.
A travel-site notes, The first mentions of the Tasharvat fortification were found in 1871 - 1872. Archaeological research has shown that at the end of the XIXth century, the building was inhabited. Has the nominator bothered to access this [a]rchaeological research? Or, has he bothered to consult the cited source: "Religious and spiritual monuments to Central Asia". Author M. Hashimov. Saga publishing house, 2001? Or has he enquired about why the name features at p. 695 of "U.S.S.R.: Official Standard Names Approved by the United States, Volume VI"? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as for Makhtumkala consider draftifying if current sources are inadequate, and TrangaBellam (talk · contribs) is still working on improving the sources. If there is evidence that this nomination is made in bad faith, it should be dealt with in an appropriate venue such as ANI, not here. If there isn't, the comment about bad faith should be struck. Aspersions are bad. Elemimele (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice which is neither here nor there. The editor has been nominating tens of articles from different geographical regions in the belief that they violate GEOLAND - it is impossible that someone will be competent enough to ascertain legal status of territories in so many countries and such a bull-in-the-chinashop approach is only indicative of hubris. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, competence is required, and part of competence is ensuring that the subjects of articles are notable, and that the articles are sourced. At the point that Dlthewave (talk · contribs) nominated this article, the article stated that it was a small grove adjacent to a spring, where travellers would rest. Since there was no indication that anyone actually lived there, it doesn't qualify for automatic notability as a populated place. The article was (is!) referenced to a single source, a travel guide. Generally one would hope for a couple, even three independent, in-depth sources (that's the advice people regularly get at the Tea House), and the draft guidelines on transport (obviously not binding), Wikipedia:Notability_(transportation) specifically state that notability cannot be determined by a travel guide. Of course notability depends on whether sources could be found, not on whether they currently exist in the article. But it is a matter of common sense that it is impossible to prove a negative (no one, no matter how thorough their BEFORE, can be certain there is no source out there, somewhere) - so the BEFORE checks must be on a best-effort basis. If you write an article, and you don't want it to land up at AfD, it makes sense to source it thoroughly before putting it in article-space, especially if you know that the sources are hard to find. The argument that you are a better expert than the nominator is unhelpful; ultimately the decision must be taken based on the article and its subject, not on who we consider the more expert. I'm not actually stating delete on this, yet, because you've said there are better sources. But I'm using an element of trust here; if the sources don't appear, this article is going to land up at AfD again in a year, with the classic "kept last time because X said sources exist, no sources subsequently added, remains a stub about a place that isn't significant", and that doesn't help anyone. Draft space would give you 6 months to work on this without having to fend off AfD nominations. Elemimele (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It takes one Google search and about 5 seconds of attention-span to reach at this website. Which mentions about a historically important caravan-serai and points to "Religious and spiritual monuments to Central Asia". Author M. Hashimov. Saga publishing house, 2001. This is bare-minimum WP:BEFORE - I am not demanding that he visit Türkmenistanyň döwlet kitaphanasy to hunt for sources.
People, self-declaring to be from the West, need to be aware of how their seemingly innocuous actions (cough, cough) perpetuate systematic bias. WP:NTRAN was never a guideline/policy: Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added it. Keep Googling, everyone! A few more decent references and the article will be much improved. Elemimele (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are not based on a one-off deletion event. To go an a tangent, Amustard (former ambassador of USA to Turkmenistan) had created an article about the Chairman of the National Oil Agency (equivalent of Darren Woods for ExxonMobil). Days later, some editor chose to send it to draft and then, another admin (!) redirected it to the Oil Agency.
We (including me) need to do better wrt avoiding perpetuation of systematic bias. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have the book you've just quoted? The reason I ask is that you've added a page-number for the entry, but a Google search for that book gives me only three hits: this WP article, and two entries from the Silk Road Adventures website. I'd strongly suggest including the ISBN in the reference. Otherwise someone's going to ask whether it actually exists. Saga publishing house doesn't help much either; Saga Press specialises in fantasy and science fiction. Fighting systematic bias doesn't mean giving up on sourcing. Elemimele (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can I provide a page number without having the book? There was some important fortress in the place, about 150 years ago. Some more info. A sad end. Do you still need more sources to deem the area as historically significant (on multiple grounds: the caravanserai, the fortress, and the installation) and !vote keep? All of my sources came from Gbooks and I haven't even bothered to go into vernacular sources like at this AfD; as I said, this nomination was a poor case of WP:BEFORE. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the google books hits you've found are definitely useful, and in agreement: an army contingent turned up there by mistake and built a small fort, before realising they were in the wrong place and there wasn't as much water as they'd hoped, and going away again. That may be enough to make the place notable, and those two books should be used as references if it is. I am still not happy with the Hashimov book: since you have it, please could you update the reference so it's possible for another reader to find it? It doesn't have to be readily available, but it does have to be cited in such a way that someone could find it, if they had sufficient time, energy and funding. An ISBN would help. Armed only with Google, I have failed miserably. Elemimele (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book is in Russian Language and only a few hundred copies were published from Samarkand. Local Uzbek libraries have it and atleast one in Ashgabat. I can probably have the pages scanned for you. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my personal view is that the two best sources so far are two of the Google-books that you found above, giving evidence of a fort there, and significant military relevance. It would be nice to know more about the place merely as a resting-place on the silk route too. I'm not sure how useful it is to cite the Russian book because, although its scholarship may be excellent, being printed in such small numbers it doesn't do much for the location's notability. I do feel that if we're going to cite the book, it might be worth stretching the point to include a link to the silk-road adventures website. I know it's not the greatest of sources, but it's accessible, and it does indicate that someone actually read the book, enough to want to quote from it. But based on the information you've found, I'm going for a weak keep; not the most pivotal location in the world, but still interesting and worth a mention. Elemimele (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele, thanks and I understand your point. I will be adding more sources in the following week. I am away from the PC which has scans of books on Turkmen art and architecture. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chokamkuru Langneh

