Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 28	June 30 >

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vulcan Corporation[edit]

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

Don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1808 United Kingdom heat wave[edit]

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

No strong effects or WP:LASTING significance. No national records broken. RandomIntrigue (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RandomIntrigue I listed your AfD here since there appeared to be a procedural error/conflict between the AfD and PROD, and it was not listed here following your creation. My appologies if I made any mistakes in attempting to remedy this. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 23:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have been an unusual occurrence for the time. The Times reported on its 200th anniversary in 2008 and again in 2018 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/killer-heatwave-that-brutalised-britain-b96sc37ml, there's a journal article published in Weather in 2006 https://doi.org/10.1256/wea.04.04 Piecesofuk (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weather events should not be measured by records broken. Dimadick (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KineticGlue[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill enterprise software vendor that fails NCORP. Coverage in reliable sources is limited to acquisition reports, interviews and brief mentions in listicles. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Mostly interview sorts of coverage with no independent perspective of a journalist on the company. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt, Idaho[edit]

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

This is another really bizarre GNIS case, but this time I don't think we can blame the compilers. A 1946 aerial shows the problem plainly: the construction of the internment camp wiped out everything here, not just the area covered by the present park. In particular, the area where the label sits in the topos is covered by a complex of barracks-style buildings. The topos do not go back this far, but what they do show has no correspondence with the aerials to speak of, though the style of the maps shows that they were updated some time after the war. The park service website is no help that I can readily find, and the camp completely dominates searching, so that while I can find it being called the "Hunt camp", I've been unable to get any info about what was here before. I'm somewhat reluctant to redirect this to the camp article, and "unincorporated rural community" is yet another euphemism for "we don't know what was here, but there's nothing there now." Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The address for the only thing in the alleged town, the Minidoka National Historic Site, is listed as being in Jerome County, ID, as apparently they do not consider Hunt to be a town.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mio Saeki[edit]

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

The one reference doesn't come anywhere near to showing notability in Wikipedia's terms. (For convenience, here is a Google translation of the text of the one source cited: Mio Saeki releases DVD "BEAUTIFUL LOVE". The first DVD of the omnibus drama program "Beauty-H (heroine)", in which the idol of the season appears as a heroine, was released and a commemorative event was held at Asobit Game City. Mio Saeki, who sings the theme song of the popular anime "Mahoroba" and the insert song of "School Rumble", was selected as the first song this time. The DVD "BEAUTIFUL LOVE" is a work that you can enjoy playing in various situations and "Puru Puru Body" by Mr. Saeki who is active as a singer.) My searches also failed to produce any evidence of notability. JBW (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted this nomination, I was unaware that I had nominated the same article ten years ago, for the same reason. The discussion then was closed as "no consensus", but I still think the same reason applies as then. JBW (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good sourcing showing notability. The last discussion 10 years ago shows just how bad things were then, and that even totally false claims could lead to keeping an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can find nothing reliable under either "Mio Saeki" or "佐伯美愛". Under the rules for musicians she has received no coverage for any of her releases and they are only visible in the usual streaming and retail sites, plus a few IMDb-like directories of songs that were used in anime. Under the rules for other types of celebrities, her work as a bikini model seems pretty minor. I hope she's settled into a nice private life by now. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World Cuppa[edit]

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

fails Wikipedia:Notability, no sources for 12 years All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to find this [1] and this [2]. Both are from the same place (The Guardian) however. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - short lived TV show with limited coverage and no notability. Giant Snowman 08:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain (comments) There are some hits in a google search, not a lot really. The article could possible pass GNG if sorted out. Not sure know. Govvy (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, short series, looks like just a regular side show to a footbal world cup. - Nabla (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence it passes WP:GNG, and don't see a reasonable WP:ATD either. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a minor short-lived TV programme, of no notability, fails WP:GNG and we don't seem to have a specific guide for TV. The only link is from the producer's article Christian O'Connell where it is mentioned without citation and to no particular effect. --Bejnar (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty Reunion[edit]

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

Non-notable erotic film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources or other indications of notability, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of significant or even minor coverage in reliable sources. For example there is no entry at all for this film at Rotten Tomatoes. It clearly does not pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep and move to Alice and the Glass Lake. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Lemke[edit]

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

A very sad story about an up-and-coming singer who died of leukemia at the age of 28. That being said, also a failure of WP:NMUSIC and WP:SIGCOV. A WP:BEFORE search of both "Alicia Lemke" and "Alice and the Glass Lake" found two local newspaper articles (The Capital Times and Isthmus, two pieces of WP:ROUTINE coverage (the BrooklynVegan premiere of her album and the Billboard premiere of a music video), and a fun fact about Eminem sampling her vocals (repeated here). Kncny11 ^(shoot) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 18:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A person who died but never hit it big. Agree it doesn't meet the criteria above. Oaktree b (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know I will be biased because I created the article, but I think she is notable. One of her claims to fame was that she was the vocals in "Trip the Light," which was the background music in the 2012 YouTube video "Where the Hell is Matt? (2012)". Considering we have articles on Where the Hell is Matt? and Matt Harding himself, I think it helps with notability and relevancy. I could try to find other sources as well, if that would help. I'll admit that, due to lack of secondary sources, the article may forever remain a stub, but I still believe it should remain. ~Junedude433 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That might count for WP:NMUSIC under item no. 10. But the key thing would be if it were possible to identify any work of hers that has charted. Furius (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, possibly move to different title - All of her music was released under the name Alice and the Glass Lake, and that musical act may have enough coverage under WP:SIGCOV for a basic stub article. I think the Billboard and Genius articles are a little more substantial than stated in the nomination, she got a couple of robust album reviews like this [3], and she opened for Fleetwood Mac as stated in the local newspaper articles. But note that my vote is "weak" and I won't argue with anyone who wants more evidence of notability. Meanwhile, the article makes the mistake of trying to construct a personal biography of Ms. Lemke when it would work better as a band history under the band's name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have included more information about her and the appearances of her works, namely that Kiesza wrote a song in her memory after Lemke's death, a song of Lemke's appeared in the television serials Awkward., Billions, and Station 19, and two of her songs appeared in the 2017 movie Suck It Up. I hope this does a better job at establishing notability. ~Junedude433 (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I appreciate you taking the time to find more sources, however I just wanted to note that IMDb is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, because it contains user-generated content that isn't always fact-checked (see WP:IMDB). Kncny11 ^(shoot) 16:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not really sure what else to cite though. I went ahead and actually watched the specific episode of Awkward. just to see, and sure enough, it was undoubtedly one of Lemke's songs. However, I couldn't find any specific source to actually cite to show it. Obviously, a link to a video someone uploaded on dailymotion probably isn't the best source either. ~Junedude433 (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received minimal, but sufficient, coverage in mainstream sources. The fact that this coverage did not occur until after her death is irrelevant; she is notable now, and that is what matters. Mlb96 (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Alice and the Glass Lake. Ultimately the coverage on the artist herself is too slim to pass WP:NMUSIC, but I think the reviews of the musical act do pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Alice and the Glass Lake" per 4meter4. As a person she might narrowly fail notability, but I agree that the coverage overall is sufficient for an article. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Christianity in Nepal. Several participants definitely believe this organization should be notable, and it does seem plausible that this type of organization would be, but they had difficulty bringing forward the independent, reliable sources offering significant coverage to show this. Among the majority who did not express support for keeping the article, there was a division between deleting and redirecting, but the later trend of the discussion was for redirect, so that is how I am closing. RL0919 (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Council of Churches of Nepal[edit]

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

Doesn't cite any sources. Fails notability. Yeti Dai (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Yeti Dai (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not meet notability and no significant coverage was found in my search. I had previously prodded the article. Here is my prod statement: It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: "Non-notable religious organization. Created by serial unreferenced stub creator. BEFORE completed; best findings = a few listings in Google books confirming it exists, but that isn't enough coverage. Please add good sources if you deprod or the article will go to AfD. Thank you." DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if its a member of the World Council of Churches, as is claimed, then it is probably notable. Sources do not have to be online or in English.Rathfelder (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But they have to be in existence. And where are they? I haven't read anything about membership in one organization that makes another organization notable. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are several sources in Google Books. There are some that are snippet view that can't really be added to the article, but appear to give significant coverage.[4] But as mentioned above, the sources do not have to be accessible, they only have to exist. St Anselm (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The snippet view of the source you name [1] shows that the organization is covered on one page of a book contributed articles. Indeed, it gets one weak sentence. I cannot find the article ("Inclusion, Christianity, and the Nepali State" by Mahendra Bhattarai) as a standalone online, and it may never have been published elsewhere. My entire snipped view is: "The National Council of Churches of Nepal NCCN is said to be [emphasis mine] championing the cause of human rights, freedom of faith, harmony among different religions, a stringent selection and review of foreign aid, contextualizing one's faith to the 'cultural' environment and the right to register and be recognized as a Christian organization. The National Churches..." It starts talking about an organization called the "National Churches." The work was published by a non-governmental organization called "South Asia Partnership--Nepal." Is "said to be"? The article in this book has no actual information on the organization. This coverage is insignificant and thus does not help notability question at all. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:There is no relevent information and citation on this article. There are similar onces which are making wikipedia a bin. It needs to be cleared as soon as posiible as wikipedia is not a news site. I request everyone to stay away from their personal belief and take decision as per the demand.Curious boy np (talk)
Keep -- There is enough available on-line to confirm that it exists. If it does it should be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What indicates it "should be notable"? Why would we assume an organization with no significant coverage is notable? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: it exits does not mean it passes WP:Notabilty. The depth of the coverage by source should be considered. Address, mission, vision of the organization available online are just trivial mention as in these sources (These source are not reliable as well) : [5] [6]. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. WP:INHERITORG applies. Just because the parent organization is notable doesn't mean it is to. Clog Wolf _Howl 13:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Christianity in Nepal. Two lines of information that has no independent notability does not need a separate article. nirmal (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases I'd be all about that, but this "article" has no sourcing and provides no information, so I see merging as negatively affecting the quality of that article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christianity in Nepal. As a national organisation, it likely has some form of noteworthiness, even if it is not notable per our policies. Sources exist, ex. [7], although I'm not sure that one is independent, or the mention here, which indicates this might warrant some form of an indication on the relevant target page. The redirect should be kept in either case per WP:ATD and as a logical search term. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it is a national organization? If it is, are all national organization nooteworthy?103.10.31.45 (talk)

RandomCanadian, Your first link is to a directory listing at the parent organization. It doesn't "source" anything. The second link won't load for me. If the article can't be properly sourced, why trash the other article with a merge of unsourced content? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Christianity in Nepal.4meter4 (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The discusion has hone much longer now. I request the deletion oor redirect soon as I feel this is the conclusion of majority here. Very few demands for Keep with no better reason.Still no reference/citation/notability available.Curious boy np (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS available online; AfD is not clean up.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Barclay, John (October 2009). "The Church in Nepal: Analysis of Its Gestation and Growth". International Bulletin of Missionary Research. 33 (4).
^ "Maoists and the church: Strange bedfellows in an emerging new Nepal". Global Ministries. 2014-10-10.
^ "Nepal Christians Return to Worship after Earthquake Turns Churches into Tombs | WWRN - World-wide Religious News". wwrn.org. 4 May 2015.
^ Seddon, David (2014). Nepal : maintaining secularism - an up-hill struggle (PDF). Kathmandu, Nepal: Society for Humanism (SOCH) Nepal. pp. 93–94. ISBN 978-9937-2-8493-6.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe these references as moist have publicly denied its relation to cristianity time and again. Yes, you may be doing this as per your faith. I request you to be secular not a defender of Christianity. Secularism doesn't mean Christianity. We Nepalese are very well known on these topic. I request speedy Deletion else adding reference verified by a national daily of Nepal which works on Nepalese interest with proof.110.44.121.41 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the IP editor that these do not provide significant coverage. There's a bit of "I like it" evidence in some of the "keeps" above. Goldsztajn at least provides some sources, so let's examine those:

Has one sentence that cites NCCN. What are the specifics of that citation? Footnote says: "K. B. Rokaya, PowerPoint presentation, copy provided to author, October 10, 2007." Not independent. I would question reliability as well. Furthermore, it's not significant coverage of the organization. It just shows the secretary has estimated the number of Christians in Nepal. Nope. Not significant.
The blog of "Global Ministries," which is a joint venture of the UCC and Disciples of Christ. They describe National Council of Churches of Nepal as: "a new partner church of Global Ministries." So it fails as an independent source. Most significant in the blog post statement is "After the cease fire, the NCCN played a major role in bringing all faith groups into the process of “building a new Nepal.”" Do we have a reliable source for this? The blog of a partner church, with no byline, is not a promising source.
Same secretary quoted. Not about the organization. Not significant.
Page 93 has some information about it, including its mission. Not significant.

Passing mentions linked in AfD aren't adding to the notability discussion. Regarding "AfD is not cleanup" and "sources exist" arguments above: Those are arguments I've seen with the weakest keep arguments and weakest "sourcing" for years. When I want an article kept and I stand behind my vote, I typically add relevant information to the article. I'll add what very little of value is here, because the keep voters haven't. Then we can at least remove some tags.

I ask the "keepers" to reflect and consider what the article contributes to Wikipedia/the world. Right now, it's nothing. If decent sourcing that proves notability is found in the future, the article can be recreated. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Christianity in Nepal.Alex-h (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sourcing. In any case, the body representing a major religion in a country should be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "the body", though. It is "a body." It is the country's chapter of a large organization that is made up of some, but not all, Christian denominations. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Christianity in Nepal. No sufficient citation and notability! I would like to ask all to see no of page view of this article! So less. It can be recreated in future. I have a question similar as above, "What will this article contribute to world? What is the significance?" Please delete this article soon as the discussion has gone very long and large concensus is known! Please try to be free from our personal religious point of view. Thank-you!202.51.76.81 (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Christianity in Nepal. The independent coverage is just not sufficient for a standalone article. Should probably be mentioned somewhere in the linked article, like "yeah, that organisation exists and has something to do with Christians in Nepal". The bar for such a mention is much lower than for a standalone article, imo. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per LordPeterII. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday Prophecy[edit]

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

Non-notable television film that does not have significant coverage, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like it was one of several films and other media that was released to capitalize in on the 2012 phenomenon. Despite having some decent star power, it looks to have been pretty solidly ignored in the media other than basic TV listings and "this is playing tonight" blurbs. No actual articles or reviews to speak of, as far as I can tell. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews at Blu-ray.com (https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Doomsday-Prophecy-Blu-ray/43753/#Review) and DVD Talk (https://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s3908doom.html) Donaldd23 (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- These aren't valid sources, are they? At least blu-ray.com isn't. AdoTang (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure if they've been discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, but they are on many articles and I have seen them used in AfD discussions before. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Talk is a reliable source, bluray.com has not been assessed as far as I know, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Though the cast are notable, this has no major coverage outside of routine tv listings, and no major reviews. Not sure about Blue-ray.com, though DVD Talk might be reliable I do not think it is enough for this article on its own. Only other source I could find was a passing mention at The Hollywood Reporter on the announcement of the film, but I do not think that is enough. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd have to say a definite no on the reliability of Blu-ray.com, which is clearly an online video store whose reviews are no more notability-making than the user comments on an Amazon product or an IMDb page — whereas DVD Talk would probably be acceptable as one source in a mix of solid sources, but isn't strong enough to get a film over the notability bar all by itself if it's all we can find. And otherwise, all I'm getting is TV listings, a glancing acknowledgement of this film's existence in coverage of a completely different film Jason Bourque tried to make after this one, and purely coincidental text matches in articles that were actually about the Roland Emmerich film 2012. Nothing helpful, in other words. Bearcat (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is a keep from me, but only as I've seen the film and I think it's a low budget classic. There are listings on well known UK sites like RadioTimes.com and plenty of reviews on Thrillist and well known B-Movie sites, but I think this is a case of region-specifics. I think it's more well known in the UK. Asangersgrant (talk) 2219, 15 June 2021 (BST)
- A listing on a database like RadioTimes does not contribute to significant coverage of the topic. I would be interested in seeing the reviews from Thrillist and others if you could list them. BOVINEBOY2008 22:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The film has an entry in this German language reference work: Hans Messias, Horst Peter Koll, ed. (2012). Lexikon des internationalen Films - Filmjahr 2011. Schüren Verlag. It also has an entry in Clive Davies (2015). Spinegrinder: The Movies Most Critics Won’t Write About. Headpress. It's enough to pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not confident the first source constitutes as significant coverage. It seems like it purely lists films that were released on Blu-Ray, basically a reference source and not actual coverage. The second is interesting! BOVINEBOY2008 10:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that point of view. However, I think its inclusion within an academic lexicon of films shows a certain degree of significance. Granted it's a source that lends itself more to including this film in a list as opposed to a stand alone article. However, the other source is a review; so in balance I think we could build an article with these two sources and those cited above.4meter4 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not seeing how this passes WP:NFILM.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 00:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Outside of Sharknado, almost no Syfy Saturday night TV movie is going to pass WP:GNG/WP:NFILM/WP:TVSHOW. The article's current two sources don't get it there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:44, 30 June 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. The Daily Journal sources in the article have been presented as sufficient to prove notability. This has been rejected by some, but in the discussion there is more assertions than arguments concerning them. I am unable to review those sources (due to geographical restrictions) but the news articles seem to be local in nature. That is an unsettled area, and for purposes of this discussion I cannot read any consensus to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Christian Academy (Kankakee, Illinois)[edit]

