Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 20	August 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep per both WP:SNOW and WP:BEFORE (non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Totah[edit]

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

Contested prod. Original editor claims referenced obituary is evidence of notability. As written, being a prioress of an abbey in and of itself is not notable. Article should have at least some mention of what makes her wiki worthy and right now, I don’t see anything that distinguishes her from any other nun in the same position. Edit summary indicates obit is evidence of notability n. I’ve seen obituaries that talk only about how the person was a little league coach, Boy Scout den mother, volunteered at their house of worship. A newspaper writing an obituary (and I mean not the paid kind) in and of itself does not make you notable. If this obituary discussed notable parts of this woman’s life, it should be in the article. And said obituary requires a subscription so I am unable to verify as I am unwilling to subscribe. BostonMensa (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With an obituary in The Times, any such subject always passes WP:GNG. There is also a Daily Telegraph obit, reviews of her books etc. See WP:BEFORE. AfD is not clean-up! Edwardx (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as 5 minutes Googling would have shown her to be self-evidently notable. This nomination is lazy and misconceived. I see that Bloomsbury issued a collected edition of her writings recently which was reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement here. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEYMAN, though the Times obit (unlike many other obits) is pretty much a pass for notability anyway: the creating editor has now added two further sources, and the one which is not firewalled has great scope for expanding the article. It's pity they didn't add these sources, and expand the article from them, earlier: I can see that categories were deleted because they weren't supported by content, although the new Catholic Herald article supports them. Clearly notable. PamD 10:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Original editor is right. Unpaid obit in international newspaper is strong evidence of notability. pburka (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - BostonMensa, how about you withdraw this so we can all move on? St Anselm (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to read the Telegraph and The Times obits in ProQuest via the Wikipedia library https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/82/, they're the first two hits when I search for her name Piecesofuk (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piecesofuk: Thanks for the reminder. Article now enhanced from the Times obit. PamD 18:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sad that I had to work so hard to have an article improved. And while I will not do as St. Anselm requested amd withdraw this, I am glad the article has improved and if people who know more about both Mary Torah and religion in general believe she is wiki worthy, I will not contest the decision to keep the article. BostonMensa (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. You don't appear to have learned anything from this episode. In my experience, when you are in the wrong it is best to accept it with good grace and move on. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:51, 22 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khin Oo Hlaing[edit]

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

I don’t think being on an advisory board to the State Administrative Council automatically confers notability, and I can’t find multiple reliable sources with in depth coverage to support this BLP in English. There may be appropriate Burmese sources to support a GNG pass. The single source currently in the article is just a passing mention. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – while being a member of the State Administration Council itself would arguably result in an NPOL pass, I agree that being a member of an advisory board isn't enough since it apparently lacks any sort of executive, legislative, or judicial authority. There's not enough to meet the GNG, either: my searches in English and Burmese find nothing beyond trivial single-sentence mentions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Drafty~~ newly created Advisory Board is a state level office, a member of the AB is an advisor to the state, which is equivalent to a presidential advisor per 2008 Constitution of Myanmar. Clearly passes WP:NPOL. No one objected at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Htein Lin (colonel). However she fails WP:GNG because she has only one source. So I suggest to move this into the draft until available more source. I'll vote when I found more source in Burmese. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Drafty I only found her new position in very recent Burmese sources that she was appointed one of the eight members of Legal Committee for the ICJ Rohingya genocide case, a state level government committee which was previously led by detained State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi. I've expanded the article. [1]. I'm not sure for WP:GNG requirement. So let other editors decide. Taung Tan (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the position on the ICJ case suggests that there will be more source material soon, so draftifying might be the best course; of course, even if deleted, the article can always be recreated when more material appears. I note in passing that the advisory board neither has an article of its own nor receives mention in the article on the State Administration Council at the present time... which makes it pretty hard to judge whether advisory board membership confers notability. Furius (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity until enough sources are found. Htanaungg (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vitruvian Park[edit]