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

An article created by a WP:SPA about a young musician. The article was twice rejected at AfC before being moved into mainspace by the article creator, since when it has been further edited by that account and another WP:SPA, both of whom have removed templates regarding Notability and COI. The sourcing of the article is largely to non-notable playlists and an album review on a site which showcases new indie musicians; the best of the sources provided is an interview bylined to "Karbi Anglong Today". As well as this biographical article, there are similarly sourced articles about the subject's recordings (Life in Frames, , Draft:Rong-Aje (song), You Wouldn't Know (Chokamkuru Langneh song)). I am not seeing evidence that WP:MUSICBIO notability has been attained. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Just to expand on the rationale above, all these articles have basically only two sources: an interview with the subject from his local newspaper Karbi Anglong Today, which is a WP:PRIMARY source; and a blog which does not employ professional writers (the author of the album review is a graphic designer from Bangalore, as stated on her LinkedIn profile), and which appears to exist through Patreon subscriptions, and pays 25% to the artists that it promotes [15], so it fails WP:RS by some distance. There's no indication that the subject is known outside of his home town. Richard3120 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: one of the SPAs is currently messing around with G6 deletion moves, presumably to try and bypass this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oba Akenzua Cultural Centre

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Nigerian Tribune article is the only source I could find that could qualify towards WP:GNG which isn't enough to keep the article. Couldn't find evidence that this building meets WP:NBUILDING either. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Procedural keep due to information provided by User:Mujinga. If folks wish to renominate this article with another policy-based rationale, they are able to do so. Missvain (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernanda G. Weiden

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

Lack of notability, as a system administrator, the person is a free software user but not a developer. The page reads like the career summary on a CV. If Google and Facebook want to make prominent pages about their female employees on their own web sites and organizations in their sphere of influence then I feel it is commendable but not notable for Wikipedia. TransparencyDude (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has significant coverage in reliable sources. The article was in a bad state, I've cleaned it up a bit and a BEFORE search would have revealed new sources such as Exame. Further there seems to be something fishy going on in that:
1/ the nominator has previously been warned last year for introducing defamatory content on the Free Software Foundation Europe article
2/ two days ago a blog post went up on the fsfellowship.eu website which is pretty much an attack on Fernanda Weiden and her wikipedia page (I won't link it here)
3/ the fsfellowship clearly has beef with the Free Software Foundation Europe, which Weiden is/was involved with
The beef may or may not be justifiable, but it's not in itself a good reason to campaign to get Fernanda G. Weiden's wikipedia page deleted. Mujinga (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This nomination has a strong whiff of bias even in the opening sentence where the nominator implies that developers (like me) are more notable than operators (like the subject). My German is quite weak, so I can't reliably evaluate many of the sources, but I'd support a procedural close. pburka (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Label Bleu

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

Lack of notability; no references Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't understand how the nomination can claim there are "no references": this is clearly not the case, as the first reference in the article is to the article about this topic in The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz. As I said on the article Talk page when removing the PROD, that bylined article can be read using the DOI which I provided there. As to notability, a bylined Grove article on any topic provides a strong basis for notability. A substantial history, placing the label in its time and place, by one Stéphane Ollivier, can be found here though that is hosted on the site of the Maison de la Culture d’Amiens so may be too close to the label's founder. And the equivalent fr.wiki article carries a reference to this substantial 2003 article by Martin Cazenave - though again that may be too close to the label itself. Despite these points of caution about where the Ollivier and Cazenave are sited, I think there is enough to indicate that this record company is notable. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough sources in the French article, TV shows doing a chronicle of the label, two magazine articles, plus the ones in English given here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is factually incorrect and borders on bad-faith. I don't understand this at all. Chubbles (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After checking out the article's French equivalent, I found more sources that demonstrate the notability of subject. Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree that it should be kept. Also over 50 artists that are listed, all have a Wiki page, so it shows that it is a significant label. Jaxarnolds (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Oaktree b with Jaxarnolds. It should be kept. Mommmyy (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Westwood One. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 18:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True Country

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

Unreferenced since 2019. The name (which is identical to that of a feature film, and a very commonly-used phrase) makes a thorough WP:BEFORE very difficult, but limiting using "Dial Global" and other such phrases I find only apparent PR hits/bare mentions such as these ones:1 2. Besides this there are only the usual Wiki mirrors, sound cloud etc. Fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Westwood One. Fails WP:NMEDIA per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As nom ok with redirect per wp:cheap.FOARP (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cashmere Nicole

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

non-notable -- any notability is as head of a company---but the company itself is of no notability or even significance. The personal details about her life are inappro priate in an encyclopedia ,and would be better suited to a PR write up. There's. extensive name-dropping, and making much of minor charities.

The refs, needless to say, are the expected promotional interviews. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've trimmed the puff and would say the significant coverage in reliable sources is beyond routine. Mujinga (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep She was on Good Morning America and has a few other articles about her, I think just barely pushing this one over the notability hump. Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Remains entirely promotional and if the fluff were completely removed, there would be no content. Consider " endorsed by Tati Westbrook and Jacki Aina. In 2014, Nicole's story was featured on Beyoncé's website, Beyonce.com, as part of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.[4] [5] The firm is based in San Diego and promoted by Gabby Douglas. " -- 4 consecutive name-drops. And not everyone on GoodMorningAmerica is notable . Her firm has an article, but I don';t think it's notable either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:25, December 14, 2021 (UTC)

Comment I chopped that section, feel free to chop more .. but the point is the sources and I would say articles in Forbes, Glamour, Allure, Ebony indicate notability on top of Good Morning America Mujinga (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Not to pleased with the comments about her personal life by the nominator. Many people with Wikipedia articles have had plenty of unsettling things happen in their lives that are in their articles. It ends up looking like this nomination is more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else with comments like that. Regardless, she's notable. Sources:

"How a Single Mom and Cancer Survivor Turned 1 Idea Into a Multimillion-Dollar Beauty Brand" - PopSugar
"Cashmere Nicole Is What a 2019 CEO Looks Like" - Glamour (magazine)
"How Beauty Bakerie founder Cashmere Nicole went from food stamps to launching a multi-million dollar cosmetics brand" - Good Morning America
"How a single mom battling breast cancer built Beauty Bakerie to a 5 million brand and got Unilever to invest" - Forbes (not a contributor, an actual editor wrote this)
"Beauty Bakerie CEO Cashmere Nicole Opens Up About the Inclusive Indie Makeup Brand's Massive Success" - Allure (magazine)
"Beauty Bakerie's Cashmere Nicole Is Better, Not Bitter" - Paper (magazine)
"Why the Motto 'Better Not Bitter' Changed Everything for Beauty Bakerie Founder Cashmere Nicole" - San Francisco Chronicle
"How Breast Cancer & Beyoncé Fueled This Beauty Mogul's Appetite For Success" - Refinery29
"Beauty Bakerie CEO Cashmere Nicole On What It's Like Having Beyoncé As A Customer" - Bustle (magazine)
"How A 34-Year-Old Makeup Lover Grew One Of Beauty's Most Inclusive Brands" - Bustle (magazine)
"Getting to Know Beauty Bakerie CEO Cashmere Nicole" - Ebony (magazine)
"Indelible Beauty: Makeup Maven Cashmere Nicole Talks Success, Survival and Building a Brand Built to Last" - The Root (magazine)
"Why the Motto 'Better Not Bitter' Changed Everything for Beauty Bakerie Founder Cashmere Nicole " - Entrepreneur (magazine)
"Cashmere Nicole: How a Single Mom With Breast Cancer Founded Beauty Bakerie" - Women's Wear Daily
"Cashmere Nicole Put Off Seeing A Doctor About The Lump In Her Breast Until It Was Too Big Too Ignore — And Cancerous" - MadameNoire
"Beauty Bakerie CEO Cashmere Nicole Opens Up About the Inclusive Indie Makeup Brand's Massive Success" - Allure (magazine)]