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

Non-notable religious school; the sources cited are insufficient, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media mentions etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. ~~Has been previously deleted and rejected at AfC, so salting might be in order.~~ -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where is the previous deletion discussion? StAnselm (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction, has not been deleted previously, don't know what I was thinking of. Thanks for pointing that out. Striking my comment. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in the Daily Journal.[8][9] It is also the top rated private school in its county. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think "top rated private school in its county" is a notability criterion under WP:ORG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, somewhere there is a publication detailing its rating, but I don't have access to it. Another example of significant coverage presuming to exist. But it passes GNG through the Daily Journal articles, anyway. St Anselm (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly enough sourcing available to meet WP:GNG, as with any other American high school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Clearly enough" — would you like to point to some, or are we simply to take that at face value? Also, are you suggesting that American high schools are somehow inherently notable (when those of any other country aren't)? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm suggesting that secondary schools in the USA (and also the whole developed world - I'm not American myself) almost invariably have enough sourcing to show notability and that nominating them for deletion is unhelpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The coverage here is pretty trivial, and per the RFC ruling as detailed in criteria 3 in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, secondary schools are no longer presumed notable without significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources shared above are just related to school name change or similar. There is no indepth independent coverage. 1друг (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am going to have to choose keep based on sports coverage. The school seems to get a lot of coverage in Mattoon, Illinois. Here is one of many stories [10]. I am going to assume that more thorough coverage exists, but I understand that the burden of proof is on me. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, because the school is so small, it is unlikely that this school is notable even with the athletic coverage. I have not !voted delete just yet. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signs of notability other than short trivial coverage. Also, the Daily Journal article is NOT sufficieny Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my standards. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a private school. So it has to pass WP:NORG like any other type of private organization. Which it clearly doesn't. Since all the references are a combination of trivial, WP:MILL, coverage and (or) primary. Otherwise, someone should provide WP:THREE in-depth, non-mill, secondary sources, one of which should be regional or national to show the school is notable. I'm more then happy to change my vote to keep if such sources exist and someone can provide them. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The three Daily Journal articles cited are substantial. The guideline says that the notability requirement for schools and universities is WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and for-profit educational institutions are required to satisfy WP:ORG as commercial organizations. Grace Christian's status as a private school is NOT the same as being "for profit". It is a religious non-profit, and it clearly meets GNG. Plus, I really like Bearian's standards (above), which Grace Christian Academy also meets. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:59, 7 July 021 (UTC)

But it's not a Catholic school and according to @Extraordinary Writ: most non-Catholic schools aren't notable...So, really, it should be deleted on that alone. Or should Extraordinary Writ's opinions only be followed when they result in articles being kept, but be tossed out when they don't? Also, I love how you've repeatedly given me crap for the whole private/profit thing not being guideline based, but then your willing to go with some random person's personal notability standards that have zero to do with the guidelines. Way to be consistent. Things like that are exactly why I told @Extraordinary Writ: it's a complete waste of time and utterly worthless for people like to make personal comments about other users in your votes, because you don't even care about or follow the things you give other crap about. It's nothing but massive projection. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attacking and demeaning other editors (Extraordinary Writ, Bearian, me). Maybe you don't know how to make reasoned arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but that's no excuse for incivility. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to point out where I've attacked and demeaned Bearian. Let alone you or Extraordinary Writ. Also, from what I can tell out of the four of us I'm the only that is making guideline based arguements. There's nothing guideline based about keeping an article based on a personal essay. Not that I'm the one commenting about guidelines not being followed. You are and only to me. Nice try though. That's where the projection comes in. Me supposedly not following the guidelines bad, Bearian not following them, not a peep out of you except approval. That's just a fact. How many AfDs have you called out Necrowhatever for voting keep because he thinks schools are inharently notable? How many notability talk page discussions have you or Wit started over it? Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And for the record, I have never in my life made any such statement that "most non-Catholic schools aren't notable". If you have the diff, I would very much like to see it. If we're really making "personal comments about other users" and "giving people crap", ANI is thataway. But until then, I must insist that you refrain from sullying this discussion with straw men, ad hominem attacks, and aspersions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't agree with John on the notability talk page that most notable schools are Cathlic? Weird. Why did you even being it up or cite him saying it to make your point then? Adamant1 (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No answer from either of you huh? Go figure. It's odd how willing both of you are to fly off the handle at a moments notice, but then are completely unwilling to provide evidence for your spurious, nonsensical accusations. The same thing happened on the notability talk page. It was all good when you could gang up on me and go off, but then you both dodged out as soon as I asked you a few basic questions and other people who disagreed with you got involved. Lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life is too short. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. It was already to short a few weeks ago when both of you instigated things. Yet it never seems to be when your making the original comments and accusations in the first place. Just when you get called out over them. Then your suddenly so above it all. By all means though, stop wasting all our time with it all. I definitely have better things to do. Adamant1 (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete the article. What there is a consensus for is to create an overarching list article for this and similar articles, and to merge & redirect the content. If and when someone gets around to creating that article, I would respectfully suggest that this and other, similar discussions can be used as evidence of a community consensus potentially existing, at which point some bold merge & redirects could occur. Up to individual editors though. Daniel (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sinbad Rock[edit]

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

Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. Apcbg (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location as 62°10'S 59°02'W, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks it is! Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The precise coordinates of Sinbad Rock are 62°09'11.5"S 59°02'21.2"W according the linked reliable source, Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica. Apcbg (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a name of a tiny piece of rock of no significance whatsoever, ~~may not even be above water~~ if I'm reading that right. This only has "Rock in Water". Nothing to merge, as nothing significant has ever been written about this feature that I can find. When this can only be attested through trivial database listings, this is very obviously non-notable. Hog Farm _Talk 03:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you’re not reading that right, according to the UK and Chile gazetteers it’s rising to 3 m above sea level; the “below the water rock” is another feature lying miles away. And it’s more than a trivial listing of name and coordinates. As your own reference demonstrates Sinbad Rock is part of a sailing directives narrative attesting to its significance in the course of navigation. It also appears in the US, UK, Chile and SCAR Antarctic gazetteers with details of the history of its surveying, charting and naming. Apcbg (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still at delete here, even if it is 9 foot tall and above water. I wouldn't characterize any of the sources I've seen as anything further than "it exists, it's 3 m tall, and it's at coordinates". When it comes down to it, a lot of the rocks seem to be about the natural equivalent of a U.S. National Geodetic Survey survey disk - it's a minor feature at a known site that provides some directional/survey help, but about which nothing significant has never been written and probably never will be written. Hog Farm _Talk 00:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The feature should pass WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources [11] [12] [13] [14] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins). Apcbg (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics that could expand the article. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5P1 and WP:SIGCOV per the sources above demonstrating coverage in multiple reference works, including Antarctica: An Encyclopedia which I added to the article. Our mission statement per the first pillar is to do the work of an encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias. When a topic has an entry in a published academic encyclopedia, it automatically passes GNG because of the very first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars. @ Reywas92 After having commented on several of these nominations, I would strongly urge you to take a step back and look at the big picture in terms of wikipedia's goals and objectives. WP:Five Pillars is the bedrock of all policy, and dismissing published academic encyclopedias as trivial supporting evidence at an AFD discussion seems like you have forgotten what wikipedia is trying to achieve; namely being an encyclopedia.4meter4 (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND4 expect a level of substantive coverage that these sources do not provide. Existence with a name with a mere mention that it was "charted" isn't the basis for an article about a small rock. Even in a published book, a couple lines do not equate an article. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5P1 trumps GEOLAND and GNG per WP:Fundamentals. If it's in a published encyclopedia it stays. Period.4meter4 (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. It has never been our policy to throw away our notability guidelines so that anything merely barely mentioned in an outside encyclopedia is mandated to have its own article here. "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" does not mean any item that any such published work mentions without details is immune from discussion. The Pokemon Encyclopedia is a specialized encyclopedia covered by 5P1, but that does not mandate we have individual articles about each Pokemon. Reywas92^Talk 05:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think comparing a serious academic encyclopedia on the continent of Antarctica to an encyclopedia of "fancruft" on a fictional universe is a bit disingenuous on your part. Further, your understanding of policy is flawed. Traditionally WP:5P1 is invoked at AFD when a topic is brought up that is covered in an academic encyclopedia on the real world, specialized or otherwise. Historically such arguments have won consistently; mainly because the authors and editors of a published encyclopedia are typically experts within that academic field and are more qualified to judge notability for encyclopedic inclusion in a particular content area than lay editors at wikipedia. In other words, we trust that the entries in an academic encyclopedia are in fact worthy of inclusion in wikipedia because experts have included it in their published encyclopedia. The fact that multiple reference works have duplicate information is a testament to their reliability and not to to a lack of significance. The fact that the subject has an actual named entry in a published referenced encyclopedia as well as other publications is significant. Not every entry needs to be large. Many encyclopedias cover topics in a single short paragraph. That doesn't make the topic not notable. On the contrary, inclusion in published reference materials as a bolded named topic with its own section is significant coverage, no matter the size. Again, if other encyclopedias cover a topic we should too. The fact that we lack entries on certain topics from specialized encyclopedias points to places where we are deficient and need to expand of our coverage, not to where our coverage should be limited.4meter4 (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of Encyclopedia of California Place Names. It has tens of thousands of entries, most just a few short sentences similar to this gazetteer. Someone mass-created several thousand articles on populated places from this book, but we have had to cull and delete many hundreds of them because they are not in fact notable (and populated places tend to be more notable than tiny rocks and hills and whatnot). This book was compiled by experts based on many historical and geographical references that are highly reliable. But you are nuts if you think anything needs its own article merely because there are two non-descriptive sentences about it in such a comprehensive gazetteer. You know damn well that WP:GNG includes "significant coverage" as a criterion for notability, not that anything with a "bolded named topic" in a book is automatically notable and cannot be deleted or mentioned in another article instead of its own. BS. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it would be possible to house the content of this page within another larger article where we can place a suitable redirect (potentially something like Rock formations of King George Island (South Shetland Islands) . However, at the moment there is no article currently in existence which makes a good target for merge/redirect. As such, keeping the article is the best option available per my reasoning above.4meter4 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Where is the signficiant coverage? Most importantly, this completely lacks any secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is an encyclopedia not a secondary source?4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge - Really, this and the the other rocks and reefs mentioned in Template:South_Shetlands could be profitably combined into a list article, with a redirect. Absent that work, I agree this narrowly passes WP:GEOLAND, as "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". Suriname0 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist", I agree that a redirect to a future South Shetlands' rocks and reefs article would be appropriate, when such an article exists. --Bejnar (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buzfuz Rock[edit]

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

Small rock mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. And rocks do play some role in navigation. Apcbg (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location imprecisely as 65° 28′ 0″ S, 65° 53′ 0″ W, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks it is! Nor is it necessarily worth mentioning a tiny, nondescript rock on some other article merely because it exists. Anyone using this article to navigate the Antarctic Peninsula is a moron, and your assertion is irrelevant original research. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The precise coordinates of Buzfuz Rock are 65°28′55″S 65°52′24″W according to the linked reliable source, UK Antarctic Place-names Committee. WP:OR: “This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.” Apcbg (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it is irrelevant! A location is not notable by means of being a location! Reywas92^Talk 19:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The feature should pass WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources [15] [16] [17] [18] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins). Apcbg (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5P1 and WP:SIGCOV. The subject clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. Google books shows the topic is covered in multiple reference works, including Antarctica: An Encyclopedia which I added to the article. Our mission statement per the first pillar is to do the work of an encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias. When a topic has an entry in a published academic encyclopedia, it automatically passes GNG because of the very first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars.4meter4 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 21:03, 29 June 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 to delete the article. What there is a consensus for is to create an overarching list article for this and similar articles, and to merge & redirect the content. If and when someone gets around to creating that article, I would respectfully suggest that this and other, similar discussions can be used as evidence of a community consensus potentially existing, at which point some bold merge & redirects could occur. Up to individual editors though. Daniel (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scend Rocks[edit]

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

Small rocks mass produced from GNIS, about which nothing is described beyond mere existence, fails WP:GEOLAND Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOLE, not likely to have played a role in anything. Geschichte (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Encyclopedic content worth preserving; as Antarctica lacks the extensive and dominant human-made infrastructure that other world regions possess, one might presume that if an Antarctic nature feature is notable enough to get named then it is notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. And rocks do play some role in navigation. Apcbg (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck does "notable enough to get named" mean? "It has a name" is NOT our standard of notability (WP:GEOLAND), no matter where in the world it is. The GNIS actually only gives its location imprecisely as -64.8, -64.25, which is empty ocean, so we don't even know which of these scores of tiny, nondescript rocks they are! Nor is it necessarily worth mentioning tiny, nondescript rocks on some other article merely because they exist. Anyone using this article to navigate the Antarctic Peninsula is a moron, and your assertion is irrelevant original research. Reywas92^Talk 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The precise coordinates of Scend Rocks are 64°48′03″S 64°16′36 W according to the linked reliable source, UK Antarctic Place-names Committee. WP:OR: “This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.” Apcbg (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it is irrelevant! Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The feature should pass WP:GEOLAND as it has been covered by multiple geo related sources [19] [20] [21] [22] with information “beyond statistics and coordinates” (the sources include name origins). Apcbg (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same basic information and mere map labels just published in multiple places, none of which is significant coverage beyond basic statistics that could expand the article. A namesake is not legitimate content toward notability beyond the name itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5P1 and WP:SIGCOV. The subject clearly passes WP:SIGCOV as demonstrated in the multiple sources above. More importantly, the subject has an entry in Antarctica: An Encyclopedia. Our mission statement per the first pillar is to do the work of an encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias. When a topic has an entry in a published academic encyclopedia, it automatically passes GNG because of the very first pillar at Wikipedia:Five pillars.4meter4 (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which source is significant coverage???? There are hardly "multiple" sources when they all just duplicate the same note of existence. Your last statement is wrong when that gazetteer entry merely briefly mentions its location. There are plenty of specialized encyclopedias for which we do not have individual articles for every entry and 5P does not mandate that. Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding of policy is flawed. Traditionally WP:5P1 is invoked at AFD when a topic is brought up that is covered in an encyclopedia, specialized or otherwise. Historically such arguments have won consistently. The fact that multiple reference works have duplicate information is a testament to their reliability and not to to a lack of significance. The fact that the subject has an actual named entry in a published referenced encyclopedia as well as other publications is significant. Not every entry needs to be large. Many encyclopedias cover topics in a single short paragraph. That doesn't make the topic not notable. On the contrary, inclusion in published reference materials as a bolded named topic with its own section is significant coverage, no matter the size. Again, if other encyclopedias cover a topic we should too. The fact that we lack entries on certain topics from specialized encyclopedias points to places where we are deficient and need to expand of our coverage, not to where our coverage should be limited.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 21:00, 29 June 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 policy-based arguments below clearly show a consensus to delete, based off an analysis of the sourcing. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J Coudrey[edit]

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

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

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

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

Covert upe WP:ADMASQ article on a non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. The sources used in the article are hardly about the article’s subject. A WP:BEFORE also yields nothing to corroborate notability claims. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article for a number of reasons and believe the subject does meet WP:GNG. #1. Subject has been personally quoted by The New York Times, Politico, HuffPost, and Fox News. This means the journalists reached out to the subject to request a quote from him to include in their articles. This indicates the subject is reputable in the particular topics, often biotech and US politics. #2. 5 MSM media outlets indicate him as the CEO of YukoSocial, a "social media engine for US Politicians." If he works with US elected officials, it gives credibility to the notion of reputability. #3. He is verified on his social media platforms. This indicates the subject has passed the notability requirements of social media companies. Yes, the article may need clean up, but no it should not be deleted. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:JalenPhotos2 has made few edits outside of the Michael J Coudrey article and this AFD and made their first edit at 12:44, 24 May 2021 (see here: [23] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JalenPhotos2))[reply]

Comment — you are more than welcome to bring to this AFD any reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Please kindly address the COI concerns as well. Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Celestina007 Addressed on my talk page. Your comments appeared slightly hostile, RE: "I know you are online" etc. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I've pulled together a few more notability links that should meet the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. I intend to work these into the article to improve it. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1: https://patch.com/california/beverlyhills/marketing-ceo-michael-coudrey-threatens-author-over-defamation
2: https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-camera-malfunction/
3. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/it-s-nightmare-how-brazilian-scientists-became-ensnared-chloroquine-politics