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

How does this meet WP:N? Good amount of coverage, but not enough to meet GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep my gut when I cleaned it up was that the coverage is enough to meet WP:ORG. There's more that could be added, but this article isn't a priority for me beyond the cleanup. I'm not a fan of "sources exist" and leaving it for someone else, but I won't get to this during the discussion Star Mississippi 18:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles in The Dallas Morning Post, Addison, and GlobalSt establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, enough articles in reliable sources to meet ORG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 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) 23:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cartes du Ciel[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that there was enough coverage or significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: If all else fails at least check the books link. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:59, 21 August 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. Argument to redirect is weakened by the absence of any mention at the proposed target. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Television Awards[edit]

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

Unnotable award show and doesn't meet WP:ORG Princepratap1234 (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found articles discussing this here, here, and here. And I'm sure there's more that could be found.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Locomotive207: The sources you have given, are of BIG Star Entertainment Awards not of BIG Television Awards.Both are different awards.Princepratap1234 (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Princepratap1234: Gee, that sure is confusing. Thanks for letting me know.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 13:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't get confused BIG Television Awards with BIG Star Entertainment Awards.Both are different awards show.Princepratap1234 (talk) 07:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this particular award. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage beyond press releases and passing mentions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Reliance Broadcast Network, which presents these awards, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:43, 30 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santadas Kathiababa[edit]

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

This biography has been moved from mainspace to draft and back again several times in recent months, and various editors have worked on it, but it still has no references. I’ve looked myself but there are too many possible false matches for me to properly understand, and I don’t see anything that looks like reliable independent sources to support this content. There may well be good sources in Bengali or other languages I can’t access, and if so I hope someone will add them. There’s no point in draftifying this yet again - it needs to be either properly sourced or deleted. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 21 August 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) 17:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koffa Kobort[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has only (supposedly) played in amateur competitions. Fails WP:GNG as I can't find any significant non-routine coverage, other than this interview. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails GNG; I've left a comment on the creator's talk page as their editing is showing a pattern of concern Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:55, 22 August 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. – bradv^🍁 01:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Radar[edit]

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

Article for a non-notable magazine that heavily relies on primary sources, mentions of citations in news articles, and basic references that don't verify notability. Fails WP:NMAG. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Keep I oppose the deletion of this stub. Whilst I do not believe qualifiable for a page I think as per Wikipedia:NMAG a stub is suitable. "This suggested guideline covers the kinds of periodicals that are formally published, that is they (usually after 1974) have an ISSN code, are circulated in libraries or other reference sources, and (usually or often) appear in paper." -- publication meets this ISSN criteria.

The citations clearly show a referenced ISSN - not an easy process for publishers to go through - media interest (quoted/primary source for a Business Insider Journalist and an interview with Founder) and event coverage provided provided the organisation - including by Inmarsat

Very similar to other magazines of similar notability Airways Magazine and ch-aviation which have passed review with maintenance message for additional citation addition.

Suggestion: Oppose deletion and keep stub with maintenance message. Further citations from Editors encouraged to enhance notability but does not qualify for upright deletion due to meeting basic criteria

A quick citation search using buttons above brings back a Google Search Knowledge-Graph and listing as a publisher on Google News. Two accreditations showing search worthiness. A Google Trend search also shows the entity is highly searched.

LukeWWF (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer LukeWWF was the creator of this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article or references makes this noteworthy for a stand-alone article among many such similar online sites. MilborneOne (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:MilborneOne, don't you think the references qualify it for stub status? See Wikipedia:Stub: "A stub is an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject."

'Many such similar online magazines' include Airways Magazine, ch-aviation and Aviation Week & Space Technology all which qualify for inclusion. I don't think Travel Radar is any different -- if anything the references of notability is stronger.

LukeWWF (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeWWF: Stub articles should follow all guidelines that non-stubs do. Stubs aren't for small, non-notable topics, they're just a class of article that are written short. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13: Yes I am aware of the requirements for notability and as per the citations and precedent set by other stubs on Wiki, I think the article is more than sufficient to stay. My point was the article is not as long as a full length article but what is there meets notbaility and general Wiki requirements in my opinion.

As mentioned please view similar stubs Airways Magazine, ch-aviation and Aviation Week & Space Technology which set this precedent. Hopefully you can see why my opposition.