Missvain (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the argument made by Missvain. I, too, am discouraged by the comments in the nomination, even more so given the origins of this article. Since when do we not care for personal details? For context, this article was created during a gender-gap-focused edit-a-thon co-hosted by the White House. Almost all in attendance were young women of color hoping to close the gap by creating or editing articles about notable women in business. The article was later 'beefed' up by me using the sources highlighted above. Deleting when the sources are clearly 'there' sends a bad message to newer editors, especially those outside the typical editor profile.-Ariel Cetrone (WMDC) (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Litvinenko (businesswoman)

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

Non notable individual. Does not meet WikiProject Beauty Pageants notability guidelines nor is she notable as a businessperson. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just added three new in-depth articles about her, including one published by the Associated Press. Should be enough here to pass WP:GNG. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Make that five new articles. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the current citations provided, it's a keep for me, These are good apnews.com, greenwichtime.com, stamfordadvocate.com. Chelokabob (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Connecticut USA. The AP article appears to have been a Greenwichtime article, so it likely never circulated outside the state. Reference 1 is likely paid press of some sort given the final sentence starts off with "Visit lolaleone.com to order". Pretty much all significant coverage is surrounding the Miss Connecticut USA pageant. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable enough for keeping as a bio in its own right.--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is pretty much all local, or all very limited in the context of the pageant. We have decided that non-winners in US pageants are not notable for competition, and the coverage beyond that is of the hyper local kind that does not amount to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very local coverage only, per JPL DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the coverage I found is primarily localized to where she lives. I do not see enough to have the subject qualify for WP:GNG on my end. Missvain (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is based on WP:CHURN MaskedSinger (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of SIGCOV in independent, third-party reliable sources to pass BASIC. ——Serial 16:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Irvinebank. ✗plicit 00:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stannary Hills Dam

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

Unreferenced since 2009. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. Gbooks, GNews, internet archive, JStor (etc.) all negative (weirdly I get a hit for a Guardian photo-essay but the name isn't actually mentioned on the page so maybe this is a meta-data thing). I guess people have been keeping this because "there must be sources" but sometimes there just aren't any. Considered redirects/merges but there's no obvious target nor any sourced information to actually merge. FOARP (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irvinebank. Subject not notable in its own right but is a possible search term, the dam being of interest to trekkers, historians, mining enthusiasts, etc. Was related to the now defunct township / mining district of Stannary Hills, Queensland, which redirects to Irvinebank. Aoziwe (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Checking the map I see Irvinebank is about 20km away, but I'm basically OK with a redirect as well per WP:CHEAP. FOARP (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Albania in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2019. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isea Çili

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

Article fails WP:MUSICBIO and didn't show her notability. Çili is a child singer who represented Albania at the Junior Eurovision Song Contest however, no notable events or projects have been following. Iaof2017 (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) per WP:SINGLEEVENT. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC), edited 10:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most of the Eurovision/Junior Eurovision artists have their own separate article in Wikipedia and they are famous for this major event. Thus, I would Keep this article. However, Redirect to "Albania in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2019" is also seems an option. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Գարիկ Ավագյան: isn't a redirect vote practically the same as a delete vote though, except that the page history is still there? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochem van Hees: If I'm not mistaken, "Redirect" is not the same as "Delete", not sure. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's not the same, but both mean that the article is no longer there. It's just a different way of doing it. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Albania in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2019" - Struggling to find enough sourcing to show that this subject meets WP:GNG for coverage on Wikipedia. As an WP:ATD, I prefer redirect over deletion. Perhaps in the future she'll be uber famous. Missvain (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Albania in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2019. The notable accomplishments by this artist so far all fall within the scope of Albania's participation article. Grk1011 (talk) 15:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year! Missvain (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Govind

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. There is an award but only minor coverage. scope_creep^Talk 10:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides passing WP:CREATIVE as demonstrated by the 50th Kerala State Film Awards ("The person is regarded as an important figure"), I don't understand how the nom can claim "minor coverage" when there are multiple examples of in-depth coverage already in the article. The Hindu[16][17] and the New Indian Express [18] all collectively demonstrate this sound designer is beyond the threshold of passing WP:GNG. Oakshade (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: That is primary problem with this article, these are PR interview's, made at the begining of the film, in question. They fail WP:BLPPRIMARY. They are not secondary sources, and this is a WP:BLP. Where is the secondary sources. I've no doubt the Kerala award is notable, re: last Afd, but where is the other secondary sources. Not interviews. Real secondary sources. The gold standard for BLP's, references that are needed to prove notabilty. . scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources attached to this article that are not good, but that does not negate the ones that are. That would be a matter of regular editing, not deletion. Oakshade (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We will go through the references. Most of them routine annoucements and film PR. scope_creep^Talk 16:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV- SUN EYE 1 19:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to San Pablo, Laguna. Hog Farm _Talk 14:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bagong Bayan, San Pablo

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

This and all other barangay articles of the village-level divisions of the city of San Pablo, Laguna listed below fail WP:GEOLAND. Majority of them function like WP:DIRECTORY and some are unsourced. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other barangays