@JalenPhotos2, The first source is re-echoing the subject of the article and fails to meet WP:INDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV isn’t met, the second and the third are laughable as both sources do not reference the subject of our discussion and he is merely mentioned in passing hence WP:SIGCOV is again not met. More concerning is, why have you yet not disclosed your COI with the subject of your article as required? Why wouldn’t you disclose your COI with the subject of the article or do you not know how to declare a COI? See WP:COI for assistance. I am logging a second warning on your TP. If I have to warn you again to disclose a COI I am reporting you to ANI, for WP:NOTHERE purposes where I’d ensure an indefinite block is evoked on you for violating our TOU. Furthermore WP:ADMASQ falls under WP:SPAM which constitutes what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, You first nominated my article for deletion. Then you posted on my talk page asking if I was doing paid editing work, and I responded that I have never been paid directly or indirectly to make any edits, whatsoever. You then demanded I add a paid tag to my profile, when this would be inaccurate. You are now claiming I have a COI and I wrote an article masquerading as an advertisement, and then threatened an indefinite block. This harassment is not okay! Perhaps I am not understanding your line of reasoning, but what is the basis for these hostile communications/allegations? Please respond on my talk page. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, I have asked you five times what the connection is between you and the subject of your article is and five times you have been evasive about responding to that. Your comments imply that you aren’t guilty of anything, fine, so could you please explain how the image on the article is your own work yet you haven’t disclose a COI? How any why is that? Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, easily explained and posted on my talk page in response to your question. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, this explanation is improbable as it is as shady as they come and yes even if I were to believe you, that appears to be COI, the photo was taken upclose. Furthermore a WP:BEFORE shows the subject of the article is blatantly non notable. I’m going ahead to log in a third warning on your tp. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, We had a team of 3 photographers working the event. I was interested in learning more about the attendees as many have successes in business, and I run a small business. It is very probable, because its the truth. Really not okay that you're logging a 3rd warning. You've been nothing but hostile, instead of guiding and helping. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, no! you took the photo upclose and your excuse are negligible at best. Asides that why did you create a promotional article for s non notable individual? Do you trouble comprehending WP:GNG if yes, then submitting via AFC should be the best course of action since you aren’t experienced or are having troubles understanding how GNG works. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, It is not okay that you are making an allegation like that and then deciding it's the "truth", when it is not. It is not a promotional article, I tried my best to follow guidelines and believed the subject is notable. I still feel very strongly that he is notable and should be included in Wikipedia. Next time I will use AFC to avoid these toxic interactions/bullying. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2 Lucky enough for both of us I have AFC pseudo right, so if you attempt to create another WP:ADMASQ via AFC, I would be waiting for you and when I do I’m taking you to WP:COIN or even worse, ANI. Furthermore if(emphasis on if)you are evading a block now might just be a good time to cease and desist from such doltish behavior. Celestina007 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through the sources, nearly all of them are only quoting him, which does not meet the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. While it is good on him that he is CEO of a political organization, that doesn't give notability under GNG unless reliable sources provide significant coverage regarding that. Being verified on social media also doesn't give notability under GNG, it just means you're popular enough on that particular social media site. Also I would like to note that source 10, the only source that has significant coverage, allows you to buy an interview and decide what's written which makes it non-independent and thus unusable in terms of notability. Jumpytoo Talk 00:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per JalenPhotos2. The sources in the article (except for IMDB) seem reliable, including the ones indicated by JalenPhotos2. Though the article needs a little clean-up, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. As for the issue regarding WP:COI, the nominator's accusation against JalenPhotos2 is baseless. He has no relation to the subject at all. Working hard to look for sources for a certain subject does not mean he is related to the latter. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest involved whatsoever. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I agree with your assessment of WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the entire source material. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources are reliable but not significant coverage of the subject. Mere quotes of the subject do not constitute in depth coverage. Further interviews lack the independence necessary to pass GNG. This is not even close to meeting our notability criteria.4meter4 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @4meter4 I would tend to disagree. WP:SIGCOV in Heavy, whereas the subject is the topic of the entire article. Sig cov in Patch, whereas the subject is the topic of the entire article, Sig cov in Science Magazine, whereas the subject is not the entire topic but is significantly more than a trivial mention as per WP:SIGCOV Policy. Subject also has been personally quoted by The New York Times, Politico, HuffPost, and Fox News , satisfying WP:GNG Reliable, Sources, Presumed criteria. In regards to Presumed, these quoted pieces (which are more than a trivial mention) creates an assumption that a subject merits its own article because it is contradictory to 'what Wikipedia is not', particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Considering this would you reconsider or update your position? JalenPhotos2 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I would also implore you to examine two further sources from local news and Reuters News. Subjects comments are the reason both articles where created, with the former having the subject be the main topic of the entire source material. Again, Presumed criteria creates assumption that the subject merits its own article on Wikipedia. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/ Detailed source analysis I was asked to reconsider my opinion based on the sources, so I have decided to put together a detailed table, analyzing the sources:

Source analysis
Source	Description	Main Subject?	Significant Coverage?	Policy
Rosenberg, Matthew; Corasaniti, Nick (2019-11-10). "Close Election in Kentucky Was Ripe for Twitter, and an Omen for 2020". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about a close election in Kentucky; Coudrey is mentioned briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Tenbarge, Kat. "A QAnon conspiracy theory about Oprah Winfrey went so viral that it provoked her to respond, showing the scope of coronavirus misinformation". Insider. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about a QAnon conspiracy theory about Oprah Winfrey; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Re, Gregg (2020-05-26). "Twitter puts warning label on a Trump tweet on mail-in ballots, despite experts backing up Trump's concerns". Fox News. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about Twitter and Trump; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
EDT, Ewan Palmer On 8/28/20 at 12:56 PM (2020-08-28). "Why Kyle Rittenhouse, filmed fleeing armed attackers, was charged with murder". Newsweek. Retrieved 2021-06-17.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)	Article about prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"How a chance Twitter thread launched Trump's favorite coronavirus drug". POLITICO. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about Trump, hydroxychloroquine, and the Covid pandemic; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
News, US. "Dr. Laura Coudrey MD". US News. Retrieved June 17, 2021. `{{cite news}}`: `\|last=` has generic name (help)	Profile of Coudrey's mother; paid for section and therefore not independent; no mention of subject	No	No	WP:SOURCE/ WP:SIGCOV
"Entrepreneur Michael Coudrey Discusses Business-Minded Childhood, Present Activities". CC Discovery. 2019-12-15. Retrieved 2021-06-18.	Interview of Courdrey by Canyon Country Discovery Center; lacks independence and is too closely connected to the subject to count towards RS	Yes	No	WP:SOURCE/ WP:SIGCOV
"Presenting the Class of 2011". Kings Park, NY Patch. 2011-06-23. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	List of Kings Park High School graduates; verifies he graduated but is just one name among many	No	No	WP:SIGCOV
"Virus consipracy-theory video shows challenges for big tech". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article on the 26-minute documentary-style video dubbed “Plandemic,”; Coudrey is briefly quoted	No	No	WP:SIGCOV
Dwilson, Stephanie Dube (2019-08-10). "Jeffrey Epstein Camera Malfunction: Proof to Rumor Emerges Weeks Later". Heavy.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article on Jeffrey Epstein Camera Malfunction; Coudrey is briefly quoted; tabloid quality source	No	No	WP:NOTTABLOID/ WP:SIGCOV
Hines, Jan. "Behind the Growing Political Social Media Powerhouse Headed by Marketing CEO Michael Coudrey". Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Interview of Michael Coudrey in Sweet Startups; source often interviews people for pay; lacks independence and is too closely connected to the subject to count towards RS	Yes	No	WP:SIGCOV/ WP:SOURCE
"Trump Pushes Malaria Drug for Virus But Evidence Is Lacking". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: url-status (link)	Article about Trump, hydroxychloroquine, and the Covid pandemic; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Woman Allegedly Attacked In Austin For Wearing MAGA Cap". Austin, TX Patch. 2019-03-13. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Article about the alleged attack on Haley Maddox; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Giller, Marc (2019-11-14). "Is impeachment just a cover for Obama era corruption?". Conservative Christian News. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Article on Adam Schiff’s impeachment “inquiry”; Coudrey is quoted briefly; source itself is questionable in quality	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/WP:SOURCE
Brigham, Bob. "'The backpedal begins': Trump backs off vaping crackdown — and he 'profited from the vape industry'". www.rawstory.com. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Article on Trump and vaping policy/agenda; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS
"Analysis \| One America News's Ukraine-Rudy Giuliani exposé is a stunning piece of propaganda". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Main subject is the America News Network and Rudy Guiliani's reporting on Joe Biden; Coudrey is mentioned briefly in one sentence	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Coronavirus conspiracy-theory video 'Plandemic' shows challenges for big tech". timesfreepress.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17.`{{cite web}}`: CS1 maint: url-status (link)	Article on the "Plandemic" film; Coudrey briefly quoted	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Marketing CEO Michael Coudrey Threatens Author Over Defamation". Beverly Hills, CA Patch. 2019-07-03. Retrieved 2021-06-18.	Local News source covering a twitter fight in what's essentially tabloid type press; this is the local hometown paper of where Coudrey grew up and its independence is questionable	Yes	No	WP:NOTTABLOID/ WP:SIGCOV/WP:SOURCE
WesselJun. 22, Lindzi; 2020; Pm, 5:30 (2020-06-22). "'It's a nightmare.' How Brazilian scientists became ensnared in chloroquine politics". Science \| AAAS. Retrieved 2021-06-18. `{{cite web}}`: `\|last2=` has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)	Article is about the use of chloroquine to treat Covid; Coudrey briefly quoted	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Staff, Reuters (2020-11-04). "Fact check: Wisconsin did not have more votes than people registered". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-06-18. `{{cite news}}`: `\|first=` has generic name (help)	Article is about rumors surrounding the Wisconsin election. Article corrects wrong information spread by Coudrey and others	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Re, Gregg (2020-05-26). "Twitter puts warning label on a Trump tweet on mail-in ballots, despite experts backing up Trump's concerns". Fox News. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article is about Twitter and Trump and mail-in ballots; Coudrey is briefly quoted	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Fichera, Angelo (2019-08-12). "Unproven Claim of 'Camera Malfunction' Before Epstein's Death". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2021-06-18.	Essentially a fact check of Coudrey's and others false claims on Twitter about camera malfunctions before Epstein's death; the rumor is the main subject not Coudrey himself	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Michael Coudrey". IMDb. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	IMDB/ unreliable source	Yes	No	WP:IMDB

As you can see, not a single source meets the criteria for WP:SIGCOV, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:JOURNALIST. Coudrey is essentially a political commentator on social media, and we would treat him much the same way we treat journalists. In these cases mere quotes are part of the routine job of a journalist /political commentator. We only consider journalists and political commentators notable when they themselves become the main subject of multiple sources in independent references. That hasn't happened here. This is a solid delete.4meter4 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @4meter4 Very much appreciate your analysis and opinions in regards to interpretation of policy. Although, I would strongly disagree with your assertions based on a number of factors. For one, 'Coudrey is not a journalist or commentator'. He is the CEO of YukoSocial, a "social media engine for politicians" (According to The New York Times, Politico, Fox News). Two, based on what I mentioned above, the subject does not need to always be the main topic of the source material, so long as its more than a trivial mention. When the subjects work is the reason the article is written or he is being quoted by the journalist to be included in the piece, that is more than a "trivial" mention. Being that there are a significant amount of quoted materials from large news organizations based on the subjects profession in business, this creates an assumption that a subject merits its own article because it is contradictory to 'what Wikipedia is not', particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thirdly, I think your analysis does not accurately factor in Presumed criteria as per WP:SIGCOV. I do appreciate the time you took to analyze and create the table, but I stress to others that it is still an opinion and individual interpretation of policy. Curious to hear others thoughts. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JalenPhotos2, and yet you are arguing for his notability based on his quotes which are all political commentary and have nothing to do with his role as a CEO of YukoSocial. You can't have it both way. Further, several of the sources in the article call him a "twitter commentator" when quoting him. Also, I fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies in this case. That's a policy for how we treat statistics, large collections of data, etc. However, to quote that policy "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Ultimately, that applies here. These isolated quotes lack significant analysis, and by stringing them together in an article without any additional sources where the main subject is the primary subject, we are essentially building an article the is an WP:Original synthesis. That's why this article is a clear delete. 4meter4 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article are reliable. I agree the quotes in significant outlets like The NY Times merit the subject have its own article. Article needs slight clean-up, but it does pass WP:GNG. Pctweaks (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:Pctweaks has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Almost all the sources are deprecated and partisan: Fox News, Newsweek (once an iconic weekly, now owned by a sect), local affiliates of media, the blog Heavy.com, Imdb and the like. If you cut all that out, there would be very little left of content with a couple of citations from the Washington Post. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – 4meter4 has set out very clearly that Coudrey does not meet the notability standards. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is quite the discussion and I somehow got roped into reading it. After reviewing this all though, I am of the opinion that he fails to meet notability guidelines. I generally agree with other people's reasonings on why this is to be deleted. It seems like he's trying to be notable and it's having some effect, but it does not cross the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Lots of very many brief mentions count for something, but not very much on its own and isn't enough. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 21:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some clean ups and having reliable sources its evident enough that it has passed The sources in the article WP:GNG. It has reliable sources such as NY times, Washighton Posts, Fox News are reliable. ShaddyAmbani (Note: User:ShaddyAmbani has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)
Keep: Per JalenPhotos2. Subject is notable, sources pass sig cov and WP:GNG. Appears the nominator has a personal bias against the article creator. Should not have been nominated for deletion. Physcho711 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:Physcho711 has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply]
Note to closing admin. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JalenPhotos2.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Hi 4meter4, Not sure what is up with both of those entries, but this deletion thread has been a long and fruitful discussion with many members of the community contributing on both sides. I have zero affiliation with those two recent accounts. Should they be related, I'd suggest an admin remove their entries so that we may carry the conversation forward here. I've been on wiki for quite some time and have made a significant amount of edits for the good of the community. Your decision to bring me into the case is baseless. Looking forward to a CheckUser. Kindly, JalenPhotos2 (talk)

JalenPhotos2, I think it best that we not derail this AFD by commenting on the investigation here. You can make comments at the discussion page linked above, which I see you have already done.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to have had impact and plenty of references...not sure why the action to delete but I am no expert.CaliBuds (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:CaliBuds has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply]
Delete Insufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see that Coudrey has had impact on this field and seems to be respected. Just my 2 cents.SugarHiller (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)— SugarHiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete:Per 4meter4's analysis. Seems like some random rich guy who has some internet clout within right leaning circles, but I don't think there is enough coverage to substantiate WP:GNG. Being quoted and covered for random Tweeting controversies is not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Also, I feel like we are encountering WP:STONEWALLING that is preventing consensus. — BriefEdits (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like the author had good reason to create the article and was sincere. The subject has more citations that the more notable people I try to write about! TexasToasters (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)— TexasToasters (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment — The influence of socks and spas in this AFD is indicative of the non notability status of the subject of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment —@Celestina007, I created this article and there has been fruitful discussion from both sides for the last 4 weeks without issue. This recent attention and potential socks (not yet confirmed) has now negatively manipulated this conversation. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JalenPhotos2 and Celestina007 please refrain from commenting on socks or spas on this page. You may do so at the investigation page. Also, JalenPhotos2 please refrain from making value judgements;; as the investigative process and notifications at this AFD are policy based reasonable reactions that are necessary no matter the final outcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Street Real Estate[edit]

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

This is the second AfD proposed for this page, the last AfD (done on 16 January 2019) had no consensus and no prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation: WP:Articles for deletion/Harrison Street Real Estate. Since that time little has changed about the article, the main change has been removal of some fluff and puffery. There have been no new inclusions of sources. See diff. Of some parallel relevancy, an AfD has been opened (by me) yesterday on one of the co-founders of this organization: WP:Articles for deletion/Christopher N. Merrill

Edit: A note regarding Ccm1042 the creator of the article, whom very likely is an WP:SPA, which is readily evident in their contribution history, and has a history of Puffing the article, though later recanting that and aiming for more neutrality. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 23:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not quite pass WP:GNG and also seems to fail WP:ORG/WP:CORP. While the organization does appear in the news several times regarding its activities, these alone do not count as WP:SIGCOV. Further, I was not able to find any major independent news articles profiling the company to notify its significance. In the 2.5 years since it's first AfD little if anything substantive has changed regarding its notability. In the first AfD there was a single vote to keep and a discussion regarding the size of the investment firm (in the billions) as grounds to keep it. However, I didn't see anything referring to that dividing line in WP:ORG and thus feel it's worth a re-analysis at least. If there is a documented litmus test for it please share below and take it into account when voting and discussing.

Thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH per review of available sources. Sources are in passing or WP:SPIP; most are rewarmed press releases. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears to be some sort of run of the mill REIT. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage, or any deep coverage. Billions sounds impressive, but doesn't grant notability. ---Bejnar (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There were some good policy-oriented contributions to this discussion, on both sides, and some average ones, again on both sides. There is no agreement around how independent & significant the coverage is. Thus, no consensus. Daniel (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields[edit]