LukeWWF (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeWWF: Those articles have many similar problems and could also be facing deletion soon, as seen by their notability, COI, and primary source tags at the top. If many articles similarly violate the same guidelines that doesn't give this one an exception. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13: Thanks for your reply and thoughts Waddles. I was suggesting an alternative resolution to deletion - in that the article remains but with the tags staying and editors encouraged to improve the piece: More experienced editors will be able to better citate I am sure.

In the case of my examples, they faced a similar problem (AfD), but the tags was the chosen resolution and they've been like that since pre-2014; So quite a while! An Administrator has also worked to improve one of them which also sets a good example of an alternative. Just trying to think of alternatives as basic notability is there, and I believe strongly it meets criteria for inclusion.

Would you be willing to consider this as an alternative resolution than a harsh delete?

LukeWWF (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this page we have to keep it as this page is impacting socially to explore and discover new ways to improve our society in terms of travel, activities, experiences & marketing.

KilianPerez99 (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC) — KilianPerez99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@KilianPerez99: That's not a valid reason to keep an article. Can you explain how is it "impacting socially to explore and discover new ways to improve our society in terms of travel, activities, experiences & marketing"? That sounds a bit promotional. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tinerfe Keep - By archive purpose as published an registered publication must to be keep in the file in order to user to find it and find references about it. --Tinerfe (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC) — Tinerfe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Whether this is a registered publication, or has an ISSN, or whatever, is not relevant. What is relevant is whether this meets WP:GNG. As far as I can see, it does not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Travel Radar only has mentions outside of 2 primary sources. Taken as a collective, the sources fail WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom and @Heartmusic678 The article lacks any WP:SIGCOV, let alone sustained independent WP:SIGCOV, so it's a complete failure of WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newshunter12 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 September 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) 17:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airolam Limited[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Reference 2 (as of the nomination) is clearly marked as a press release, and I have doubts over the reliability of plyreporter.com - see the blatant promotion in the last paragraph of ref 3, and the fact that they appear to offer paid advertising. I can't see any other sources on Google that would establish notability, there is a lot of trivial coverage (listings of information, etc). Pahunkat (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently not notable, as the cited publications are largely industry talk-sheets. If/when the company is listed and has attained wider coverage in the national press, we can re-create this article, but for now notability has not been reached. I also want to say that I am very uncomfortable with the history of the editor who created this article: there is a faint whiff of commercial interest in this editor's previous attempts at article creation, so it is difficult for me to AGF. RomanSpa (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability or any signs of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As such, it's not even worth moving to draft space. Sionk (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable company with zero evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:01, 23 August 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. Even recognizing the discussion was not properly transcluded until 21 August, the participation was robust (five unique contributors) and every participant except the nominator has argued for a keep based on WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis J. Kearney[edit]

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

Delete - Nothing in this very short biography establishes notability M.boli (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NPOL as a former member of a state–wide legislature. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obvious from that description in the notability guidelines. The footnote seems to say state legislator is a rule of thumb, it is described as "secondary," but the person must still meet general notability guidelines. Which Kearney does not. There are about 7,300 elected state legislators in the United States. I have rarely seen a wikipedia article for somebody notable solely for having been a state legislator. -- M.boli (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The politician notability guidelines are infact suggesting that not only all 7,300 current state legislators are notable, but every single person who has ever held such a position. That may in fact be ludicrous, but the current rule we follow is whenever we come across an article on any such person we keep it. To change this, you will need consensus to change to notability rules for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's ludicrous. Imagine the number of politically motivated editors we would get dominating discussions here if we didn't have such a bright-line rule. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This discussion page was never transcluded to a daily log page--fixed now. As for my own view, subject clearly meets WP:NPOL as a former state legislator. @M.boli: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 17:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: State legislators are automatically notable, per WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10K Naira[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There are two refs given on the article and I can't see any others on Google. The Guardian reference is churnalism that consists entirely of the founder's comments on the company, making it a primary source. The Vanguard reference is about the same. Given that as of the vanguard article (31 July 2021) the company was yet to be created, I think that this is WP:TOOSOON. Pahunkat (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pahunkat (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet NCORP. Princess of Ara 09:52, 22 August 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. Inclusion at IMDB is not evidence of notability, as it is a comprehensive database which includes user-generated data. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Babysitter (2008 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM lacks coverage on reliable sources. Tulkijasi (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tulkijasi (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's probably hundreds of horror movies titled "The Babysitter", which is why I'm not finding any references that verify notability for this particular one, even when using extra keywords such as "2008". Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Short film demonstrates notability: See inclusion on IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1198187/. Director is also a notable figure. I will edit this article to a good standard but I think the outcome here should be to keep it; Despite it being written poorly at present. Also going to tag with Notability/Citation needed tag.