Concepcion, San Pablo

Del Remedio, San Pablo

San Diego, San Pablo

San Francisco, San Pablo

San Isidro, San Pablo

San Jose, San Pablo, Laguna

San Lorenzo, San Pablo

San Lucas 1, San Pablo

San Lucas 2, San Pablo

San Mateo, San Pablo

Santa Isabel, San Pablo

Santo Angel, San Pablo

VI-D, San Pablo

VII-B, San Pablo

VII-D, San Pablo

List added by — JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also majority of the results at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays#AfD method. If not deleted, then redirected. If someone will !vote for merge, then there should be a decent and good table under San Pablo, Laguna#Barangays (which it does not have as of this writing). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All to San Pablo, Laguna per WP:CHEAP. There's no article to be written about any of these and they are adequately covered at the higher level. FOARP (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all These are better to summarize in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 21:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Burdon

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

PROD removed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. Initially the article made the claim this player debuted in first-class cricket in 2019, which was entirely made-up. This claim has been removed, with a new claim for notability added in that he was a substitute fielder in a Test match. This too does not make the player notable. Until they debut at senior domestic level, they will fail CRIN and by extension GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject did take the field, ie, they did play, in an international game at the highest possible level of cricket. So it seems they do pass WP:NCRIC #1. (The subject though was only a substitute fielder, ie, they cannot bat or bowl, but they can take a catch or run a batter out.) While they might pass NCRIC, that is only a presumption of N, not a proof of N. There is a reasonable amount of coverage, mostly routine, for the subject's activities at lower levels of cricket. In short the subject fails GNG at this time, ie, simply way WP:TOOSOON. If the subject is as good as the media indicate, then it might not be too long before they also pass GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Substitute fielders do not fall under the criteria of playing in an international game at the highest possible level of cricket, their apperances on the field are not capped and they are often provided by the county/state/province team based at the venue being used for the international match. In the past coaches have deputised on the field, I recall a team physio filling in and I think there has even been an occasion in which a spectator has taken to the field. So he doesn't meet the NCRIC criteria. And as said has been mentioned, any other coverage is routine, plus we don't create articles on club cricketers until they've stepped up to a higher level. StickyWicket (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, Fails WP:NCRIC with no notable appearances, and while there is some coverage of him 12th manning, it is passing mentions and not enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pyro Studios. Per User:Czar (thanks for already mentioning them there).

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year! Missvain (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo Suárez

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

I think that the subject doesn't match notability criteria Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pyro Studios. He's best known for the Commandos (series) but until that article gives an overview of its development, I've added a mention at its developer, Pyro. Open to other redirect targets but this should definitely be redirected and not deleted. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) for his own article. czar 21:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhalchandra Kango

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

Previously declined. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. DMySon (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Limited coverage in Hindi and Marathi language sources. Won an award [19], and made some political comments [20]. Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass NPOL or GNG, little coverage in English, Hindi, and Marathi (mostly passing mentions, nearly no in-depth coverage). AryKun (talk) 14:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. 2001:4455:1A9:E100:9015:4560:6766:3BFB (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with no prejudice to re-nomination for deletion if the subject would like to expand on their rationale. Daniel (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Hartstein

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

This is a procedural nomination started by the article's subject, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: he is a World Championships silver medalist in a small sport. He meets WP:SPORTCRIT and the information isn't slanderous or anything like that. Would it be easier on the subject if the picture was deleted? Geschichte (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his wins make him notable. Nothing slanderous about the article and the photo is an "action shot" of him. Oaktree b (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ritchie333: if this is per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE then please can the details of the actual request be given? Chumpih. (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Chumpih, See here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Ritchie333. Suspect the next step should be to get someone to attest that this is a valid request. Let's see what we can do. Chumpih. (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Had no joy via an email to an Oversighter. The oversighter indicated that it's not possible to infer user identiy from the IP address alone. So without some other validation, I don't see how we can treat this request as legitimate. I'm unsure how to proceed. Chumpih. (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we don't actually know that the request is from the article's subject . I would urge caution in deleting it. This request may be from a hostile source so any judgment should be solely based on standard notability assessments. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that this could be risky. @Velella: if some Admin or similar were to attest that this is a legitimate request, would you be satisfied with the deletion? Chumpih. (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would rate this article as marginally notable but its loss would not be significant for Wikipedia or the sport. If this is a genuine request, I would judge that we should defer to the subject's own wish. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as a world championship silver medalist and European championship gold medalist. The IP could be anyone. If it is the subject, then the only "sensitive data" there is the date of birth, which could easily be removed. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - As someone who requested my own article to be deleted, I sympathize. However, I also requested it myself and presented why I wanted it deleted. Thankfully, the community agreed and it was deleted. At this point, we have no clue why he wants it deleted. He is clearly a notable person who qualifies for an article and as other have stated, there is nothing weird or worrisome about the article from a reader perspective. But, for now, I do not know why he wants this article deleted, so until then, I say keep. Very open minded in the future if the community is provided more insight. Missvain (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Missvain, I had to request deletion of an article about me. In this case, we do not have sufficient information to conclude that this request is either genuine or well-founded. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless it can be verified that the request is genuine then it should be kept. Suonii180 (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Machinery

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

Lacks independent coverage. Sources are advertorial/PR pieces with very similar wording. KH-1 (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I am unable to find independent reliable sources that give any coverage of this website. As I posted on Talk:Best of Machinery about the references in the article: I suspect that all of the sources cited in the article are paid-placement. Asianage.com honestly ends the article with Disclaimer: No Asian Age journalist was involved in creating this content. The group also takes no responsibility for this content. The Reader's Digest and Instabulletin are the same article. All of the very similar articles read like advertising masquerading as reporting. Schazjmd (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam supported by black hat SEO sources. I've blocked the author for spamming. MER-C 14:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, junk SEO sources, most are clearly paid placement. Kuru (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:NTOUR.