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

I am creating this AfD on behalf of an IP editor who requested it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion; I have not yet formulated an opinion on the case myself. The IP's rationale is: "Fails WP:NB, next to no relevant coverage. Page was made in place of the recently deleted Piper Harron article.195.50.217.92 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)" The recent AFD discussed in the rationale is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piper Harron. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the notability of the book is entangled with that of the author, for whom the article was recently deleted through the appropriate process. I would restore that previously deleted article to draft, merge this article into it (and delete from mainspace), and let it gestate there in case additional coverage can be found or develops. BD2412 T 20:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of any work will be entangled with notability of the creator of the work. Nevertheless, there are notable books by non-notable authors and non-notable books by notable authors. Your suggestion doesn't seem to relate to the particular case of this book at all. --JBL (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is anyone able to tell how much detail Phillips and Kara (2021) has about it? The Google Books preview I'm getting is not so helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter I have access. Phillips and Kara write about her doctoral dissertation, but not the book. They are fundamentally different publications, and so it really can't be considered significant coverage of the book.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:SIGCOV. The publications by Anastasia Kamanos, Julia Molinari and Evelyn Lamb are about her doctoral thesis and not the book. They are fundamentally different publications, and notability is not inherited. The Philip Ording publication is a one sentence name drop and has mo mention of the book. The article by Amber Dance also makes no mention of the book. The Springer Nature Switzerland source is the publisher and seller of the book and is not an independent source. The two journal articles by Piper Harron and the University of Toronto bio by Piper Harron are also not independent as she is the author of the book. The only significant source is the review from MAA Focus. On its own, it is not enough to meet the multiple reviews requirement of criteria one of NBOOK, and none of the sources provide any substantiation for any of the four other criteria at NBOOK. Likewise 1 quality source is not enough to meet WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book and the thesis are essentially indivisible. According to the review published in MAA Focus "The wise people of Birkhäuser ... will be publishing Piper's thesis, in its entirety, as one of their volumes." That is, the book is the thesis and the thesis is the book. pburka (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because the best reviews of the work as a dissertation are in context to creative writing in dissertation format as opposed to being a text for mathematics. There are key differences in publishing format which matter in the way the text is being discussed. I am not convinced that blurring the lines between essentially two different publications is appropriate.4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BOOKCRIT; introducing a distinction between the book and the dissertation is splitting a hair that none of our sources split, and which would be at odds with how mathematical publishing works in general. Publishing a thesis as a book produces a book-version-of-the-thesis, not a wholly separate entity. At most, the distinction is between two editions of the same text, and nothing in our guidelines for wiki-notability of books indicate that all the sources have to pertain to the same edition. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree with that assessment of academic publishing, as I actually have personal experience in that area. For one, dissertations go through a local faculty panel process of review, where the panel usually knows the author personally. Books are put through a much more thorough and professional degree of editorial oversight and scrutiny where reviewers are completely independent of the author. Further, typically dissertations get transformed to some extent when they move into book form;; either through additions of new material or whittling down of extraneous material more appropriate for a dissertation than a book. Rarely, do dissertations get published as they are. Ultimately, it's too far of a leap to claim transference of coverage of the dissertation to coverage of the book. Lastly, the best review of the dissertation is specifically using it as a way to advocate for more creative writing in future doctoral dissertation writing. A clear distinction is being made here in publishing format in the cited sources.4meter4 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editions can be "transformed" by the addition and/or removal of material, too. In the absence of sources drawing a distinction, we shouldn't do so either. Indeed, the best source we've got (MAA Focus) tells us to identify the two. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree. I fundamentally think taking sources reviewing the dissertation in the context of its impact on doctoral dissertation writing, and merging it with another source reviewing the later book as a mathematics book is veering too closely into WP:Original synthesis. This wouldn't be such a problem if we had just one more quality source on the book itself.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is clear that the thesis meets WP:BKCRIT(1), with in-depth discussion in several RS independent of the author. The argument that a PhD thesis and a book that share the same author and the same title, and that are described as a single work in reviews of the book, are completely different works from the point of view of notability is just silly. ~~(4meter4, it is not necessary for you to repeat your argument in response to this comment, the closing administrator will be happy to only read it thrice.)~~ --JBL (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I won’t. ~~But you didn’t need to be a jerk either.~~4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I have struck it. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck mine as well. Let’s keep it civil.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I believe the WP:BOOKCRIT argument. Slightly weak due to WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV concerns, combined with slightly marginal review sourcing. (Note that the Ording source is not a review, and I don't think it belongs in the article; the Lamb and Salerno sources certainly are reviews sufficient for WP:BOOKCRIT; the Molinari and Kamanos sources, while not per se reviews, I do find to contribute to notability.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For anybody who wonders whether the author is a legitimate scholar of any kind: Her CV.195.50.217.92 (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You're the nominator, you don't also vote. (2) "Let me show off what an asshole I am" is not a valid deletion rationale on WP. --JBL (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Until further notice, I think that both of your rebukes are baseless. Also, ironic, given that this is the second time you've picked a fight on this page. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A CV page with a trace of personality may be unusual, but it's not a crime. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...and indeed, as the current discussion regards the book, the CV of the author is not particularly relevant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, you guys, isn't that what I said? ;-p. --JBL (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what you said. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all try to stay on topic here. 195, if you have questions about notability criteria, please feel free to ask me on my talk page; you could also try the tea house. (Meanwhile, WP:AADD and WP:GOODARG both have good advice.) JayBeeEll, there might've been a more constructive way to phrase your intended message. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Books are clearly different than dissertations. If we do not have enough about the book itself to show that the article is notable, we should not have the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unusually, it seems like the dissertation version meets NBOOK even though the book version may not. (Not able atm to search thoroughly for a second book review). It strikes me as extremely rare for a dissertation to even be read by anybody beyond the supervisory committee, so having any published sources about it is impressive; the range of coverage is also enough for notability. Why not write the article about the notable diss and then mention it was also published as a book? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing my two cents in - my personal recommendation here would be to create a page about the author, Piper Harron, and then have a section devoted to the thesis and book. This way it covers a wider span of information. Just based on a very short glimpse of the sourcing it looks like they're discussing her as much as her work itself. Part of this is also because I don't really like having an "about the author" section in an article, as it just feels too much like a publisher page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would also help to give a landing page to other work she puts out, as many academics will put out work that would warrant a mention on their article (if they have one) but might not justify its own article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that the page for her was deleted. I still think that if this is notable, then it would be best to have an author page than a page about the single work (so to speak). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We just had an AfD determining that the author is not notable but that her dissertation might be: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piper Harron. This article was created as a response to that outcome. So I think changing back to having an article about the author is a non-option. Having a page about someone who has a single notable work usually falls under WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sourcing here is clearly enough to pass the GNG. I wouldn't go as far as ReaderofthePack but the current "About the author" section is too short and misplaced, it should be near the top (e.g. "Context") and give a bit more detail from some of the sources. Clearly if that material is in the deleted bio article then a merge from the recovered article would be sensible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reviewed this article for DYK and one of the questions I asked myself was whether it’s about a book, a thesis, or both. In the end, I concluded that it’s both and when you look at it that way, sourcing is adequate. Schwede 66 19:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it seems very pedantic/anti-common sense to me that we would consider coverage of the dissertation and book to be unrelated. With the two together, GNG is met; that this level of coverage for a PhD is unusual makes it more notable, not less. It looks like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piper Harron had the right outcome, but we're assessing some different sources with a different lens here. (I've not had much number theory education, but Harron has certainly captured what the inside of a mathematician's head looks like better than anything I've ever seen.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I participated in the previous deletion discussion where it was determined that the author failed WP:NPROF. That's where I first heard of Harron, and I created the current page as I believe that her thesis (which was also published as a book) is notable as it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works (as demonstrated in the article). As noted above, no sources distinguish between the contents of the thesis and the book, and even if they did the thesis would be notable on its own. I intentionally kept the "About the author" section minimal, as I did not want it to appear that I was trying to recreate the deleted biography, but if there is a consensus to expand that section I wouldn't object. That this page, too, would be nominated for deletion came as no surprise—Harron's message clearly upsets some people—and grumbles about the "legitimacy" of her scholarship are, frankly, amusing, since she herself writes that she "doesn't do math the 'right way'". pburka (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally, a textbook is not notable, but this seems to be the exception. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Let the Devil In[edit]

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

The only claim to fame for this film was that it was last film for Conrad Brooks, but kind of thinking this doesn't show WP:NFO or likely even WP:GNG as this article may have been used as a promotional tool for the director, writer, and producer of this film from an account that created this article and then left after an edit in early June 2017. Pahiy (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This film is likely notable - I found two reviews from RS, HorrorNews.net and Scream magazine, but I want to try cleaning this up more before making an official statement. The article definitely needs some TLC and cleanup for promotional prose and the like. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film isn't the most notable ever, but there's just enough here to squeak by NFILM for the most part. I'd have liked for there to be stronger (read, more) sourcing, however. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per ReaderofthePack's citations Donaldd23 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡). Anonymous 7481 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per above. Alex-h (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Loona. Daniel (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Choerry[edit]

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

The only claim for notability is her single album Choerry - which is actually only a pre-debut single for her group Loona. There is no evidence of a substantial musical career outside of this, only featured on a few singles. Evaders99 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am very confused. So the album Choerry charted at either #9 or #13 (nice discrepancy, article writers) in South Korea, which satisfies criterion #2 of WP:NMUSIC, "has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." But apparently it's not actually her album, it's her group's album which just so happens to be named after her? But the only two songs on it are a solo by her and a duet featuring her, so whose album really is it? I don't get it. Mlb96 (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved in some confusion over the various members of Loona, including Choerry in this discussion. There was a gimmick in 2016-17 when all 12 members of the group were featured on their own "single albums" with one or two songs each. See Loona discography#Single albums. To my knowledge, those are all considered to be Loona releases, including the one by Choerry, and the success of those releases is credited to the group. I think the Wikipedia community has generally decided to cut back the individual articles for each of the 12 group members and their self-titled "albums" and talk about everything at the group's article. See also the discussion at Draft:Chuu (singer). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlb96: For clarification, the album debuted at #13 on Gaon back in 2017. It re-entered in late February 2020 along with a bunch of Loona-related albums at #14 then peaked at #9 the following week. Just seems like someone forgot to cross sources between the artist's page and the standalone, but I've corrected it for now Toyota Impreza (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Loona. See my comment above. Like her groupmates, Choerry's individual achievements can be described at the group article. I recommend the same for ViVi (singer) if anyone chooses to address her article in this forum too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't feel the notability of Loona members except Chuu now. Unlike other Loona members including Choerry, Chuu's the only individual YouTuber, who has 530, 000 subscribers, from Loona. However, two Loona members HeeJin and GoWon are created as draft articles. Should HeeJin and GoWon draft articles be also deleted? --Hatto0467 (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the HeeJin and GoWon articles reach the next step of the draft process, and are reviewed for possible "promotion" from draft space to main space, I suspect that they will fail just like Chuu. Those could possibly be nominated for deletion at this time, over at the Miscellany for Deletion process. But in all cases, reliable information about the individual members could be used to enhance the group's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Loona, I agree in all cases, reliable information about the individual members could be used to enhance the group's article. I am not sure what information is appropriate to merge. Maybe a birthday/elementary school table for the twelve members? --Bejnar (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Before the Night Before Christmas[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom as it fails WP:NFILM. Pahiy (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill coverage. Not every work that was released to TV after being commerically made is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Shoolizadeh[edit]

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

While this article has been on enwiki for quite some time, it does not appear to meet GNG standards, I feel the article needs more attention from other colleagues, as it was written by Pouya sh, who is the son of Mahmoud shoolizadeh and has been updating article since long time, I did some research in english and farsi about the subject, and couldn't find enough coverage. Mardetanha (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. The article cites a number of sources, but it's not immediately clear if they're enough to meet the GNG or a relevant SNG: some comments would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This guy seems pretty close to the line. He's got some direct coverage in the Florida Times Union. He also has indirect coverage in the Brunswick News and Variety magazine. He also seems to have directed the notable film Noora. I'm not sure if there are special notability rules for directors, but I don't think this guys meets WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I found that only one independent reliable source, the Florida Times-Union, covered[24][25] this guy significantly. None of the other sources in the article give independent reliable significant coverage and I was unable to find other sources that do, so I find that the article fails WP:GNG. There is an applicable SNG: WP:DIRECTOR. I don't think that has been met as there is no evidence of a new or original concept being invented (criteria 2), and I don't see evidence of him being regarded as important with no evidence of him being cited (criteria 1). His movies are likely significant, for instance, see Susan (film) and The Debt (2014 film) and the awards they have one. In my opinion, these awards make at least some of his movies significant. However, in order to satisfy the third criterion in that SNG the movies must also have been the primary subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and I didn't find any evidence of that. Finally, his works aren't a significant monument, probably have not been a substantial part of an exhibition, have not won significant critical attention as far as I am aware (unless those movie festivals count), and aren't in the collections of museums (criteria 4). I don't think he meets the GNG or the applicable SNG. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:41, 30 June 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. Tone 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malti Chahar[edit]

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

Despite the valiant refbombing, the bottom line is that this actor's career comprises of minor parts, while her main claim to fame seems to be having watched her brother play a cricket match. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR.

The article has been speedied before, hence this AfD. There exists a draft at Draft:Malti_Chahar, and if this AfD results in deletion then that can presumably also go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCHEERLEADER (jk). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant work to establish notability. This is third time it will be deleted. How many more before this becomes protected? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability. Fails NACTOR and GNG. Trakinwiki (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, no evidence of notability. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. Any editor in good standing is free to re-create the page. ✗plicit 14:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick DiGiovanni[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO no WP:SIGCOV that meets qualifications. Only really known for being a reality show contestant. SanAnMan (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SanAnMan (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SanAnMan (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has gained a lot of popularity from YouTube, having around 2.4M subscribers. If the YouTube part can be added to the article then it can be eligible. YashPratap 1912 (CONT.) 03:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@YashPratap1912: YouTube channel added. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 07:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep DiGiovanni i also ranked 6th in 2021 Forbes 30 Under 30 and i thinks that a big thing. and have 6.1 TikTok follower and also i didn't mentioned in the article that he also have 2.4million subscriber. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 04:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG with weak sourcing. KidAd • SPEAK 01:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was invited on my talk page. This looks like a maybe. It is not helped by poor sourcing, including youtube. It is WP:Reference bombed. I invite someone to nominate the WP:THREE best sources for careful analysis. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added more Citation and upgraded Infobox. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 16:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Weak sourcing and only seems to be known for the one thing. That being said I don't know what the rules are for social media influencers. FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note, I reverted an improper speedy keep close by the article creator.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, I found coverage in the The Palm Beach Post here, WBZ (AM) here, and The Boston Globe here, all of which provide SIGCOV for seperate events, even if the latter article is somewhat short. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Mark Stratychuk[edit]

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a filmmaker and musician, not making any notability claim "inherent" enough to withstand the considerable problems with the article as written. Firstly, this was created by a virtual WP:SPA whose edit history has been focused almost exclusively on this article with only very occasional contributions on any other topic, so there's a high risk of conflict of interest editing here. Secondly, it consists very disproportionately of bulletpointed résumé sections, exhaustively listing everything he did all the way down to early "technical coordinator" credits and unsourced books and albums. Thirdly, while there's a very long contextless pile of references listed in the references section, very few of them are actually being used to footnote content, and many of them come from sources (e.g. limited circulation trade publications or organizational newsletters) that are not easily located in order to repair that problem by determining what statements they actually support -- and even the ones I was able to retrieve (Winnipeg Free Press, Cinema Canada, Playback) were virtually all glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that wasn't about him to any non-trivial degree. In other words, it's not necessarily WP:GNG-building coverage, but just an exhaustive stack of every time Stratychuk or his company have been mentioned in a published source, which is not how you demonstrate or bolster notability. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but nothing in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be written and sourced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator. Removed extensive sections of unsourced material but not all of it. There's not much left after the purge. Maybe there is notability buried in the former list of uncited references but I think it's unlikely. If a WP:GNG worthy article can be written it will probably need a complete refresh. Curiocurio (talk) 01:02, 30 June 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. Tone 18:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cathi Bond[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only independent source is an Xtra Magazine review of their book. They were employed by The Globe and Mail. All other mentions of Cathi Bond are trivial and the notability guidelines indicate that more than one source is typically expected. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article's claim that she wrote for The Globe and Mail is actually not verifiable — on a ProQuest search to see if there were other sources that this could be salvaged with, I did not get any hits where Cathi Bond was the bylined author of the piece, the way I would have if she'd actually been the bylined writer of any Globe and Mail content. And even her own LinkedIn résumé (not a source for use as footnoting, but still helpful in determining what to look for sources for) doesn't claim that she's ever worked for the G&M either. So that claim actually has to be removed from the article, and thus doesn't invalidate the Zoe Whittall piece as unable to contribute notability points. And while I didn't find as much coverage about Cathi Bond as a subject as I would like to see in a genuinely good article, I am able to add enough to tip the scales. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that there is no proof that she worked for Globe and Mail, but two short articles - one of which is a review of her book- doesn't makeWP:GNG. I did a search and I am also not seeing any additional sources.

Except that there aren't just two sources anymore, there are four. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't actually access the other two sources so I have no way of knowing if they are appropriate. FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have a rule that only online sources count toward notability while offline sources don't. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: it looks like you recently added those sources. Are they on newspapers.com or something? Do they have decent coverage of Cathi Bond or her book? Considering the G&M source is actually independent I would agree that the subject is probably notable, but if these aditional sources have at least 100 words then I think the article clearly meets WP:GNG.TipsyElephant (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or merge with book~~. The book unambiguously passes WP:NBOOK so if Bond herself is not considered notable, the existing material should be moved to a new article on the book as a “background” section. Since notability is not inherited, that might be the most strictly accurate way to do it. But especially with Bearcat’s finds, I think there’s enough out there for GNG. And I dislike the move option because there’s less scope for growth and improvement of the narrower book article, so I prefer to keep the bio. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-adding the above because it looks like it got removed in an edit conflict. I've just gone through my own library to find a little more coverage of Bond. The two I added are fairly brief references, but refer to her as a longstanding and prominent figure in Canadian broadcasting. All together I the coverage supports a pass of GNG, and I suspect additional coverage exists in print. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rynor's 2006 "Podcasters reflect on a revolution in listening" piece includes 168 words on The Sniffer, Bond, and Young. I really like this quote from Bond, though I don't think it's very encyclopedic: "'Podcasting is about doing every single thing the CBC won't let me do. "Rein it in. Rein it in." I got so sick of hearing that,' she says." All of my and Bearcat's sources are in ProQuest. I read Bearcat's and they're similar to what I found, a couple sentences in a fairly brief news article, but since they pop up consistently from 1999 to 2013, increasingly refer to Bond herself as a well-known figure, and sometimes go over 100 words I am now very confident that this is a pass of GNG. Just found a mention in an announcement of rabble.ca for example that says it features "some well-known Canadian broadcasters and artists including broadcasters Nora Young and Cathi Bond." And a very funny 2005 review of a few CBC podcasts-- apparently the hosts were on strike from the CBC? -- which pans The Sniffer. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Night Town, is clearly notable, so we ought to have an article about the book or its author. Since we've already got this page, let's keep it. pburka (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the added sources meet GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Georges Pollet[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:Academic Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Full professor with a h-index of 46, passes NPROF#1. He is also a fellow (FRSC) of Royal Society of Chemistry, which possibly passes NPROF#3.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:40, 29 June 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) 21:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta Rap: The Glockumentary[edit]

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

Article about a film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to verify that they exist -- the notability test requires evidence of significance, such as notable award nominations and/or analytical attention from established professional film critics. But the only references here are a Rotten Tomatoes profile that doesn't index any critical reviews we could pull over to salvage this, and a deadlinked Beatport profile for its soundtrack -- neither of which are notability-making sources. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NFILM and a WP:BEFORE check. I could not find anything myself either. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pardesi (1993 film)[edit]

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

This is now the 4th or 5th incarnation of this article; first was PROD deleted, second was redirected and it's been sent to draft on 2 or 3 occasions. I can find it listed in the directories Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema (2014) and BollySwar. Is this enough to pass our notability guidelines? This film under the name Pardesi doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and it's not clear if it meets any of the criteria under WP:NFILM. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 18:50, 29 June 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curro Rivera Agüero[edit]

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

Not notable (WP:GNG). Article tagged as orphan since 2012. Article tagged as without references since 2019, and the corresponsing Spanish Wikipedia article has no references either. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The French and Portuguese versions have more references. There also appears to be information in the Spanish Wikipedia that could establish notability, including his openning of a bullfighting school in San Luis Potosí and a remarkable career of over a thousand and five hundred bullfights. However, references are evidently badly needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - From the limited sources I reviewed, they certainly seem notable, although all refs seem to be in other languages and the obits I found were not bylined. I added three refs to the article. They seem to have an entry in Histoire et dictionnaire de la Tauromachie (cited in French article), which could be a useful additional source. Suriname0 (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Arad[edit]

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

Spam article; the 'references' are actually just links to self-published lyric websites or, in most cases, links to download his songs! No news sources or any content from reliable websites found when searching his name in Persian or English. He exists on Spotify, SoundCloud, Apple Music etc. but there's no actual indication of notability nor does he have a significant enough following for us to essentially ignore our notability standards.

This fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN and may even be a candidate for speedy deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this fails notability quite clearly and searching brought nothing up (though that's hard for me as I am not used to Farsi script). It's likely a vanity page, and I will admit he's easy on the eyes, lol. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it should be speedy deleted, Mardetanha (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Weitz[edit]

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

No independent coverage in secondary sources of note. There is some RS coverage of a "Richard Weitz" but that's a Hollywood person.[26][27] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment while I could not find any reviews on JSTOR, there are high citation rates on GS including a paper that has 328 citations and a single author article with >100 citations. For the humanities that seems a lot to me and his books seem to be cited 50-100 times even though I did not find reviews, so clearly there is a documented influence on the field, but maybe this is a high citation field within the humanities. Overall, I am not sure if it amounts to what would be needed in WP:NPROF#1 but when I doubt I would lean to keep. Also in the article he is mentioned as a "Director" at the Hudson_Institute but that title does not seem to mean much, in the article of the institute he is listed as "fellow" which is also what the institutes website seems to indicate.--hroest 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF -- the highly cited paper is also highly coauthored, and a single paper with 100 citations is pretty thin. WP:NAUTHOR is plausible, and I will revisit if anyone else finds reviews (but I didn't). No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is a senior scholar at the Hudson Institute enough to pass PROF? Bearian (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, I don't think we should in any case think of any think tank title as meeting WP:NPROF C5. I would take the senior scholar role as being roughly equivalent to a professor role at a major university. But since no title is required to meet WP:NPROF C1, it doesn't matter that much. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. hroest points out that the author is highly cited for the humanities and I agree. Russ points out that "senior scholar" is (in this case) roughly equivalent to professor at a major university, and I agree with that. I do think Director at a think thank is enough for C5, though hroest seems to suggest that this person is not a director(?). Bottom line is "when in doubt, keep" (which hroest also said). Dr. Universe (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that being a scholar within a think tank is equivalent to being a professor in a university. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans, 4meter4, although I was the one that suggested the equivalence, I definitely agree that no position in a think tank meets WP:NPROF C5 (as I said in my prior comment). Indeed, C5 specifically requires being tenured at the full professor level. (4meter's point about biases and agendas is also especially well-taken here.) As the NPROF guideline specifically says that a subject's "primary job does not need to be academic" so long as "they are known for their academic achievements", I think it's otherwise mostly a moot point, except that we might be more cautious about citation numbers for works arising from think tanks (due to potential for walled gardens). To be clear, I see absolutely no sign of an NPROF pass for this subject. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR and most importantly WP: SIGCOV. All of the in depth sources are too closely connected to the subject, and therefore building an article based in quality RS is not really possible. With no independent reviews on his publications, no independent biographical sources, etc. it’s a clear delete for me. Further, think tanks often produce publications with clear biases and political agendas, and lack the integrity and oversight that happens in academic research, so I fundamentally have a problem with applying NPROF to anyone employed by a think tank without significant independent coverage.4meter4 (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 4meter4. Sasquatch t|c 02:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as additional research identified a viable alternative redirect target, which although not exactly the same thing as this per se has a much stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC than the original redirect would have had. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Play Radio[edit]

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

Article about an online streaming platform, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA. As usual, things like this are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must be the subject of reliably sourced third-party analysis of their significance -- but this has been tagged as completely unsourced since 2014 without ever having had a single reference added. Note that it was originally created in 2012 as a redirect to a terrestrial FM radio station that formerly used this as its on-air brand name, before being hijacked to this other topic -- so I wouldn't necessarily object to restoring the original redirect, but I'm not certain that it would be useful as the station hasn't been branded this way since 2010 so it's incredibly unlikely that anybody would actually be looking for it at this title anymore. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sourcing provided does not meet reliability or independence standards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffractor (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software with no coverage in multiple reliable sources. References are either primary sources or websites with unclear reliability. nearlyevil 665 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil 665 19:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first source is misleading because the subject is not freeware. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually the author of this software. I edited the article to be clear this software is Freemium (by adding the word freemium). It was free at the time the referenced article was written. How else can I help? User:Kernal-rom June 15, 2021

The most appropriate policy in this case is WP:NSOFT. As you can see, rather informal sources are allowed for open source freeware software. As this is not the case, I can only advice looking for better sources, like printed books, scholar articles. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (creator of page) I have added couple of more references. Boreloaf (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it got worse now. Adding too many references to support a single claim is a bad practice, see WP:REFBOMB. The quality matters, not the quantity. For example, the FotoHits reference is not even an article. Only one of the reviews looks like a review. The others just describe how to use the software. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet notability criteria. Secondary sources with any significant coverage look like one man blogs and are promotional in tone. Sasquatch t|c 02:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - current sourcing is very poor from a reliability and independence standpoint, and searching suggests that there isn't much better available. Simply just non-notable software. Hog Farm _Talk 04:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is not notable. All sources are either just hosting content provided by the developer of the said software (GitHub, offcial site, forum listings), are not sufficiently in-depth or are not reliable (personal blogs). Anton.bersh (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Circa (disambiguation). What I take from this discussion is that the dicdef article is not needed. But there isn't really anything one can merge into a disambiguation page, so I'm just redirecting it. I'm then also moving the dab page back to Circa because the "(disambiguation)" qualifier is no longer needed. Sandstein 07:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

circa[edit]

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

This page duplicates a dictionary definition already listed on Wiktionary. Its dictionary counterpart can be found at Wiktionary:Transwiki:Circa, Wiktionary:Circa, or Wiktionary:circa. A wikipedia page Circa (disambiguation) has also been created which this page could be merged with Greenhill90 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A5. It's already on Wiktionary: wikt:circa. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by FormalDude. Changing my vote. Would essentially be the same result, but some content could be salvaged to make the disambiguation text a bit more descriptive. Speedy delete per Sungodtemple. I might have argued for a {{Wiktionary redirect}}, but the disambiguation page exists and already features a link to wiktionary. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a page has been copied to Wiktionary or not, the topic may still have encyclopedic significance: WP:WORDASSUBJECT. We've got several hundred articles in Category:Latin words and phrases, so the fact that this is an article about a word can't by itself be an argument for deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Circa (disambiguation). —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 03:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the disambiguation page.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, what exactly is meant by the proposal to merge an article into a disambiguation page? – Uanfala (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
are you suggesting to Merge and Delete with some of the additional content from the circa page being added into the disambiguation page and then deleting the original? – Greenhill90 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contractual Delivery Date[edit]

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

This is certainly some odd cruft. Why this organization's random corporate policy could conceivably be considered deserving of its own article eludes me; what's more, the title is hardly an implausible search term, meaning that this could only ever serve to confuse readers expecting more general information, as exemplified by Hligtenb's talk page comment. Sources are a press release and a PDF of some terms and conditions, neither one of which justify this in any way. I therefore propose that we delete this article and, as a replacement and in accordance with MOS:TITLECAPS, create Contractual delivery date as a redirect, pending a good suggestion for an appropriate target because I can't really think of one. AngryHarpy‍^talk 11:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The term is never mentioned once on the article Openreach. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:29, 29 June 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. Ping for undelete if she does become notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cory McKenna[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:MMABIO for not having at least 3 fights in top tier promotion (UFC or Invicta) and also fails GNG as fight results/info are mainly routine reports. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No GNG which would be the only way she would be notable enough.HeinzMaster (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was created by an SPA and the subject fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Clearly, WP:TOOSOON applies and assuming she'll have three top tier fights falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Having said all that, I think it's quite likely she'll eventually get the requisite number of fights. Perhaps @Cassiopeia and HeinzMaster: could keep an eye on a draft version of this article until she gets those fights. I only suggest that because of their previous work on similar articles, not because I think they need additional WP work. Papaursa (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Papaursa: Always keep track of upcoming mma notable fighters (including draft). When she is notable, (not yet as as of now) an article of her will be published. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I stated above, there's no evidence she is currently notable by WP standards. Papaursa (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 11:03, 29 June 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) 13:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Troubles in Whitehead, County Antrim[edit]

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

Despite its name, this, and the many similar articles, is not an encyclopedia article (there are occasional exceptions such as The Troubles in Derry). It is not even correctly named, it really should be called List of people killed in Whitehead, County Antrim during the Troubles. But even if renamed it would not solve the problems with this article. Creating lists of non-notable people that died during a conflict is not encyclopedic, the articles only serve as memorials. It is not even helpful to split articles about the Troubles in this way, as deaths that occurred in different towns are often related to each other. If anyone believes it is possible to create an article detailing how the town of Whitehead was affected by the Troubles (in the same way as the Derry article linked above) they are welcome to try, but this is not a good starting point. FDW777 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is the actual source of the 1975 list. Neither of these two people listed mention Whitehead at all and their deaths don't make this a notable topic. They might be suitable for listing in a different "Troubles" article but as the nom states we are not a memorial website. ww2censor (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are detailed as being found "near Whitehead" elsewhere on CAIN. Due to many killings taking place in rural areas I'd imagine there's a good number that occured "near" somewhere instead of "in" somewhere. FDW777 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GNG and related guidelines. The limited information here could readily (assuming the sourcing issues highlighted above can be addressed) be covered in the Whitehead, County Antrim article. Otherwise, as has been noted above, even if the event listed in the "single point list article" met/meets WP:NEVENT, there would seem to be more wrong here than right (including the title, format, etc.) Guliolopez (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article, like the rest, was created because people objected to the inclusion of the non-notable deaths of non-notable people being included in the village/town/city articles. Obviously there are some incidents that are very signficant to the locations they occurred (Bloody Sunday/Bloody Friday/Claudy/Omagh etc), but the individual deaths of most people during the Troubles are generally not significant in historical terms. FDW777 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 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) 13:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B'Avarija[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:GNG and certainly not WP:NBAND. Are any of the incoming links possible merge/redirect targets? I wasn't convinced, but they're possible ATDs. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years, and I think that is due to lack of notability rather than neglect. Boleyn (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a notable group which exist, made records and made public appearances. What more could you want? Cexycy (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We would want reliable sources that discuss the group indepth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack reliable, secondary indepdent sources that discuss this group in depth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Lebon[edit]

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

Does have coverage, but much of it is associations with notable people, rather than him doing notable work. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 29 June 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Theatre Vienna[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't meet any aspect of notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In particular does not meet WP:3REFS: very little coverage and WP:ORGDEPTH: no coverage in any significant depth. Most reliable source I could find online was a TripAdvisor page with 2 reviews: if it was notable it would clearly have had better possible sources to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialan (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

Logs: 2009-08 ↻ restored, 2009-08 ✗ G11

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero waste agriculture[edit]

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

This article is an unreferenced WP:OR (tagged as such since 2007 when this was created). Worse, when I tried to rescue it by adding some citations I came to the conclusion the topic is not notable. (Note: don't confuse this with zero waste, which is). "Zero waste agriculture" is barely mentioned in GScholar/Books. GS has only a single English-language conference paper about this. GBooks open with a SPS "book" copying from Wikipedia, and then the term is used in passing in few other works. I am afraid there is nothing to rescue here, the term is ORish and any use of it outside Wikipedia seems to be the case of lowest denominator citogenesis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find more Google Scholar mentions than the nom, including in the abstract of Overview of Pelletisation Technology and Pellet Characteristics from Maize Residues, which is published in the low-impact house journal of a bona fide industrial professional association. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Chalst, Well, I did say that the term is "barely mentioned". There are a few, but I am also concerned this may be the fact of low-quality scholarship taking the term invented on Wikipedia... Note that the work you cite doesn't explain the term, nor does it cite it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus - I'm conflicted. The journal article doesn't define the article, but rather it attributes it to the Thai 'Alternative Energy Development Plan'. I've not been able to find an AEDP definition of zero-waste agriculture, so I'm not sure you are not right about it being citogenesis. If the AEDP is referencing the same idea documented in this article, I think we should keep; I'm strongly against citogenesis, so I'd rather we document the AEDP and any relevant Indian activity at Zero waste if that has happened. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Intensive farming has a big problem with waste – I was reading about NI's "poo overload" just a few days ago. The page in question is about an obvious response – a more traditional style of agriculture in which by-products are recycled as manure and the like so that nothing is wasted. It's easy to find books such as Zero Waste – Management Practices for Environmental Sustainability and Sustainable Resource Recovery and Zero Waste Approaches which naturally include agriculture in their scope. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies as it's our policy not to waste such promising material – see WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/24/africa/zero-waste-farming-godfrey-nzamujo-benin-spc-intl/index.html https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/justice-for-blemished-fruit-how-some-b-c-companies-are-fighting-global-food-waste-1.3807629 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/news/manipur-farmer-promotes-zero-waste-agriculture-with-low-cost-eel-farming/videoshow/81573914.cms Dream Focus 15:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus's first source is a CNN report on a pioneering zero waste project in Africa. I'd found that we have some pictures of the activities there and so it's good to put this together to improve the article. Teamwork! Andrew🐉(talk) 22:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zero waste. While fundamentally there is an agricultural side to zero waste, there doesn't seem to be any actual worthwhile content in the article as it stands, and in the absence of quality RSes indicating otherwise, the 'default' hyphenation for the phrase is zero-waste agriculture. I'm not persuaded that dealing with agricultural and food waste falls naturally under the term 'zero waste agriculture', since the materials I have seen generally been mostly concerned with these as inputs into other sections of the economy, such as carbon-neutral energy production. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Chalst, Thanks. That's the point, it's a term that is used a few times here and there, but no scholarly source discusses it in-depth. A few mentions in media doesn't help much, we only have a single newspaper (Times of India) that uses in in their title. It's a neologism that is not notable, "zero waste" is becoming a popular buzzword, so if you google there is zero waste production/zero waste manufacturing, zero waste management, zero waste marketing, zero waste store, zero waste fashion, zero waste life/zero waste lifestyle, zero waste movement/zero waste campaign, zero waste product, and I kid you not, zero waste toys and zero waste candy too... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. The article has also been improved since the nomination was tendered. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 07:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Summit for Young Leaders in China[edit]

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

Are we sure that this article meets notability guidelines? (My feeling is that this fails citation and NPOV guidelines.) Egroeg5 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Egroeg5 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Egroeg5 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads more like a promotional blurb than anything.TH1980 (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hulbert, Ann (2007-04-01). "Re-education". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-05-01. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The article notes: "Once at Harvard, in the fall of 2005, Meijie figured out what she wanted to do. She would try to make liberal education’s ideal of well-rounded self-fulfillment “more real in China.” She plunged into conceiving a summer exchange program run by and for students. Meijie named it the Harvard Summit for Young Leaders in China, or Hsylc — pronounced “H-silk,” evoking the historic trading route." The article further notes, "As for the HSYLC students’ plans for the future, Meijie’s summit meeting had not triggered a stampede to apply to American colleges (where all but the wealthy must hope for full or generous scholarships). Interest in Harvard certainly was high, yet at the same time Hsylc sent a very different message that worked against reflexive Chinese competitive fervor."
  The article discusses Hsylyc (acronym for Harvard Summit for Young Leaders in China) extensively.
2. Yau, Elaine (2009-05-15). "Seminar helps bridge US-China gap". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The article notes: "The Harvard Summit for Young Leaders in China, being held at the high school affiliated to Renmin University of China in Beijing from August 15 to 23, was set up by The Harvard College Association for US-China Relations which aims to strengthen the relationship between China and United States through youth activities. The summit will feature seminars and discussion forums to nurture the global leadership skills and civic awareness of Chinese students. It is supported by the Chinese Ministry of Education and funded by the Goldman Sachs Foundation."
3. Jie, Jiang (2016-08-05). "10th Harvard Summit for Young Leaders in China opens in Hangzhou before G20". People's Daily. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The article notes: "The 10th Harvard Summit for Young Leaders in China (HSYLC) is currently taking place in Hangzhou for the first time before the G20 summit in September. A total of 505 high school students began this year's program in Hangzhou by being sorted into different houses in ceremony modeled after Harvard University's 12-house system. ... HSYLC is the flagship program of the Harvard College Association for US-China Relations. The program first came to China in 2006, when the inaugural Chinese summit was held in Shanghai. It is now Harvard's largest-scale program in Asia. A number of celebrities have participated in HSYLC as guest speakers, such as Jack Ma, Lee Kai-fu and Yao Ming."
4. "2016哈佛大学中美学生领袖峰会上海会场开幕" [2016 Harvard University China-US Student Leaders Summit Shanghai opens]. The Time Weekly (in Chinese). 2020-08-14. Archived from the original on 2021-06-19. Retrieved 2021-06-19.
  The article discusses what happened at the the 10th Harvard University China-US Student Leadership Summit (HSYLC).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Harvard Summit for Young Leaders in China to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article in several places has a promotional tone. This can be addressed through normal editing rather than deletion per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed or reworded all of the promotional content. The article now has a neutral tone. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am saving the article's sources and external links to this AfD so they are preserved (I have not done an evaluation of all of these sources but many have titles that indicate they provide significant coverage of the subject):
1. New York Times: <https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01China.t.html?pagewanted=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/I/Ivy%20League&_r=1> 2007, April 1
2. Sohu News <http://sh.sohu.com/20070806/n251434963.shtml> 2007, Aug. 6
3. 致意HSYLC(哈佛大学中美中学生领袖峰会) https://web.archive.org/web/20110708144338/http://zx.china-b.com/hfdx/zixun_77124.html
4. 中美学生领袖峰会今年将继续举行 http://www.shjubao.cn/eastday/edu/jyxw/u1a2739703.html
5. 中美优秀学生领袖沪上聚首交流互动 http://old.jfdaily.com/gb/jfxww/xlbk/xwcb/node27909/node27910/userobject1ai1749238.html
6. 学生粉丝用思想"叫板"易中天 http://edu.people.com.cn/GB/6079350.html
7. 中美学生领袖峰会端出明日行动计划 http://edu.chinanews.cn/edu/xyztc/news/2007/08-13/1000644.shtml
8. 中美学生领袖峰会易中天首讲学生领袖要读诸子 http://edu.chinanews.cn/edu/xyztc/news/2007/08-07/996567.shtml
9. 哈佛学生峰会 “明日行动计划” 进入决赛 https://web.archive.org/web/20080113042253/http://web.xwwb.com/wbnews.php?db=2
10. 未来精英们：大声说出你们的梦想 https://web.archive.org/web/20081205055909/http://www.china-cbn.com/s/n/000005/20070830/000000077351.shtml
11. 中美学生领袖峰会第一课学习"失败" 哈佛教授 http://edu.qq.com/a/20060808/000317.htm
12. 李开复马云激情对碰话成功http://news.chinamedia.com.cn/news/news_view_1929.htm
13. Morning News (新闻晨报) “200 Harvard student leaders at the US-China Summit proposed a brilliant challenge for students, namely ‘Challenge’ Yi Zhongtian" 2007, Aug. 7
14. Chinese Education News Online (中国教育新闻网) “Harvard student leaders and student participants at US-China Summit have a lively debate with Yi Zhongtian” 2007, Aug. 7
15. China News Website (中新网) and Youth Newspaper (青年报) “Yi Zhongtian, the keynote speaker at HSYLC, emphasizes that student representatives should be well-read” 2007, Aug. 6
16. Morning News (新闻晨报) “Outstanding Chinese and American student leaders interact in Shanghai” 2007, Aug. 6
17. eNews Exchange Medium (文新传媒) “China and the United States strengthen exchange at 2007 student leaders summit opening” 2007, Aug. 6 Youth Newspaper “Harvard leaders to train and teach high school students” 2007, Aug. 6
Cunard (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. VocalIndia (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure, there is some coverage in newspaper sources when the event has taken place in the past, but little in the way of long-lasting significance. Polyamorph (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources include a New York Times profile published in 2007 and coverage in the South China Morning Post in 2009, People's Daily in 2016, and The Time Weekly in 2020. This is sustained significant coverage over more than a decade about the subject. Cunard (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Soccer History Archives[edit]