LukeWWF (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be no coverage for this short film. Notability is not inherited by them being involved with the film, it just gives a higher chance of coverage. However this is pretty much kind of par for the course with short films, even if they star or were worked on by notable people. Short films typically don't get attention unless they are very lucky or extremely high profile. A good example of this would be that it's not uncommon for short films nominated for an Academy Award to fly under the radar until said nomination to the final ballot, at which point the coverage comes pouring in. Having an IMDb profile doesn't count as the film being notable, as it's a routine database listing. Generally the only thing that a film has to do to be on IMDb is exist and the oversight for that website is loose enough to where hoaxes have been uploaded on multiple occasions. It's not limited to minor films either - years ago a woman managed to add herself to the cast of Captain America: Winter Soldier as "She-Hulk". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not scolding you - I hope that this doesn't come across as that. I made the same mistakes with notability you are here (I also made mistakes with tone, sourcing, and so on), so don't take it badly - we all learn "on the job" here, so to speak. These training modules may be helpful - they're written for students, but they do have a nice amount of knowledge in them. :) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Kudos to ReaderofthePack - for their comprehensive explanations above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:09, 28 August 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) 17:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masimedia[edit]

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

Question mark over notability for over 10 years and I can see why. I have not found anything to suggest this could pass WP:GNG. This company barely even seems to be known about, with just 25 pageviews in the last 3 months. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the interview with the founder clearly fails WP:ORGIND. I can't find any coverage online that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Please ping me if some good coverage does come up that I have missed. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Nothing to help pass notability. Kolma8 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 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) 17:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Jaiswal[edit]

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

Semi-pro/amateur footballer with barely any coverage. The one cited source is a squad list mention, which is insufficient for WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Tulkijasi (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator, fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. DMySon (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Nitesh003 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.— TheWikiholic (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Pinakpani (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom . Also note that user posting this is Anjankit25 and a football player. I wonder if this is Autobiography. WP:COISELF rsjaffe talk 20:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per everyone else. It's clearly becoming a blizzard in here. I'm surprised this was nominated here when I had already PRODed it and 7 days hasn't expired yet, but meh, it'll be deleted regardless. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:42, 22 August 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) 17:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miko Ardianto[edit]

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

A player with no apparent senior professional appearances, so not passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Also no evidence of WP:GNG. Indonesian searches of Miko Ardianto and Miko Ardiyanto yielded nothing better than pre-match squad listings and match reports for U21 fixtures that only offer a passing mention at best. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Tulkijasi (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and GNG.--Mvqr (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTY by playing for Persebaya Surabaya in the top league of fully-professional Indonesian football from 2010 to 2012. He's listed here in a 2011 lineup. Incidentally he's mentioned a few times in a articlet about a 2012 U-21 match. Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They were relegated from the top tier in 2009-10 so Persebaya were in the 2010–11 Liga Indonesia Premier Division, which was the second tier and not professional. I also can't see any GNG from the sources that you have provided, which would be required as squad lists and passing mentions in match reports are not usually enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 28 August 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) 17:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Syed Institute of Learning & Motivation, Battagram[edit]

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

Previously deleted following a AFD which closed as delete over notability/sourcing concerns. As far as I can find via Google this hasn't changed, and it still fails WP:NORG. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 15:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir the big source for this article is Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Abbottabad, which i already placed in the reference tab. Please review again. Anis Ur Rahman Anas 16:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly salt to prevent repeated recreation. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no indication of WP:GNG. A before search returns with social media links, database entries and other similar potentially unreliable sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:32, 23 August 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 University of Oxford. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Blue (newspaper)[edit]

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

Fails the WP:GNG. Coverage mostly—

is not independent of the subject (e.g., coverage of itself), or
is not significant (e.g., merely citing the Blue in passing).