Thanks everyone for participating and if you disagree with this decision please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review - unless there is a tech issue. Thanks for assuming good faith and happy new year! Missvain (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the Light Above It Too World Tour

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

Tours become notable if they meet WP:NTOUR, which at the very least requires coverage of the tour as a tour--not just dates and times and opening acts and concert halls and ticket sales and what not. The least important part of such an article, from the point of view of notability, are those details; there is nothing here that discusses the relevant aspects of a concert tour. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This concert tour has clearly met the guidlines for WP:NTOUR, the tour was ranked as a top grossing concert tour of 2017, and clearly has many accolades as well as performers. This page has also been up for years with no problem. It should not be deleted Bigpickleman9999912 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pollstar' is a trade publication, not an independent source. And "a top grossing concert"--that Pollstar article lists it at no. 30. That it's been up for years means nothing. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve the article’s sourcing. At first glance, this article looked ok, but then I noticed that a lot of the references used a are not independent of the subject. A lot of them link directly to the website of the artist in question. WikiJoeB (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The sourcing is bad, so what is the reason to keep it? Drmies (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: suffers from the usual problem of Wikipedia articles about tours, in that it's mostly just a list of dates, which fails WP:NTOUR, and a set list from Setlist.fm, which fails WP:USERG. However, this one at least has some sourced references to Billboard Boxoffice and Pollstar, and the attendance and box office takings could probably be sourced from Billboard, so it could be improved. 95% of Wikipedia articles about tours are even worse than this one. Richard3120 (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's some small, boilerplate stuff, but I'm not seeing the stuff of notability. It's not notable as a tour. A little about how the concert is eco-friendly, but not much else. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Richard3120: just a list of dates that fails WP:NTOUR. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Misolic

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

non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG Adamtt9 (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of note found in an Austrian search Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there's loads of tennis players at his ranking level and age, and most of them never end up becoming notable. Iffy★Chat -- 09:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Malformed AfD Closing this per WP:PCLOSE, nothing prevents a re-nomination that fully implements all the requirements of WP:AFDHOWTO. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The entity lacks encyclopedic value WP:PROMO. Lack WP:SIGCOV. Fails [[WP:NCORP], WP:ORGIND, and WP:RS. Suspected WP:UPE - because creator is also connected with Revolt Motors and Vmoto - both distributors of Super Soco electric bikes in India and Australia respectively. - Hatchens (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Failed AfD tagging via NPP reviewer's tool. Kindly ignore it. -Hatchens (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Club São Sebastião

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

The notoriety of the club is not established in the source. Perfektsionist (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't see this club on soccerway.com which is a red flag for me, saw a facebook page, but that doesn't show notability. Probably delete unless someone can prove me wrong. Govvy (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revolt Motors

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NPOV and WP:SIGCOV and in the current form is full of puffery; WP:PUFF; which we can easily deduce by looking at these texts - 1:"The Revolt bikes were the first electric motorcycles to find mass appeal in India", 2: "The fan base of the company are known as Revolters.", 3: "While Revolt is so far the only electric motorcycle brand to have gained traction in India". Also, we should consider this point: Revolt Motors is a sub-entity of RattanIndia, the wiki of which has been recently deleted (via AfD) because of the possible involvement of senior management staff in the creation and updation of the Wikipedia pages; WP:COI/WP:UPE. Overall, it seems to be a part of a coordinated effort by the same group/team. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hatchens

In future, could I tentatively suggest that it might be an idea to engage in a little bit of background research before casting aspersions such as '...overall, it seems to be a part of a coordinated effort by the same group/team.?'

I've been editing on Wikipedia for a very long time. If you look at my extensive edit history, it is pretty obvious that I have nothing to do with RattanIndia, I am not Indian, and indeed, I've never even been to the country. I didn't know anything about RattanIndia until they bought a stake in Revolt Motors earlier this year.

If you did a bit of digging, you'd notice I have created three Wiki articles within the past month: Revolt Motors, Super Soco, Vmoto. What do they have in common?

All three are electric motorcycle companies... which, not coincidently, happens to be one of my chief areas of interest.

Please note, that I have no problem with someone marking a page that I create as 'nominated for deletion'. It is part of the process.

But if you are going to cast aspersions about the motives of editors, it would be polite to first do a little bit of homework, and at least check if the accusations might hold any water. Inchiquin (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company looks notable based on the page's references. All that's needed is a bit of a cleanup. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some coverage but not sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. It's also kind of rare for three old companies to become notable. Exceptions are always there of course. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... an 'old company'? It looks like you haven't done your homework, Nomadicghumakkad. The company was founded in 2017. Inchiquin (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I don't think it is particualrly difficult to find in-depth articles on Revolt Motors, however, for the benefit of the time-poor, here is a feature article on the company from a credible website: "Revolt Motors RV 400: All you need to know" by Siddharth Chauhan, published on Tech Radar on 18 June, 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inchiquin: Please don't add random headers like this, it breaks the AfD log page. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄)

Sorry about that, I didn't realise.Inchiquin (talk) 04:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Answering to creator's question - "If you did a bit of digging, you'd notice I have created three Wiki articles within the past month: Revolt Motors, Super Soco, Vmoto. What do they have in common?" - all three are connected; Revolt Motors sells re-badged Super Soco electric bikes in India and Vmoto is the primary distributor of same Super Soco electric bikes in Australia. I recommend, Kindly declare WP:COI at your user page. -Hatchens (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Hatchens, the allegations you are throwing around are unfounded. I do find it curious that you have not mentioned Super Soco in your comment above. I don't know if you are aware of this, but Super Soco and Vmoto are currently in competition with one another. Need I comment further?

Please note you have previously alleged that I was paid by RattanIndia, you are now suggesting that I am paid by Vmoto or Super Soco. I have created these articles partly because they are significant organisations, but mostly because I am interested in electric motorcycles. Please note that AGF is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.

Yes, I do like Super Soco bikes, that is the 'common thread' as to why I created these articles. However, I don't just like Super Soco bikes. I also like those of Fonzi Electric and Stealth, as well as European companies such as the Spanish electric motorcycle company Silence, and innovative e-bike companies, such as the French start-up Teebike. Unfortunately, these organisations are not significant enough to warrant articles on Wikipedia, which is why I have focused my efforts on Super Soco, Revolt and Vmoto.

I might note that both the articles on Super Soco and Revolt Motors have sections which discuss the main competitors, such as Ola Electric, Askoll, and Niu Technologies, including links to the pages. The articles are obviously not written as puff pieces, and I think most viewers of the pages agree.

Your comment about WP:COI was not posted in good faith, as you are well aware. Inchiquin (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are contradicting your edits. Now, how come - "Super Soco and Vmoto are currently in competition with one another"? - so who added this partnership statement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vmoto&diff=1059540130&oldid=1059520623 at Vmoto's page? Take your time to think and then comment. In the meanwhile, let me help you out further; Proof of Super Soco and Vmoto collaboration/partnership - ; https://www.motoroids.com/news/could-this-turn-out-to-be-revolts-next-electric-motorcycle/ and Proof of Revolt Motors selling re-badged Super Soco electric bikes in India; https://www.motorbeam.com/revolt-rv-400-clone-is-super-soco-chinese-bike/. Also, your involvement at RattanIndia AfD has been duly noted. You're requested to declare WP:COI (voluntarily) at your user page or the talk pages of Revolt Motors, Super Soco, and Vmoto. -Hatchens (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hatchens.