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

No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has been used as a reference by The Guardian, but I didn't see enough to show notability. Merge somewhere? OhioShmyo (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mind the article, I see nothing against it, however it kinda violates on WP:NOTDIR grounds. Govvy (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on preserving content - User:Govvy has me thinking - could we use the research already accumulated on the page (which shows the website is not notable per GNG but still seen as reputable as worth quoting by soccer historians) as a rationale to include a link to the website as a high quality WP:External link on a soccer-related Wikipedia page, maybe history of association football? A redirect to that page might be appropriate as well if it does end up being mentioned in some manner. OhioShmyo (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not have enough citations. Webmaster862 (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher N. Merrill[edit]

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

I am putting this up for deletion because it deserves a fair analysis by several people and I do believe it may have grounds for deletion. My reasons are as follows:

1. I was unable to find information that would pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. There are news stories that appear when his name is searched (trying both including and excluding the N. middle initial), however in these he is mentioned in passing and the article isn't about him, instead about the company he co-founded Harrison Street Real Estate. Because of this, the information about him would better be included in that article where it is relevant, and most of it doesn't seem like it would fit in that context and thus would be better off deleted. There does seem to be more coverage of HSRE, and that page was submitted for an AfD resulted in no consensus. Considering that, this further suggests the article on Christopher N. Merrill fails notability.

2. This article has been up for deletion before, as well as as draft rejection in the past. These can be seen on the article creator Ccm0142's talk page. It was PRODed a day or so ago, but I removed that on the grounds that its argument was poor and might be able to be edited. At the time I did not deeply investigate the page. I looked into the page further and felt that an AfD was warranted as it did not pass a WP:BEFORE rather well.

3. I left two notes about potential paid editing as well as neutrality (see diff) on the article which were rather quickly removed and edited by Ccm1042, the article creator. The article did have its neutrality improved some and this in itself is not a problem, but I checked the user in question Ccm1042's contributions suggest WP:SPA, only working on articles surrounding Harrison Street Real Estate over the span of 12 years, which makes me question the neutrality of the editor in question and if they have an undeclared WP:COI. To be clear, this potential COI isn't grounds for deletion, but it is relevant for the discussion, particularly if it is found to pass criteria and be kept.

Please share your thoughts, thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 08:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC per review of available sources. The subject only appears in sources related to Harrison Street Real Estate (itself of questionable notability and heavily edited by various SPAs), and notability is not inherited. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was rejected at AfC. It should not have been created by doing a run around of that process, but should have been resubmitted until it passed. We do not have enough indepth sourcing about Merrill for GNG to be met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks sources establishing WP:NBIO, publishing a rejected AfC draft is WP:GAMING the system. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 18:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jovita Fontanez[edit]

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

Minor political figure. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - revisions to the article, including the addition of multiple sources and incorporation of a source already in the article demonstrates WP:BASIC notability, as well as WP:NPOL notability, i.e. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage, specifically footnote 8, A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. Her political and community activist career has been extensive and multi-faceted, and she is included in the Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños at Hunter College of the City University of New York. Beccaynr (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been substantially revised since listing for deletion and the added content and citations clearly demonstrate notability of the subject. --Zeborah (talk) 10:51, 29 June 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) 05:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Johnson (physicist)[edit]

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

So this was PRODed, and I dePRODed it, and then after reflecting on it, eh I probably should have left it PRODed. Because of that, I'll take ownership of my trigger-finger and start an AfD for it. This individual seems to be a non-noteworthy individual whom fails WP:GNG, has a PhD but isn't a professor so isn't eligible for WP:PROF and seems fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE as well. I did some searching and couldn't find anything notable, though that is kinda of difficult as it's a somewhat common name. I gave google scholar a look just to be safe as well and that is entirely unnoteworthy as well.

Basically, it's a vanity page (and he is pretty, I'll give him that).

Thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 05:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely a vanity page. It's unfortunately difficult to search for publications at Web of Science because there are lots of people called C. J. Johnson, and plenty called Chad Johnson. However, I've found nothing to suggest a notable researcher. Two papers listed on his page are typical particle-physics papers with huge numbers of authors and nothing to indicate who did what. Athel cb (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Athel cb. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I dearly hoped Chad Johnson from The Bachelorette had branched out from poetic villain to physicist... which would be the only way this guy would be notable, as he certainly doesn't meet NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Review of the article confirms what has already been said. —Quondum 21:35, 29 June 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 Elephant & Castle railway station. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant & Castle fire[edit]

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

Accidental fire which just so happened to be near a train station, no deaths, minor disruptions to travel. Basically the definition of WP:NOTNEWS. Most everything currently in the article can be put into the Elephant & Castle railway station article. Mlb96 (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the station article. Textbook example of why rushing to create articles for events is usually a bad idea (unless the longer lasting impact is immediately obvious of course). Fram (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I said elsewhere, a small fire in a big city. No lasting impact = no persistent coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:NEVENT ——Serial 08:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. Also WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. -- Alarics (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor local news story with no encyclopaedic value. Fails WP:NOTNEWS and all the sources are WP:ROUTINE reporting with no serious analysis. I don't think any of this material justifies coverage in the station article either, so there's nothing worth merging. Modest Genius ^talk 12:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elephant & Castle railway station#2021 fire. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elephant & Castle railway station#2021 fire. It's not notable enough for a separate article, but redirects are cheap.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, despite the effort. The subject is not not newsworthy. Temporary closure of the mainline and tube stations are not notable either so the mentions there are not worth keeping either.--DavidCane (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the section of the main article. I'm not sure everything there is encyclopaedic but some mention of the event at that article is definitely DUE. There is nothing in this article worthwhile merging, but redirects are cheap and it is the only fire in Elephant & Castle that approaches encyclopaedic notability (it isn't notable enough for an article, but every other event that could be referred to with this name is even less notable). Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I do not think the event is notable enough to have its own article, but it is clearly a significant event in the history of Elephant & Castle railway station and as it is covered in appropriate depth there, then a redirect seems the best option, especially as Elephant & Castle fire is something someone could well search for. Dunarc (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe could be included in List of Disasters at Railway Stations or some article like that, but it’s own article, no. Pyramids09 (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elephant & Castle railway station#2021 fire. Plausible search term, and the event itself in covered in sufficient depth at the target. It is unlikely that the event will get sufficient WP:INDEPTH WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to warrant a separate article. TompaDompa (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elephant & Castle railway station#2021 fire. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect We should redirect it to Elephant & Castle railway station#2021 fire as said by DatGuy and other Wikipedians. D Eaketts (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (no redirect): No need for it as a search term as in many ways little differ than occur frequently. As a side not UNDUE at target and probably just one of many incidents at/near the station if that station was researched fully. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – I've lived in London for 20 years, and this was among the biggest fires I've seen here. It's notable, perhaps not enough for a full article, but should definitely have a redirect. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elephant & Castle railway station, having the important info about the fire on there. Jim Michael (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with the other users above and that the content can fit in the station's article instead. -boldblazer (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elephant & Castle railway station#2021 fire per the reasons above. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proles (Nineteen Eighty-Four)[edit]

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

This is a follow up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Party (3rd nomination). This article is in even worse shape than the now-deleted Inner Party was (shorter, less sources, etc.). It fails WP:GNG in general, and is a plot summary+OR combo in the current shape. Note that the previous AfD in 2014 was a procedural keep with recommendation to discuss merge (which never happened). The principal author, User:Renata3, commented in that AfD that "it should not be a redlink, but these are not really encyclopedic topics". As I noted in my IP nom, there is potential to write an article about the society of 1984, but there is very little (if anything) to rescue from our current article, so I don't think any merge is advisable (much, if not all, of what is in the article is uncited or raises OR concerns). To address Renata's valid red link concerns, I did a bit of cleanup in the main 1984 article and I'd recommend this section for a redirect: Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Poverty_and_inequality. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Filled with WP:OR, and no real indication of notability other than book analyses, which focus on the book and not the Proles. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wrote this way back in 2005 when just starting on wiki. When I learned better, I did not think that the article should remain on Wikipedia, but did not get around to nominating it for deletion either. Renata•3 19:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After considering the Proles and cons, delete. Anything worth saving could possibly be merged to Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four#Oceania. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 29 June 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. Tone 18:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outer Party[edit]

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

This is a follow up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Party (3rd nomination). Outer Party is in even worse shape than the now-deleted Inner Party was (shorter, less sources, etc.) but the PROD was declined (without any useful rationale), so here we go. For the record, my PROD here was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. (Note: cited academic paper here is unreliable)." In the current shape, this is a plot-summary mixed with OR, and I don't think it can be rewritten - Outer Party does not appear to have stand-alone notability; this could be a redirect to the possibly notable society of 1984 article once it is created one day. As for redirecting this now, while the section Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Oceania exists neither it, nor any other part of our current article on 1984 discuss the Outer Party in any detail (and as for merging, the ORish flavor of our current article is a major issue). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG, a search brought up only in-passing, in-universe mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Notable Peertube Channels[edit]

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

This seems too much of a stretch for a Wikipedia article. WP:NLIST fail, notable channels have not been discussed as a group in popular media as far as I've looked. dibbydib^⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. dibbydib^⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. dibbydib^⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. dibbydib^⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious fail of WP:LISTN and WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Take one look at the page. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious superfluous page, probably could have been PRODed. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this group has ever been discussed at length in RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indepth sources available. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My biggest issue with this is that there's no context to it; nothing to explain why this is an important or useful list to include in an encyclopaedia. Now it just boils down to WP:NOTDIR. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wario-Man ^talk 09:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bukas Luluhod ang mga Tala[edit]

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Apparently nominated for/won some minor awards.

PROD removed by creator with the explanation "Removed deletion process. The film won 2 FAMAS awards which is a major awards in the Philippines. The title is often quoted by Filipinos and often parodied in movies."

However, the awards seem minor and the other claims are unverified and even if supported they do not help the film pass for notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAMAS Award is the oldest film awards in the Philippines, and it winning 2 awards is a big deal. I suppose it is not yet too late to withdraw the nomination, isn't it? Howard the Duck (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Donaldd23: I really suggest you withdraw this nomination. People here could do more productive work than discussing an article that will certainly be kept. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Often quoted by Filipinos 1 2 as mentioned in the link number 2, this movie made Sharon Cuneta, a star in the Philippines, a 'megastar.'
Parodied in movies 3 The film's actress Sharon Cuneta later starred in a comedy movie and quoted the title in the film. Her mother in both films are portrayed by Gina Pareno. Melania29 (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FAMAS is a minor award, really? Try to remember that there are other film industries outside your country. This isn't USApedia. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kolma8 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP: "The FAMAS Award is one of the highly distinguished film award bodies in the country." Kolma8 (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Donaldd23 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 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 deleted as hoax. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RTVIC[edit]

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

I'm not completely sure what this is, but it doesn't seem notable given that I'm unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing it. It claims to be associated with the government of Spain somehow but the sources do not bear that out in that it is not specifically named in the citations (the resolutions and laws are about communications companies in general, not this one). ... discospinster _talk 03:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 03:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 03:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 03:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same user has also created on multiple Wikipedias this article: David Muñoz López which, in my opinion, is a hoax (yeah, fourteen year old man being a politician, founder of a political party, chairman of a company etc.?). I think that both articles should be examined together. I suspect they are a part of a larger cross wiki spam campaign. Pawel Niemczuk (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this article in the main space but there is a draft version at Draft:David Muñoz López. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a hoax. The topic does not verifiably exist at all outside of its own self-published "RTVIC Wiki", and neither does the "Parlamento de Sala Centra" — even the article's actual footnotes mostly led to nonexistent websites rather than reliable sources verifying the existence of either RTVIC or the Parlamento do Sala Centra. Essentially, a Spanish teenager self-declared himself the president of an imaginary micronation of Isla Cristina, and has been self-publishing his own fake content to the web about it. And for added bonus, the Spanish article that it was "translated" from has also already been deleted four times as "Promocional o conflicto de intereses" (which is pretty self-explanatory). Accordingly, I'm speedying this article, the draft version of this article and the draft version of David Muñoz López. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Crespo[edit]

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

Type of coverage you'd expect from a failed political candidate, fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pretty clear-cut non-notable. Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've also been convinced by the other participants that this is notable. Curbon7 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feels kinda bad deleting an article that someone apparently wrote for a class project, but pretty clearly not notable by politician standards. Mlb96 (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Below commenter has more than demonstrated notability in my opinion. Mlb96 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, due to in-depth coverage, including per WP:NPOL footnote 8, A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, e.g. Politician Elisa Crespo Says Her Past Helps Her Connect to Voters (Out, December 2020), Comunidad LGBTQ de NYC en defensa de Elisa Crespo, candidata transgénero al Concejo Municipal (Telemundo, December 2020), Transgender woman running to fill Ritchie Torres’ seat on New York City Council (Metro Weekly, January 2021), Elisa Crespo hopes to be part of a 'new generation of political leaders' (NBC News, March 2021), Elisa Crespo Wants to Provide Justice for Her Bronx Community, (Marie Claire, March 2021), Elisa Crespo: la latina transgénero que busca llegar al Concejo de la Ciudad de Nueva York (Univision, March 2021), Despite ‘faceless cowards,’ Elisa Crespo could be the first trans woman of color elected to NYC Council (Al Día News, March 2021), Trans politician Elisa Crespo uses ‘faceless coward’s’ smear campaign to make important point (PinkNews, March 2021), Elisa Crespo Named Executive Director of the New Pride Agenda (Gay City News, June 2021), The LGBTQ community and the fight for City Hall (NY1, June 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Subject meets WP:BASIC. In addition to those above, here's another source, from Mic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Certainly sufficiently sourced for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources in the article and those cited by Beccaynr would seem to adequately establish that the WP:GNG bar has been met. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: more than enough sources to pass WP:GNG. In addition to those cited by Beccaynr , there's also coverage from them.us, Spectrum News, Remezcla, Out Magazine, Daily Kos, etc... NHCLS (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, notability appears to be well established. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis, Idaho[edit]

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

This is something of a test case, as there are a number of Idaho "communities" like this one: an active post office with no town. In most cases that post office is in an isolated store; in this case, it's possible that the second building which used to be here was a store, but I haven't been able to find anything about it, or indeed anything at all about here other than that there used to be two buildings, and one of them is the post office. Now, my searching was sorely hindered by the commonness of the name and by an Ellis Creek, but still, I came up with nothing. And therefore I move on to the other problem: there's no reliable source for calling this a "community" or any kind of settlement or anything at all besides a post office, and I don't think simply having a post office in a place makes it notable, an issue we've already been through for 4th class POs. Even the notion that it's a former town is supposition with the sourcing we have. If this article is deleted, there are so far about four other similar cases, with possibly a few more to be found. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete communities set up in rural and camping areas to provide access to the service, even if they still exist today, and not default notable all by themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The USGS lists Ellis as a populated place and my 1960 World Book Encyclopedia lists Ellis as a town with a population of 10, while Davis' Encyclopedia from 1909 gives it a population of 20. WP:GEOLAND is thus satisfied: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." It does seem as though Ellis is abandoned, but notability is not temporary. I was able to expand the article, using serious reference works. It would be quite odd to delete the info here, while reference works like World Book and Davis' Encyclopedia have noted the community. What are we doing deleting content other encyclopedias contain? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly per Firsfron. This is a reminder of why Wikipedia has a gazetteer function in the first place, since major print encyclopedias have included them long before Wikipedia was around. If Ellis is significant enough to merit inclusion in a major print encyclopedia like World Book, it seems like it's significant enough for us to cover it. As far as other coverage goes, I was able to find this article about the fate of the town's former store and cafe, along with several articles about the fish hatchery in the area, so it's not just a post office (or wasn't always, anyway). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources uncovered above showcase that this was a populated place, not just a post office in the middle of nowhere, and therefore it passes WP:GEOLAND. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Ehrenpreis[edit]

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

This professor appears insufficiently noteworthy, though the little information on his wikipage appears accurate through my searching. It's also been in need of citations and has basically been uncited since 2009, which is a bit old. He fails to meet WP:PROF and WP:GNG standards rather clearly, as explained below:

Arguments for Non-notability[edit]

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

No, however I did get conflict results. According to scopus^[1] he has an 72 publications, 573 citations, and an h-score of 13. His most cited article on google scholar has 71 citations, and around a dozen in the 30-40 range.^[2] Semantic scholar^[3] gives higher results with 92 publications, 1282 citations, 10 marked as influential, and an h-score of 22. Of others are aware of a different score set please share. Nevertheless, these score are insufficiently noteworthy, particularly given that biochemical and medical adjacent research trends with rather higher average values.