It does not readily appear that this can be rectified. A Google News search for ‘The Oxford Blue’ mostly brings up unrelated restaurant reviews; adding ‘“publication”’ brings up one non-trivial mention, concerning the receipt of an award, which hardly seems enough.

The article also fails the subject-specific guidelines.

‘[W]ell-known and significant journalism award or hono[u]r’: as far as I can tell, the Oxford Blue has won one award (‘best new publication’ from the Student Publication Association.) The award must be ‘well-known and significant’. A Google search for ‘"best new publication" "award"’ brings up only one editorial from another Oxford publication mentioning the award, suggesting it’s not terribly well-known or significant.
‘Some sort of historic purpose or…significant history’ (through RSes): few RSes seem to even mention the history of the publication let alone non-trivially.
‘Authoriative or influential in their subject area’ (through RSes): I can’t find anything to this effect.
‘Frequently cited by other reliable sources’: two articles seem to have been widely reported on, viz., the Peter King child pornography case, and the arrest of Dirk Obbink for stealing ancient papyrus fragments (no RS is given—merely an ‘EXCLUSIVE’ article from the Oxford Blue, but the Guardian said this so I’ll insert it later).
‘Significant publication in…non-trivial niche market’: not sure whether student journalism really counts as a non-trivial niche market, but there don’t seem to be RSes to back this up either.

Even if at least one of these were met (frequent citation seems the closest), the general problem that no RSes seem to actually say anything non-trivial or encyclopaedic about the publication remains. The main sourced section is a recitation of previous reporting—perhaps relevant to other articles but not really encyclopedic on a page about the paper itself. There are also some not particularly encyclopaedic minutiae about internal organisation. This leaves very little. Docentation (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (media) is an essay and does not seem to have widespread support given how (in my experience) rarely it is used. WP:ORG or WP:GNG is the standard that should apply here. (This is not to say that the subject meets that standard.) 15 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You are quite right. I seem to have misread it as a policy despite it being clearly labelled otherwise. The GNG it is. Docentation (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NMEDIA's status isn't particularly clear; there was recently a failed attempt to make it an official guideline, and it failed because there was a bunch of opposition to what it attempted to do for radio stations, but the reception for the newspapers portion was more favorable. IAR, I consider it a reasonable standard. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possible sources: Blog post by the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. inpublishing coverage of the Society of Editors award. I would have thought otherwise, but this might be a borderline keep case, mainly hinging on the quality of the ARCA blog post - being hosted on blogspot doesn't make the source unusable, given that it is its official one. 15 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Oxford per WP:TOOSOON, and maybe add a sentence on it there. Some student newspapers are notable and others aren't, which leads to many borderline cases like this. If this newspaper survives and grows, it may become notable (it's Oxford, after all, so I'd expect it to garner more media attention than your average community college), but right now, it just doesn't have a significant enough history to warrant an entry in the world's enduring record of notable organizations. Regarding the sources, I'm willing to look beyond the informal blog styling of the ARCA post and say it counts (barely; Association for Research into Crimes against Art has a page but it's pretty shaky itself), but for InPublishing, it begins "As reported by Claire Meadows on the Society of Editors website", and the Society of Editors sponsored the award the paper won, so it's not fully independent. If this was an established publication with a long history, I'd say sure, let's look the other way on the shakiness of the sources and just let it stay, but I can't do that here. Redirecting will allow it to be more easily resurrected if it gets coverage in the future and follows our normal practice for non-notable college publications. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that ARCA report is a good find. I agree with Sdkb that it’s somewhat borderline. That said, even if we do count it, it’s only one source. An article with just that for non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources would not I think really be encyclopedic. There’s already a paragraph on the main University of Oxford page on student newspapers and it would make sense to mention the Blue (regardless of the outcome here actually). Docentation (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some more possible sources: Geddes Prize award and The Times article on sensitivity reading. Amsmailes (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amsmailes: I can't get past the Times paywall. How significant is the coverage there? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: The article covers proposed sensitivity reading from Oxford SU with reference to all three papers in Oxford (Cherwell, The Oxford Student, and The Oxford Blue) and reflects a comment requested from the Blue at the end. {{u|Amsmailes}} ^talk 18:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither link works for me: could you check them please? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonathan A Jones: I’ve fixed the links in the comment. There was a pipe when there shouldn’t have been.