To begin with, I feel obliged to point out that it is poor practice to quote edits, throwing them around in arguments as if to imply that they are evidence of the viewpoint of an editor.

They are no such thing. Edits on Wikipedia always should be referenced, and thus an edit should be reflective of the views of the sources, not the editor.

Secondly, I would suggest you need to be very cautious about how you interpret sources you find on the internet in relation to Super Soco. The relationship between Vmoto and Super Soco is extremely confusing, and most writers don't understand it. The relationship between Revolt Motors and Vmoto/Super Soco is even more cryptic.

For this reason, I am quite sceptical about your claims about there being a relationship between Revolt Motors and Vmoto/Super Soco. I don't doubt that there are sources that claim there is a relationship between the companies, but whether the writers of the pieces (such as the one you quoted above) are right or not, is another matter. Personally, I have never come across any solid evidence of a relationship between Super Soco and Revolt, although it is hard to ignore the similarity of the look of the Super Soco/Revolt bikes, hence the speculation you find on various websites, as noted above.

These companies are very hard to understand. I refer you to my comments on the Vmoto page of 7/12/21.

...Alright, allow me a minute or two, and I'll explain the thought processes underlying the creation of this article, and this should shed some light onto the question of meeting the criteria of notability.

A few weeks ago I created the article on Super Soco, a popular brand of electric motorcycle. At the corporate level, the Super Soco brand is controlled by a number entities with a somewhat Delphic relationship, which is not particularly easy to untangle. So when I booted the article on Super Soco, I opted to focus on the brand, side-stepping the thorny question of which group was in control of the brand.

After creating the Super Soco article, I started to unpick the details, and I realised that the approach that I took on the page was probably wrong...

So, yes... in some regards you are right. What I stated in my previous post didn't marry with many of my edits in the post. That's because I didn't fully understand the company structure when I first posted the 'Super Soco' article, and I still don't entirely understand what is going on. (While I'm on the topic, I might note that the comment you quoted ' Vmoto Soco also became the exclusive manufacturer of the Super Soco motorcycle range' was taken from the website that is referenced directly after the comment. It isn't my opinion, and thus I am not contradicting myself. That is the point of sources on Wikipedia.)

By the way let me show you something that seems rather important in relation to your line of argument, though you don't seem to be aware of.

It is a press release by Super Soco on the 1st of December:

SHANGHAI, Dec. 1, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The world's largest motorcycle trade expo EICMA, ended on November 28 in Milan, Italy. During the event, SUPERSOCO, a world-renowned and recognized electric motorcycle brand, discovered that a company exhibited, without permission, many of SUPERSOCO's best-selling models in violation of its exclusive appearance patents and intellectual property rights, such as CPX/TC MAX/CU/VS1, and utilized the SUPERSOCO brand and some of its models for media communications. | see article

So, what do you think is going on there?. That doesn't sound very chummy. Now, I should note that Vmoto were at that event - as noted in the article of the same name- so it is pretty clear that the statement was directed at Vmoto.

Which illustrates that, what was stated in my post above is correct: Vmoto and Super Soco are competitors. The notion that you are suggesting, that these companies are in some kind of parent-child relationship, is not factually accurate. They are not subsidiaries, on the contrary, they seem to be engaged in an ugly turf-war.

I might note also, all the evidence indicates that Revolt Motors and Vmoto are likewise independent companies that are competitors, Revolt Motors is not a subsidiary of either Super Soco or Vmoto, as you seem to suggest.

In summary, your arguments around WP:COI don't hold up. The three companies are independent entities, they are not subsidiaries of each other, as you keep suggesting, and writing about the three companies is not a conflict of interest, no more than so than an editor who happens to write about two or more motorcycle or car companies.

In future, I would suggest you need to be very careful about evaluating source material. I don't understand these companies entirely, and you don't either, so please don't make allegations that an editor has got a conflict of interest etc, etc if you haven't got a good grasp of a complicated subject. Inchiquin (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hold the horses and wait for others' assessment. -Hatchens (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I note the creating editor's comment that significant coverage is easy to find. Per WP:HEY I suggest they both find it and use it to enhance the article. The coverage there at present is, in the main, churnalism. It has not been proven to pass WP:NCORP. Ping me when the referencing is significantly improved and I will revisit my opinion Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They're either a couple of lines with no in-depth information or regurgitated announcements. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the wall of text isn’t helpful neither does it do any good, to roughly paraphrase one of Phil Bridger quotes, if you need that many words to prove something is notable then it is probably indicative of the inverse. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Move

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

This podcasting company does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH or even WP:GNG. The current references are all primary. I searched on Google, Google News, Google News Archive, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Newspapers.com using a combination of search parameters such as "Bald Move", "Podcast", "Podcasting", "Peter Street", "Jim Jones", and "Ron Hubbard". I found some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the company on Google and Google News, but they were all focused on the podcasts produced by the company rather than the company itself. The company does not WP:INHERIT notability from its shows, but even if it did I'm not entirely sure the shows are notable. Anne drew Andrew and Drew removed the WP:PROD tag with the comment that "I found a number of good sources on Google News", but neglected to add any references to the article. I also asked them to present sources on the talk page a few days ago, but I have yet to receive a response so I decided to take it to WP:AFD. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's an influential podcast network that's had a decent amount of media coverage.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] I don't like the argument that it's the individual podcasts that received coverage and therefore the company behind them isn't notable. The whole business model is that they create podcasts about whatever show is currently topical. It's like saying you can't establish notability for a TV show based on the notability of each of its seasons. – Anne drew 22:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Scribner, Herb (24 January 2020). "The debate over 'Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker' is an example of the culture war". Deseret News.
^ "Here Are Our Favorite Westworld Podcasts". Lifehacker.
^ "What's the Buzz: Mighty Ducks, Life on Mars? and More!". 25YL. 7 December 2019.
^ Mackrell, Daniel (16 April 2019). "The best Game Of Thrones podcasts to listen to during season 8". Metro.
^ Scribner, Herb (12 February 2020). "Will fans ever turn on the Marvel Cinematic Universe? An inside look at toxic fandom". Deseret News.
^ "Foundation S1E6: "Death and the Maiden"". 25YL. 22 October 2021.