2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

No. I cannot find any faculty pages or websites dedicated to him, nor any media articles. I was able to find one thing,^[4] but none of the awards listed would count. Still, I was not able to find anything and it is something that would generally be easy to come across if it existed.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

No. This does not seem to be the case, I could not find any sources.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

No. His research does not seem noteworty or impactful enough to meet this, and I wasn't able to find any other sources.

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

No. It seems like he's been on panels and groups within and outside of his universites, but none would have counted as named or distinguished unless I overlooked something; his age makes this somewhat challenging to track down.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

No. Does not seem so, it looks like he was simply a researcher and did not have a major appointment.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

No. Does not appear to be the case and was run-of-the-mill.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

No. I was not able to find any sign of him being an editor.

References

^ "scopus". Scopus.
^ "GS". Google Scholar.
^ "semantic". semantic scholar. Retrieved 29 June 2021.
^ "prabook". Prabook. Retrieved 29 June 2021.

Other Comments[edit]

Part of the difficult in finding information seems to be age, as he was born in 1927 from what I can find. I didn't see any obituaries on him so he may still be alive? I did find an obituary for his brother from 2010. Nevertheless, finding information on him is extremely difficult and the sources of what I can find are flimsy at best. That alone suggests he wouldn't meet WP:GNG let alone WP:PROF. However, due to his age and when most of his work occured it might simply be hard to verify. Though, based on critera 1 and his h-score it strongly suggests to me he wouldn't meet any other criteria and the absence of evidence is because it doesn't exist.

Thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 01:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many thanks to Tautomers for their detailed analysis. They pretty much sum up the issues here of failing GNG and PROF.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While his is a high-publication but surprisingly low-citation field, among his 36 coauthors with >15 papers his Scopus citation metrics are decidedly below median:

Total citations: avg: 4165, med: 1789, E: 646.

Total papers: avg: 162, med: 126, E: 80.

h-index: avg: 25, med: 22, E: 12.

Top citations: 1st : avg: 360, med: 139, E: 83. 2nd: avg: 172, med: 101, E: 39. 3rd: avg: 133, med: 80, E: 34. 4th: avg: 107, med: 63, E: 32. 5th: avg: 96, med: 54, E: 28.

Top first-author: avg: 172, med: 78, E: 83. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one thing that gave me pause was that he held the title of Burger lectuerer for a year at a university. However this does not appear to be a named chair, but just a short term honor that I do not think meets that notability prong. I did find this [28] article from the University of Virginia about Alfred Burger. It appears Alfred Burger is a very notable person. At least if we could verify a few of the claims in that article with indepdent sources, I am 100% sure that Burger would pass academic notability.The fact we seem to not have an article on him is one of the strong indications of Wikipedia being very presentist and overall having very poor coverage of notable academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I created that article, but am not all that pleased with it. I think it would help if someone with better knowledge of the discipline of chemistry had a look at it and found a way to improve it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 30 June 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 to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, trending more towards a consensus to keep following improvements to the article. Wikipedia covers fringe theories if the theory is itself notable. BD2412 T 02:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship[edit]

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

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

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

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of Shakespeare authorship question (the title subject is listed at List of Shakespeare authorship candidates), written in an extremely WP:PROFRINGE way, based on misinterpretation of sources, poor sources and at times deliberate WP:OR. Note how there is not even a token effort to put this into context with the majority view. I doubt there's anything of value here, and if there was reason to split this from the main article, WP:TNT would very likely apply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context: Special:Permalink/1029682008#A_blast_from_ye_olde_past. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm interested in what the WP:GNG sources for this article are, if there are any. Per Florian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship#Santi_Paladino, did this SAQ start in 1955? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Apparently, per the list article: Florio, John (1554–1625), linguist, proposed by Erik Reger in 1927,[17][42] and advocated by Lamberto Tassinari in 2014.[43]. Also an earlier article in Britannica (whose claims were later corrected). GNG (from sources independent of the promoters of the theory) would at best argue for a TNT approach to this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is looking better and better the more I look at the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps some sort of merge with Crollalanza theory of Shakespeare authorship, they seem to involve the same people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Crollalanza theory has nothing to do with Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship, they are two different theories and are not the same thing. Entire paragraphs have been removed without giving proper answer and explanation, even the link of the authorship website has been deleted. This is clear censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.90.101.133 (talk)
[29] p111-112 disagrees with you, it treats Sr and Jr like a package deal. Luckily the internet is bigger than WP, there are blogs like [30] where people can find the truth. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very slow, I know. But I'd like to ask, before casting my !vote, why we are so keen to TNT this article when we are not rushing to delete similar pages? (Theories on Oxford's, Bacon's, Marlowe's and even Henry Neville's possible authorship all have articles which, quite reasonably, point out that they are deemed fringe theories within the scholarship but are acknowledged by reliable sources to be notable).* Looking at the references, there are numerous chapters, articles and entire books that appear to address the topic (so broad coverage?) ad if they've been doing so for ~90 years then that's pretty persistent coverage too. Looking at the WP:ANI discussion (which brought me here, for the record), I see it has attracted much disruption (not unexpectedly, of course, otherwise the whole shebang wouldn't be under ARBDS), and it appears to have been sorted with the application of a few forensic blocks and protections. There's also plenty wrong with the article as it stands; but since WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, any issues of POV, WP:TEND, and the other litany of breaches of protocol contained in the nom can be addressed with a good old-fashioned re-writing. Of course, I'm open to persuasion, but right now this seems close to a baby-bathwater disconnect. ——Serial 16:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Also note: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has recently been re-written and may not say quite what one remembers it as saying.

Quick note: I don't think OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has been meaningfully rewritten recently. It was renamed, but renamed to what it actually says and has as long as I've seen it. If it was rewritten, that was prior to around Dec 2020/Jan 2021. Vaticidalprophet 04:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Serial Number 54129: Many of the sources are from promoters of the theory. The article also includes much OR. I'm dubious there's much of this one that could be kept in a more balanced article. The articles on Marlowe, Bacon, Oxford and so on at least include what the academic consensus is, and don't make ridiculous statements, entirely OR, such as "It is clear that John Florio is the same pen that wrote Shakespeare's dedication to the young Earl."... They look like legitimate articles covering fringe theories, like Moon landing conspiracy theories (although some more balancing could likely be done in this case). Whatever OSE has been re-written to, the general spirit is that false comparisons should be avoided. In this case, we would likely need for all of the existing article to be trimmed. There are whole OR/SYNTH sections which do not make any attempt at balancing with the scholarly consensus... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree it needs to be re-written; I do not see how deletion aids the WP:READER. ——Serial 17:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - SN, I feel you, and I'm not so sure myself. But, and here's a big but, one argument for deletion is, first of all, that the article as it stands is completely incoherent and is written by COI editors: as a Wikipedia article, it's just really bad. (OK, it has pictures, and that's always a plus.) Second, the way I read FRINGE, it can be notable (noteworthy) only if reliable sources have seriously discussed the subject--in this case the statement "Florio wrote Shakespeare". I've reported on a bit of sourcing on Talk:Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship, and there just isn't anything at all--I'm sure there's more than what I found, but if JSTOR only gives me two passing mentions that the authors don't even consider important enough to comment on (one has one tongue-in-cheek sentence, the other simply lists it as one of many), then I am not going to get my hopes up.
      What I think should be written, and much of this content (if rewritten and properly sourced, with secondary sources) can help with that, is an article called "Florionistic influences on Shakespeare" or something like that. In fact, I guess I could have moved the entire article to a new title before it was nominated and we could have had very different discussions--but perhaps the three editors would have sent a hit squad out for me. (JOKE ALERT THIS IS A JOKE I'M NOT REALLY THINKING THEY WOULD HAVE DONE THAT) Drmies (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Drmies, "Florionistic influences on Shakespeare", could very well be a decent article, if you haven't heard, there's an interesting article in The Guardian: [31]. Florio is not mentioned at Shakespeare's editors, maybe he should be. We have articles like Sources of Hamlet, but not, I think, a general "Influences on Shakespeare". Xover, maybe you should look into that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        No Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I've NEVER heard that article before--it says Florio wrote Shakespeare! We should totally put that on Twitter. Drmies (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The case that this needs a stand-alone article looks dubious at best, and the content is in poor enough form that WP:TNT applies (if the topic were notable, then starting from scratch would be easier, and less likely to invite pro-fringe reverts). XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator note I've done a substantial run-through the article, removing most of the obvious OR and a significant portion of the unrelated SYNTH. Based on this, I now alter my nomination to suggest a delete (based on the same rationale) and recreate as a redirect to John Florio#Shakespeare authorship theory. There's nothing useful in the current history (unless you want a class in removing obvious OR from articles, but you don't need that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a reasonable idea. User:Serial Number 54129? Drmies (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Florio#Shakespeare authorship theory. Redirecting sounds like a good idea. I may be very dumb today, RandomCanadian, but why does the article need first deleting and then recreating as a redirect, as opposed to the usual procedure of merely editing it to make it a redirect and preserving the history? I understand that the history is of limited value, but how is it actively harmful? Is it because the history would make it easier to un-redirect and re-article it? I believe that any redirect would be under pro-fringe attack and would need protecting, so in that sense there's no difference. Bishonen | tålk 07:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per Bishonen. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is totally either (a)WP:OR or (b) fraudulent abuse of sources. I think we can manage about 4 or 5 strong refs which mention it recently en passant (or is that pissant?). The editor(s) have consistently deliberately misconstrued the sources they cite, and skewed things to make it look as though . There looks like quite a bit of text remaining after Random Canadian's deft scissorwork, and a few edits by myself, but that is still WP:OR. It is an Italian fascist theory in origin, picked up by journalist, repromoted after the war in books no one read, and only took wing with the internet's disinformational pandemic and its love of conspiracy theories. One could make a case for documenting the story's idiotic line of descent, so that Wikipedia could conserve at least a reliable presentation of the hypothesis. That could be done in a short page of two or three paragraphs. What should be avoided at all costs is restoring material to the John Florio bio where it was an immense eyesore and egregiously undue.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I must protest the devastation of usable sources taking place. I'm quite prepared to rework this 'thing' exactly along the lines we did with the other candidate articles, in three paragraphs, ordered chronologically, using only scholarly sources that comment on this specific theory, of which I have several. But everytime I look, I see proper sources removed, or direct links to the relevant book pages removed and reformatted so the reader can no longer access them and verify etc. I know that most, like me, find the article a motherlode of bullshit, but we have enough good sources to establish a precise reconstruction of the idea which is now mushrooming broadly on the internet. That is one of wiki's functions-Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RL matters permitting, I'll replace later today the text we have with a thoroughly revised, and strictly top RS based version giving the wacky notion its historical outline in 3 parts (a)Paladino (b) Post-war (c) 2000 onwards. Then we can mull giving the flick pass to the lot, or embalming something worth mummifying for the wiki museum of waxing and waning outlandish notions. Nishidani (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds notable from the discussion up above; given the sources that are discussed here and cited in the article, I don't understand why we'd deem it non-notable. Not having consulted those sources (beyond evaluating them), I can't agree or disagree with Nishidani's argument that the sources are badly abused at best. But if this gets deleted, it needs to be on the WP:TNT grounds suggested by the nominator. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. An amount of explosive has been applied. My hope is that at some future point it can be merged with Crollalanza theory of Shakespeare authorship into a The Florios and the Shakespeare authorship question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator note the WP:HEY treatment seems to have been applied. I do notice that very little of the previous text has been kept, so that seems like quite some TNT to me. In any case, the article in its current state is much better than when I nominated this so if @XOR'easter, Ritchie333, Drmies, and Bishonen: are willing to update their !votes, we can close this as "withdrawn". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still think the sourcing is flimsy, with the passing mentions and the self-published brochures, so I'm sticking with Redirect to John Florio#Shakespeare authorship theory. The relevant section there could perhaps be plumped up a little. Of course it seems a pity that the recent good work should go for naught, but couldn't it be applied to an article about Florio's relation to Shakespeare, or Florio as Shakespeare's editor, instead? Compare Saul Frampton's 2013 Guardian article (which was supposed to herald a forthcoming book, but I can't find that it has forthcome). Isn't an article about "the" Florian theory of Shakespeare authorship a bit of a straightjacket for the material? Nishidani? Bishonen | tålk 16:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Well, Bish, if you can point out any flimsy sourcing, I'd appreciate it, since everything there passes RS as far as I understand it. The brochure stuff is what sources call it, and there is no direct quoting of the crap mill's products unless a secondary source refers to them. Florio was, and remains, a magnificent figure, and I hate to see his bio blighted or smeared by this crap in a section. We should do what we did with the attempts to load up the Shakespeare article with authorship doubts, i.e. we sequestered the lot and wrote the FA SAQ article. Containment, in short. Frampton dropped his promised work. Florio studies are flourishing, minute, complex, and perhaps it looked too daunting. Remember WP:Systemic bias. There's quite a lot of high-class balderdash circulating on the continent about this theory since Tassinari's puerile piece hit the fan, with notable thinkers and cultural identities, and even some tenured academics taking it on board, and, in response, little reaction in the Anglocentric world, despite the efforts of the French Shakespearean Society to stop the meme machine in its tracks. A sort of peripheral ticking bomb that I feel is worth disarming (finally jumping at the chance to defuse an explosive, a metaphorical reprise of what my father once did in Libya in WW2 - and then shat himself afterwards in a delayed fear reaction!). It's not on our radar, but here in Italy and France the noise effect is audible. We need articles that go into the guts of fake news, surely? Much of this will become apparent if I'm given the chance to add the second half, about the proliferation of the meme in the 2000 decades.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to close this early, so the customary week is young yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, WHO WROTE the passage starting with "Paladino subsequently expanded..."? That editor deserves a barnstar, and donuts. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I'm generally sceptical of the notability of articles on the individual conspiracy theories, and this one is on the fringe of the fringe, so long as we have the others I'm disinclined to use that alone as a factor. In addition, with Nishidani's ongoing rewrite this has in effect been nuked and rewritten from scratch. What's currently there (which has further expanded since the nom offered to withdraw) leaps neatly over GNG and is an easy C-class article (it'd be eligible for GA, and not unlikely to pass, now). It's definitely too extensive for a section in the biographical article. There is future potential for merging with the closely related fringe theory centred around the father, but I see no particular reason to force that outcome now. In fact, I would sooner suggest Crollalanza theory of Shakespeare authorship be merged into this one than the other way around.
I am also inclined to weigh Nishidani's argument above that having the article corrals the adherents to one place where they will cause relatively less disruption and can more easily be dealt with (whether that dealing entails education, gentle troutings, or thwacks upside the head with military-grade cluesticks). Trench warfare between Oxfordians, Baconians, and Florians on the same page would seem apt to cause significant collateral damage.
PS. I've dug around the cites there. The fringe stuff is being used appropriately as acceptable primary sources (i.e. they meet WP:RS by complying with the guidelines in WP:SELFSOURCE). The sourcing is a little bit weak in places, but not because of the fringe sources, just because there is a relative paucity of high quality secondary sources that have given the subject in-depth attention. At, say, FAC, some of it wouldn't hold up (but then, even William Shakespeare took a beating at FAC!), but for anything less I think it's perfectly fine. It's "still room for improvement" stuff, not anything disqualifying. --Xover (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care which article are considered merged into which, or if a new article is created and the two current ones are merged into that one, as long as the outcome is one Florio-SAQ article. "Florian theory..." maybe an ok name, Crollalanza will be a redirect anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to more fully consider the rewritten article and whether it should remain as a stand alone article or be redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears to be fine in it's current form. Xover makes excellent points about the appropiate use of primary sources.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a POV fork, but a legitimate sub-page that facilitates reading of the much bigger page on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 29 June 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 01:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kulveer Taggar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 12:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He appears to have co-founded a company (which doesn't have a wikipedia article) and sold it for a small sum in tech terms. Before or after that there appears to be nothing else of note in his career which would warrant inclusion. Uhooep (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found only one usable source outside of what's in the article. Fails WP:NBUSSINESPERSON.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:58, 29 June 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. czar 02:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parbhu Dayal Yadav[edit]