Keep - I agree with Anne_drew and I too think, it's not necessary, each season has to have notability. Mommmyy (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in regards to Anne drew Andrew and Drew and Mommmyy arguments to keep. I don't believe the comparison is a fair one. TV series have different seasons and so do podcasts. I'm not claiming a podcast is non-notable even though individual seasons have received coverage in reliable sources. I'm claiming a company that produces podcasts is non-notable. I would argue that a company producing TV series can be non-notable while some of the shows they produce are notable (i.e. the shows received significant coverage without any mention or just passing mentions of the company). It's worth noting that the first sentence of WP:NCORP states "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service." which clearly differentiates between the company and its products. There is also a section of NCORP called WP:INHERITORG which states that "The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable" as opposed to significant coverage received by the products produced by the organization or corporation. Perhaps a separate Wikipedia page is appropriate for one of the podcasts rather than the company. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Deseret News is reliable, mostly for local news. Still not sure the company is notable, the individual podcasts might be... Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by Anne Drew. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KATV (Alaska)

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

Fails WP:NBROADCAST; just one sentence, just one source. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[(recommendation for delete removed -page has been updated since.) per nominator. No evidence of notability or content origination. Chumpih. (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC), removed 22 Dec. ][reply]
Comment I mean, they have a facebook page. I don't see much about them, seems they've been around for 60 years. Oaktree b (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with the KATV in Arkansas. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a strange bird page, and the lack of sourcing on the topic does not help. (A local newspaper is sorely needed!) I improved KSA-TV, a related topic, and I think there is a notability case here for one reason: KA-TV (as it was sometimes written) was the first television station of any kind in Alaska, before broadcast stations were established in larger cities like Anchorage or Fairbanks. [21] Delays in building the first station in Anchorage meant that Ketchikan had TV a month before that city. Citations have been added. I lean keep on the "first in Alaska" claim. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since the article has been improved significantly, and there looks now to be noteworthiness. (My prior suggestion above is superseded by this.) Chumpih. (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article creator has unilaterally redirected this article (and KSA-TV, which is not up for deletion) to the list of television stations in Alaska — notwithstanding that their only mention in that list contains none of the sources that had been in the article, and incorrectly implies they were over-the-air stations. Especially for this article (as this removed the AfD tag), this seems out of process… IMO, I'd have gone for a weak keep given its place in Alaska television history (and based solely on Sammi Brie's expansion — the "one sentence, one source" version, I would have gone for deletion), but under the circumstances perhaps we should ship it to draft space for now? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've undone the redirect, as this article is still being discussed here. Natg 19 (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Service existed before statehood gave full initiative to provide network service and stations across Alaska, and it was a cable pioneer setup 100% locally-programmed, so it passes for me on those two aspects. Nate • (chatter) 07:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Health

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

Being one of the many firms distributing Covid test kits fails NOTNEWS & does not imply notability , and the other references do not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets GNG, NCORP. This short article currently has 29 citations; a few of them could be better choices, but this clearly meets "contain significant coverage". Reminder, we shouldn't be using AFD/deletion as an excuse for further clean up. This company doesn't just have COVID test kits, which should be obvious since they were founded in 2015. Joojay (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed might be close to TOO SOON but over the years has accumulated enough notice for me. W Nowicki (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few good reliable sources, such as Wired UK and the CBS affiliate. However, many of the sources cited are not reliable. A new page should be able to demonstrate notability with only a couple of reliable sources. At this moment, it is only a weak keep. Multi7001 (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Driver of the Day

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

Coverage of this golrified popularity contest is almost completley WP:ROUTINE and almost completley WP:PRIMARY. I therefore fail to see how this can pass WP:SIGCOV. SSSB (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SSSB (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - Performing a WP:BEFORE search for this subject is difficult, as so many false-positives or WP:PRIMARY sources get returned. However, from what I can see I believe this subject might just about squeak through the WP:GNG, with articles like this Motorsport.com article, this GrandPrix.com article, or this RTL article suggesting notability. Since this isn't a WP:BLP I feel comfortable saying that the sheer quantity of recurring WP:ROUTINE coverage from independent sources also demonstrates some level of notability. If there was an appropriate merger location I would suggest merging it with something else, but I am not aware of any suitable targets. I don't think the fact that it's a popularity contest affects its notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that's a popularity doesn't effect it's notability, that was me venting/outlying what the award is. SSSB (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there are definitely reliable sources mentioning who won driver of the day, I don't think this constitute substantial coverage of the award itself. I think of it the same way that there could be several articles about drivers who finished fifth, but that does not mean we need an article listing the drivers who came fifth. All of the information in the article is definitely verifiable, but I don't think that it's notable. A7V2 (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Perhaps we can merge this into an article covering all F1 "awards" (e.g. Pit Stop, Overtake, Pole Position, etc.)? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a sensible solution. Really we just need an appropriate location to mention that these things exist in a neutral manner. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Unpopular opinion but feel like it's a notable enough award to deserve its own page, but I understand why some would want to delete it. the Driver of the Day would get way more impressions then most other F1 related articles and I think its useful to have the winners on wikipedia so we can look back on it and have all the info collected in one place. (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That to me seems like a bit of an WP:ILIKEIT statement. Sure, it gets some attention, but as SSSB said it's pretty much only routine and there's no claim to significance. Would you oppose merging it to a larger article where all the F1 awards are covered? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A broadcast/Internet gimmick that doesn't apply to any driver's or manufacturer's points; every sports broadcast has a 'player of the day' or 'three stars', and this is no different. Nate • (chatter) 04:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insignificant award from an encyclopedic point of view. Never gets mentioned in player articles. Nigej (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY; oppose any merge. Unencyclopedic popularity contest. Max winning after his atrocious driving performance in Saudi Arabia? Please. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator MWright96 (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sawyer-Barrow House

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

Not seeing anything notable about this house. It exists and is old, but has no historic designation and I am not finding any true "in-depth" coverage. It appears that the builder/architect might be more notable that this particular house. MB 02:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 02:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MB 02:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MB 02:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am not qualified to judge its architectural merit, but would comment that the article has a good list of sources, but almost all by the same author. It seems to have eben regarded as an important enough building to be saved in 1961 by moving it to a new spot. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most (probably all) of the sources attributed to Jack Barrow aren't attributed correctly. The book Architecture of the Western Reserve 1800-1900, for example, is by Richard N. Campen. - Eureka Lott 18:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was adding the references incorrectly. I mistakenly thought the first and last names were required to track who was adding the reference. I will fix them. Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The house does have a historic designation which was awarded to it in in 1968 by the Heritage Home Committee of the Lake County Historical Society.^[1] I will upload a photo of the letter received 08/19/21968 as a reference. Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only a local designation does not suggest there should be significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. MB 17:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Lake County Historical Society". lakehistorycenter.pastperfectonline.com. Retrieved 29 November 2021.

Comment It was mentioned that a house can't be notable solely based on who the builder/architect might have been. I'd like to point out that of the 4 publications I've cited as references only one is devoted to the Builder. Two of the others recount the history of the City of Mentor, Ohio where it resides and the other is a work on northern Ohio Architecture. Unfortunately none of these sources are available online and copyright restrictions prevent me from uploading images of them myself. Is it possible maybe to share the information with a Wikipedia administrator outside of Wikipedia? Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions are not significant coverage. Do any of these offline sources more than mention the house in a sentence here or there, or in a list or photo. Was the house actually written about? MB 17:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 4 publications I mentioned all have photographs of the house. In the Book on Johnathan Goldsmith the house has its own page with related text. The book "Mentor: First 200 Years" is an 11x8 inch hard bound 193 page work completed by the City of Mentor 20 years ago by local historians without my involvement. In it the house is displayed twice with photos and a couple paragraphs of text. Once as it relates to the early settlers from around 1820 and again for its role as one of the large estates that populated this region in the early 1900's. There is another magazine publication called "Country Homes" that was published in 1920's that has 10 photo's and 4 pages of text on the history of the house that go with them. However, I was given the pages without the rest of the magazine so I have no date or author's name. Which is why I've been reluctant to reference it in Wikipedia until I can do more research to find the complete source. Jbarrow51 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There multiple sources locaed in the article and a simple search shows its designated an historical site in 1968. Its a pretty good article and I see zero grounds for an adf on this article. Super (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you evaluated whether any of the sources provide in-depth coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG? The historic designation in 1968 is not sourced in the article, and in any event was given by a county historical society. That is of highly local nature and does not automatically confer notability. MB 04:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage specifically on the house - the best two sources would be the local paper which I can't access talking about how the house was moved, but those can't save it on its own and I don't think a "Country Homes"-type magazine would necessarily convey notability. It simply appears this is a historic albeit non-notable house. If the architect has a page, it may be worth listing a small amount of the information there. SportingFlyer T·C 00:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as with other historic house. We aren ot part of the Federal or State systems, and that is not a requirmeent for inclusion. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being recognized on a national or state historic registry means there is a presumption of meeting GNG. There is no such presumpton with local historic designations; GNG must be met by finding in-depth coverage in multiple independent RS. MB 04:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Explicit analysis of whether the sources available do or do not meet the GNG would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting bit of local history, but I can't find any sources to back it up. It's not on the NRHP or any State list, I don't think it's worth including here. Could be a sub-section about the master builder, but he doesn't have an article either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If its an interesting bit of local history, then I feel it should be kept. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER after all. If there is verifiable information here that would be better somewhere else in the encyclopedia as suggested above, then I feel that article should be created and the information merged there prior to this article being deleted. Otherwise, the information would be lost. NemesisAT (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not convinced that this specific house merits inclusion on Wikipedia at this time. Most of the sourcing discusses the architect, Mr. Sawyer, or general local news about construction and the house in modern times (i.e. a gas station being put onsite, etc). Most of the sources are also by one journalist and a lot of the house details in the article are unsourced original research. I do think that there should be a Wikipedia article about the architect, but, I am not convinced (even with my attempts at newspaper.com and other sources) that the house itself merits a full article. Missvain (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's notable as a beautiful historic building, although perhaps it should be reshaped into an article about the master-builder who built it as the sources are more focussed on him than the house. 1. The house itself was notable enough to be included in this book 2. Ficaia (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as similar other buildings of Goldsmith are on the national registries so while this one is not so "noted" it is notable as is the architect/builder. Maybe a page for him and all his surviving buildings is the best, but the evolution to that doesn't come by first deleting articles and the source information. That "Most of the sources are also by one journalist" is not true: JBarrow51 made a mistake in putting his own name on the sources he intended to cite, as he explained above. Like me, he's a new editor and makes mistakes. I see the welcoming committee here didn't waste even two weeks before they AfD'd one of his first articles. I corrected all but 3 of the "JBarrow" sourcings: two are to newspapers (Painsville Telegraph and Mentor Monitor) which I don't have access to, and the third just links to wkrs.org main page and not a specific page on the site that supports anything in the article. Ohio History Center in Columbus has the 1961 issues of the Mentor Monitor: if you want to save this page, I'd hoof it over there and get the WP:SIGCOV people want to see.https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84028225/holdings/ BBQboffin (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The negative assessment of the sources linked to by BobFromBrockley has remained uncontested. Sandstein 17:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Youth League (Bolshevik)

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

Almost completely unchanged since its creation in 2009. Reads like a propaganda piece and should be deleted. Was considering G11, but this felt safer. Anarchyte (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who wants to bet a million dollars BitChute, Fox News, Breibart, MRC Newsbusters and other dumb far-right outlets will not cover this article's AFD just to keep its readers having a perception that Wikipedia has a commie agenda? Anyway, Strong Delete. Only thing I found was this self-published blogpost 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 17:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage on runet is limited to Communist blogs and a few internet encyclopaedias, which do not constitute notability. [22] Akakievich (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim the puffery and add sourcing tag. Here's the Russian page, which is flagged as needing more sourcing but does include enough sources to suggest notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: From just a cursory glance, it doesn't look like the citations used in the ruwiki article are any good. The first four are self-published and the ref11 is a passing mention. I'll have a look at the others later, but I'm not hopeful. Anarchyte (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Scribner, Herb (24 January 2020). "The debate over 'Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker' is an example of the culture war". Deseret News.

[2] "Here Are Our Favorite Westworld Podcasts". Lifehacker.

[3] "What's the Buzz: Mighty Ducks, Life on Mars? and More!". 25YL. 7 December 2019.

[4] Mackrell, Daniel (16 April 2019). "The best Game Of Thrones podcasts to listen to during season 8". Metro.

[5] Scribner, Herb (12 February 2020). "Will fans ever turn on the Marvel Cinematic Universe? An inside look at toxic fandom". Deseret News.

[6] "Foundation S1E6: "Death and the Maiden"". 25YL. 22 October 2021.

[7] "Lake County Historical Society". lakehistorycenter.pastperfectonline.com. Retrieved 29 November 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]