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

Old unreferenced BLP tagged in August 2018. One external link, which I've co-opted as a reference, goes to a list of award winners; the other simply lists the subject's business address. I'm unable to locate any coverage in reliable sources about the subject via G-searches. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 01:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely NOTHING found on my search. Nothing to show that he meets any of the criteria listed at WP:NARTIST.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly not notable. Looked for Hindi sources as well and found nothing. Fails BIO. Java Hurricane 06:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing at all found in a search. --- Possibly ☎ 04:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Shilp Guru award might have helped for WP:ANYBIO but it would work only in presence of other sources. Simply receiving the award won't grant an automatic notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely zero reliable sources that demonstrate notability. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify to Draft:Leadtools. Considering the nature of the sources, my take is that the "delete" side overall made a stronger case. Listing out the tools and software used to produce results in an academic paper is standard practice, and it sets a very low bar for notability if citation in a journal is all that is needed. Nonetheless, there were also some paper resources (Charlotte Observer) that were offered up which are probably more substantial but that cover the main product, "Leadtools", rather than the company. As such, the compromise suggestion of bringing this to draft space for further revision and focus on the main product is the outcome that fulfills the largest number of concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD Technologies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. Zero of the references provide in-depth, independent coverage of the company. [Note, I did not access the Chinese Journal of Medical Physics reference] Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom a Non notable company which lacks indepth coverage. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company has multiple patents, there are journal articles and reports that offer in-depth coverage, they work with the Dept of Defense and Veterans Affairs. Perhaps the article could be improved but it is an established company with important contributions and should not be deleted.Techgirl49 (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC) — Techgirl49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Techgirl49: Having the government as a customer doesn't make a company notable. As WP:PATENTS says, noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to their existence or contents. See also WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the nomination appears to have looked at the references and claim zero in depth coverage of the company there is insufficient evidence the nom. examined the FedBizOps 15 April 2009 carefully. While this covers only a company product in detail that is a significant aspect of a company. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: In what way do you think this provides in-depth coverage? It is an announcement of Veterans Affairs buying LEAD Technologies' PACS solution. See WP:ROUTINE. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article as currently written provides both for the LEAD Technologies company and the LEADTOOLS brand via LEADTOOLS, the latter being of more notability which is sustained as easier evidenced by links in books link above, noting InfoWorld 1 May 1995 for example. The nom. may be in pursuit of Techgirl49, having Draft:LEADTOOLS declined at AfC 3 June. Give sock work at LEADTOOLS their is cause for concern. But under it all I see a software brand that has sustained long term notability. I have used {{uw-coi}} directly asked Techgirl49 if she has a conflict of Interest with Lead Technologies and making her aware of Wikipedia declaration requirements if she has. I AGF that could be either way, but its sensible to directly ask the question. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: I think there might be paid editing or at least COI but I have no evidence and have chosen to AGF. That isn't the reason for my nomination. While the company has been around a long time, and the InfoWorld article brought back fond memories as I used the API in VB way back in 1995, WP:ITSOLD doesn't cut it. Per WP:PRODUCTREV, product reviews can help establish notability of a product, and InfoWorld is an independent, reliable source. It would take more though, to show that either that specific product meets WP:NPRODUCT or the company meets WP:NCORP. I would want to see a book, or chapter in a book, written about the company, or secondary coverage in a national newspaper, or a paper in a scientific journal, per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage of the company itself. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Curb Safe Charmer: I don't think I gave too much emphasis for the patents, I was just saying that they have them. I would disagree and think that having the government as a customer does make a company notable or at least validates their existence. I don't know what AGF means? I see you used their tools as far back as 1995! I use their tools as well and found them on a list when I googled and that led me down this rabbit hole. You used their tools over 25 years ago so you know they are legit and there are articles in journals about them. You clearly know all the rules and maybe I don't, but I have to ask if deleting this page would improve the knowledge base in Wikipedia or deteriorate it. And I believe the answer is that it would deteriorate. Request to improve it, certainly, But delete it? I still say no. Techgirl49 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm .... One can read many things but I notice WP:BADGER to Bludgeon the process here, even extending to user talk pages. I am minded WP:NPRODUCT is satisfied by LEADTOOLS. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. The coverage here is trivial and mostly press releases, and lacks the independence necessary to establish notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In order to have its own page, the company qualified as notable before now, and per Wikipedia guidelines, notability is not temporary, nor does the subject need to have ongoing coverage to still be considered notable. Plus, current market (e.g. PDF SDK, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Coil and Optical Character Recognition) research reports include the company and its product in their studies with the likes of other notable companies (e.g. Google, Microsoft, IBM), and current journal articles still reference and study the company and its product. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for consideration of the sources provided by Heartmusic678.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the lack of sourcing in the article, I couldn't find anything else on a search of mine. Fails WP:NCORP.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It took some time digging to come to this opinion, but this is what I found. 1) Several of the references in the article seem to show notability. E.g., The Study of Medical Image Communication of DICOM Standard Based on LEADTOOLS - Chinese Journal of Medical Physics (1 ed.). 2007 and Chang, Chin-Liang (1997). Fuzzy-logic-based programming. Advances in Fuzzy Systems. 15. Singapore: World Scientific. 2) I found some additional references to the company and/or its software. E.g., Joseph M Hilbe (2007) ePrint 5 Professional Conversion Utility, The American Statistician, 61:2, 179-180, DOI: 10.1198/000313007X193490 3) The organization is notable and has had a demonstrative effect on scientific communities as shown by the number of references with studies found in Google Scholar. While on the surface it may seem that the reference of the organization or software in these scholarly articles is trivial, it is not. The results of these studies are directly dependent upon the technology used for the study. 4) Because the references are from an international audience further shows notability. 5) Noticing the company is based in Charlotte, NC, I searched the local major newspaper and found a couple articles. Unfortunately, Google newspaper search seems biased to recent events, and I was not able to find the same articles that I did when searching the newspaper's archive directly. Articles of notability, but gated: Charlotte Observer, November 16, 1992, pg. 36 and Charlotte Observer, February 10, 2011, pg. A8 Trusty route (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the reasons including the sources provided by Trusty route above have anything to do with the actual criteria used to establish notability. The guideline is WP:NCORP. 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. Also, saying that the organization is notable because it had a demonstrative effect on scientific communities is synthesis, none of those scholarly articles says that. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH, per review of available sources, including presented at this AfD. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to LEAD Tools. The papers found and sources demonstrate notability of the technology. I didn't see a LEAD Tools page, so maybe that's a solution? FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no independent coverage available. It fails GNG and NCORP, misses CORPDEPTH and may have COI issues too. Sanketio31 (talk) 05:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Pipsally (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep addtl citations, content could be added to expand page but not necessary. Active since 2011 with updates over the years. The citations currently on the page do meet the minimum requirements for WP:SIGCOV MadMadder (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For four of the editors that have !voted 'keep', this is the first and only deletion discussion that they have participated in. Read into that what you will. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Curb Safe Charmer you should be looking at sources and notability such as the journal articles, book coverage and reports as well as the long term notability of the company/products. As Djm-leighpark pointed out, there seems to be WP:BADGER to Bludgeon going on here. MadMadder (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current research reports do include the company and its products. Insufficient evidence that this page should be deleted 75.164.80.135 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC) — 75.164.80.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment For those Keep !voters that believe that there are papers and sources which demonstrate notability, please post the best two of three links below for analysis. Be aware, each reference must meet both WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. If you can find two references that meet the criteria, I'll change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Leadtools". I do not see significant coverage of the company anywhere, but sources like this (and those compiled above by talk) indicate to me that the product is being discussed. Searching for "Leadtools" brings up a few more sources like this from SD Times; arguably still sparse but enough imo. If not move, then delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the move to Leadtools as mentioned above. Happy to change my vote officially if that matters. Or draft up a page if that is helpful, I am not sure how this process would work. FiddleheadLady (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Leadtools page. I changed my vote because the toolkit is a significant part of research per articles (DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-56224-7_14; [32]; [33]) mentioned in this discussion. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Leadtools for now. I came here with the intent of closing this discussion, and was inclined to close as delete, discounting the !votes of low-participation editors coming into this discussion. Empirically, the 1992 Charlotte Observer piece is promising (though just local reporting at that time), and Leadtools gets decent numbers of Google Books and Google News hits, giving me the impression that this is a potentially notable topic. However, these are not in the article at this time, so I think it needs to go to draft to see if there is depth to that content. I would suggest that if moved to draft, some consensus-based process be required before restoring to mainspace. BD2412 T 01:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Thanks for that suggestion. As nominator, I would support draftification to a title about the company's main product, rather than about the company. I am unconvinced by any arguments put forward by others about the notability of the company and I think the longstanding editors that have participated in the AfD agree. The coverage that does exist, as you say, is about the product. Therefore the article would need to be re-worked in draft space to change its focus. The other reason for draftification is that there has been a long history of undisclosed paid editing on this article, right from its creation, and I believe that continues today. I believe there is a sophisticated paid sockfarm in operation here and we await the outcome of that investigation. COI is a valid reason for draftification. In the move to draft space the history, two AfDs and notes re paid editing will accompany it so extra scrutiny will be required by any AfC reviewer minded to accept the reworked article into mainspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that comment and my participation in this AFD I checked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heartmusic678 and at least note I am not mentioned there. I object draftication but accept I need to take account of any decision here. I do not accept going via AfC, while I respect their role I have my reasons, but will accept a DRV review if required. I do not have nor seek WP:AUTOCONFIRM rights so any re-entry by me has to go via NPP. I never like to TNT because any history of COI editing is made invisible, and the job of marketing is in general to dress pig rear output as juicy sausages. Instead I prefer to WP:STUBIFY and rebuild, per Rosemay Leith, though accept I may have dishonoured a genuine NEWBIE in going too far, @BD2412 may present Leith to DRV if necessary. If their is a professional sock farm in use they might have the nous to back off if it get draftified, unless their being paid by LEADTOOLS opposition. Please note the brand is LEADTOOLS (in caps) as far as I am aware. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand most of the comments above. But it sounds like there is generally support for a LEADTOOLS page or draft which is what I voted for. Did I do something incorrect in my voting here? Is there something I can do better? I also commented on the investigation listed above. Thank you! FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tunezeal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All references are unreliable, and I failed to find any useful coverage in my search for them. Java Hurricane 01:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 01:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 01:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 01:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all available sourcing is non-independent, fails NCORP and is also very PROMO-y.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree this just looks like an advertisement with probably copy and pasted material. Msw1002 (talk) 05:18, 30 June 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. czar 02:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Sandler[edit]

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search came uo with one fringe source, but I'm afraid that's not enough to satisfy the BLP minimum as well as GNG. Since there's no SNG for Medical doctors, we'll have to defer to WP:ANYBIO. Sandler does not appear to meet any of the three criteria listed there.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 29 June 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 00:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Markevitch[edit]

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

An abandoned article by SPA. Tagged since 2019. No independent refs to establish notability. No footnotes. External links are apparently homepages of her projects Lembit Staan (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTINHERITED. Independently fails WP:BIO. Java Hurricane 06:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added two newspaper interview pieces, one of which was previous referenced in the recently-deleted articles about ikono.tv. These at least serve to verify the career details in this article, but whether they are sufficient for notability remains open to question. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don't contribute to notability due to them not being secondary sources. Java Hurricane 10:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article that also does not make any actual clear claims to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 30 June 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. czar 01:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Messam[edit]

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

Not notable local politician. His presidential campaign was more a joke than a serious one. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is the mayor of a large city and his presidential campaign still got media attention regardless of how serious it was. Jon698 (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG for the sources covering his life, including his mayoralty and presidential campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also the reason for deletion by the nominator is lacking. Jon698 (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unlike the AfD for his predecessor, Messam actually does meet WP:GNG. He's had significant coverage, references on the page are mostly good, and additional good references do exist. Curbon7 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the presidential campaign, joke or not, is enough to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be enough sourcing to illustrate the subject's accomplishments as mayor, thus passing WP:NPOL as seen in WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily passes WP:NPOL. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:35, 30 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Akkad[edit]

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

The sources are not reliable and are from local sites only! Aliaboomar (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this deletion request, as references cannot be subjectively deemed unreliable, nor are any of them actually "local", because they're from both Arab and German sources. -Shaheen Farjo (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or send to draft. I don't see a clear claim to notability. I also think there is an undeclared conflict of interest. Deb (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akkad is a very notable personality in the queer community of the Arab World, compared to personalities like Sarah Hegazi, who has a very distinguished page on Wikipedia, as evident by the sufficiently affixed sources. Furthermore, I don't see a clear reasoning for shady comments, AfD pages should not be used for personal attacks or to shade other members of the encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a respected area for general information, not a place to post personal biases, arguments or empty additions, as evident by the so conveniently-placed AfD article instructions at the top. -Shaheen Farjo (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FYI @Shaheen Farjo: As for your example about Sarah Hegazy, these sources talked about Sarah and they are reliable sources for the English Wikipedia human rights watch CBC.ca CNN DW News washingtonpost middleeasteye And maybe more!

second, Another example I am a journalist, writer, and translator with All these reliable Turkish sources Which talked about me and my work and I have 3 books and yet I do not have a page in Wikipedia! TRT World Daily Sabah Yeni Şafak Yeni Akit Akşam Anadolu Agency İstiklal Orient News on Social Media I have 525 k on insta & facebook 54k & my public page 350 K also!

Therefore, these sources from local and unknown sites and social media sites! --Aliaboomar (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that major German and Arab news agencies are "local" and "unkown", then you should not really affix any news agency at all as a source next time you try writing a Wikipedia article, if you even do that. Also, please add a weighted comment next time and do not be subjective about your opinion, as this really does go against the general guideines. -Shaheen Farjo (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the Arabic Wikipedia literally removed and merged Hegazi's article with a second one, just because of her sexual orientation, and I hope this isn't the case here. Futhermore, you decide what sources are reliable or not? And so it's okay to keep people who have been referenced by DW, but not Akkad, who has also been prominently referenced by them. Cool, nice double standards. Regarding your last point, I'm not going to even mention it, because it's not appropriate to bring your jealousy or personal biases into this AfD discussion, as previously noted, so please refrain. If you want to write an article about yourself, go create a CoI (Conflice of Interest) notice on your page, and write whatever you want, but make sure to not be biased, or just wait until someone figures out you have 10k followers on social media. -Shaheen Farjo (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 19:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please further elaborate by mentioning which points this article does not meet in your opinion, because otherwise, I feel your "point" or whatever that comment means is quite invalid and insufficient, as evident by the AfD article instructions at the top. -Shaheen Farjo (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t compare yourself with others, you can create a page with your name for Wikipedia if you meet the conditions, Abdulrahman Akkad is a Syrian blogger and activist in the field of human rights and LGBT and has several interviews with DW (Deutsche welle) channel in Arabic and English and with the German newspaper Bild (the most famous newspaper in Germany) in addition to an interview with The Public Authority for Broadcasting in the Federal Republic of Germany (ARD) and with German Channel Two (ZDF) and two interviews with (BR) Bavarian radio and television broadcaster in German.

In addition to many newspapers and channels that dealt with his story like (Orient) The most famous channel in Syria on Arabic. + The number of followers on social media doesn’t matter here.

Keep, as I believe this article meets all the general guidelines for Wikipedia, as evident by my previous counterarguments. -Shaheen Farjo (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while many of the specific details in the article are sourced to non-RIS, there is ample coverage in reliable independent German sources to demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra.4meter4 (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bertille Marcos Guèdègbé[edit]

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

Non-notable for a general manager position. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - head of pineapple industry in Benin. Already has a number of reliable sources cited in text. Could be expanded using fr.wiki article. Furius (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have obviously not read the references. They look like puff pieces. PR to exact. scope_creep^Talk 14:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage in Le Monde and by the FAO NHCLS (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks like sufficient coverage in French sources. The Le Monde article is what pushes her coverage into notability for me. Suriname0 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, it needs more than one secondary ref. Three would be ideal. The FAO article is a passing mention, mention her investment as an entrepreneur. It is routine coverage really that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 14:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For reference, here's the Hungarian deletion discussion. czar 01:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tas László Dobos[edit]

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for notability since 2017. There are two interwikis; the Armenian one is built on the same sources the English one uses, and on the Hungarian Wiki, the article is up to deletion as well. On the Hungarian Afd, it has been mentioned that "we know he has published a lot of books, but that is not a support for notability; also, google search hasn't returned anything useful, only bookstores and trivial mentions", well, that says a lot. Rest in peace though. Anyways, the question is: is he notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article text looks like a lot of it is machine-translated from hu wikipedia, so there might be a plausible case for WP:TNT type deletion there. OTOH, the article apparently refers to several reviews of works (and multiple reviews of multiple works would be a pass of WP:NAUTHOR). The problem is that the article doesn't actually give a source for the reviews, failing WP:V. I wasn't able to find the reviews listed in the article (or other reviews) in my search; someone who speaks more Hungarian than I do might have more success. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am Hungarian, and the Hungarian article is up to deletion as well like I said, and almost everyone voted for deletion there, so there aren't any better sources in our language either. Machine-translated articles are a huge problem on our wiki. It looks like we are not the only one. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The debate on the Hungarian page centers around the question whether the reviews in the blurbs/forewords of the works themselves count as sources. These are signed reviews from noteworthy editors, translators, writers, etc. It is far from the truth that most people voted for deletion, there actually is a weak majority for keeping it.Dobos G. (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak majority"? But anyways, the consensus on that site is not really clear. There are of course people who voted with keep, but there are delete votes too. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters much, only for the sake of clarity: at this moment, there are 7 votes for keeping it and 4 for deletion.Dobos G. (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TNT, with no prejudice against recreating with better sourcing. The most plausible case for notability is through WP:NAUTHOR, which would generally require multiple reviews of multiple works. The article does appear to have some quotations from reviews, but sourcing is extremely unclear, and it is unclear how one would go about verifying. I suspect that the subject had reviewed works in the pre-internet age, with the reviews appearing perhaps in defunct Hungarian newspapers (for example). The reviews quotations that are in the article do not look like a clear pass of WP:NAUTHOR even if they could be tracked down; meanwhile, the article is in a sufficiently poor state that I believe we'd be better off starting from scratch if reviews are tracked down later. I am not particularly influenced by the hu wiki deletion discussion, as notability criteria are surely quite different; I remind participants here that sources do not need to be in English or online (but they do need to be verifiable). I will remark that I do speak some Hungarian, though I am far from fluent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a source that meets all these criteria: http://artes-liberales.hu/start.php?rovat=muveszet&cikk=117. It is a report of a book presentation which took place at the headquarters of the Hungarian Writer's Union, where the publisher, a member of the Union himself, spoke about the book. The report, written by an independent third party, includes two (brief) reviews. Dobos G. (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take that source as weakly constituting a review. (It'd be a bit stronger if it had a clearer author; I'll point out for other editors that the publication is described at [34].) Several other similar reviews (say, 4-5) would likely constitute a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete without prejudice. Abandoned article, therefore to draftify is noit an option, unless someone volunteers to adopt it. Lembit Staan (talk) 01:02, 29 June 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] Barclay, John (October 2009). "The Church in Nepal: Analysis of Its Gestation and Growth". International Bulletin of Missionary Research. 33 (4).

[2] "Maoists and the church: Strange bedfellows in an emerging new Nepal". Global Ministries. 2014-10-10.

[3] "Nepal Christians Return to Worship after Earthquake Turns Churches into Tombs | WWRN - World-wide Religious News". wwrn.org. 4 May 2015.

[4] Seddon, David (2014). Nepal : maintaining secularism - an up-hill struggle (PDF). Kathmandu, Nepal: Society for Humanism (SOCH) Nepal. pp. 93–94. ISBN 978-9937-2-8493-6.

[5] "scopus". Scopus.

[Scholar_Search_1-6] "GS". Google Scholar.

[semantic_scholar-7] "semantic". semantic scholar. Retrieved 29 June 2021.

[Prabook-8] "prabook". Prabook. Retrieved 29 June 2021.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]