I don’t think these get over the GNG line to be honest. There’s only one mention (‘Cherwell and The Oxford Blue, a new independent website, said they had not been contacted by the students’ union about the plans.’) I consider this trivial: analogously, if a newspaper report concerning a government plan to censor all newspapers were to contain a brief comment by an otherwise obscure local newspaper at the end, that report would not constitute non-trivial coverage of the local newspaper for GNG purposes. As for the prize, well, SEH awarded it and SEH reported on it. Docentation (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Oxford per WP:TOOSOON, as suggested by User:Sdkb. It caught my eye immediately as of doubtful notability and a probable COI. Deb (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Oxford: I'm familiar with the newspaper (as an Oxonian) and this article is just PR spin. The Oxford Blue wants to portray itself as a competitor to Cherwell and The Oxford Student (and its reputation among students is that its main distinguishing feature is its dissenting social conservativism), but it's just not got the history, credibility or acceptance. The article boasts that it's the "first digital-only student newspaper in Oxford", when this is actually just a reframing of a big reason why it's not as respectable (no print copy distributed to colleges like the others, and hell even the The Oxymoron).
The article fails GNG and the essay NMEDIA (which I'll take as at least reflecting rough common practice) and it'd be better TNT'd even if it later becomes notable. The creator violated WP:COIEDIT: you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly. Redirecting to University of Oxford is just barely appropriate, I think, due to the brief mention there and as this is commonly done for student newspapers.
To go through the case for notability thoroughly, the BBC doesn't seem to cite The Oxford Blue as the article claims (perhaps it used to appear under the local news links section), but The Guardian does here and here. This Society of Editors award is genuine. The Geddes Prize above is internal to Oxford. The ARCA blog is nonsense. Only the award(s) are in-depth, and not sufficient for NMEDIA#1, while NMEDIA#4 is not passed by just a handful of recent citations and claims of NMEDIA#2,3,5 are thoroughly implausible given the recency of the publication. For GNG, again it's a fail, not enough coverage of the publication's history, founding and practices. Definitely too soon and the creator is clearly an EiC from their username and disclosed COI so not here for the right reasons. — Bilorv (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
its main distinguishing feature is its dissenting social conservativism The fact that we have no source to establish this key fact is as good a reason as any this isn't ready for mainspace yet. Thanks for your insights, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really think that the considerations in the first few sentences really come into this. A newspaper could be digital only, mostly known for social conservatism, and everything else you say, and still meet the GNG. Close observers (e.g. of typography) might say that the Mekong Review tries (and fails) to imitate the style of the London Review of Books: but both are still notable. (It also occurs to me that the case against deletion is stronger on WP:NMEDIA than it is on the GNG.) That said I agree with your analysis of sources, and there’s a good case here that even were it notable one would be better off starting again. Docentation (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Reiber[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have any notability outside their connection with the Surfside condominium collapse. I would have simply redirected there, but the article creator, in their initial edit summary said, "for the record, I understand if anyone has WP:BLP1E concerns about this one. I wouldn't oppose testing it at AfD". Appears to be a case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He did get an obituary in Miami Herald in 2015: [2]. Not seeing anything else outside the new coverage related to the accident, but it does invalidate the nom concerns, I think. PS. As for the proper vote, I am on the fence. Without the obit I'd lean towards delete, with it I think this is very borderline.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think he was notable as a real estate developer even before the building collapsed. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Years before the Florida incident, there was also reporting of his resignation from the Law Society of Upper Canada (presumably knowing he would be disbarred otherwise), and a decade later his tax fines. I added references to the article. Nfitz (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - As User:onel5969 noted; I created this page knowing the argument for notability was pretty marginal. I think it's reasonable to call this article WP:BIO1E or WP:RECENTISM. That said, this guy does seem to have been linked to several marginally notably events and strung together, they might make him meet WP:GNG. For the record, I thought it was interesting that the Surfside Condo building was built by this colorful and vaguely criminal character. I was a bit curious whether there might be some linkage between the character and the collapse. Having learned more about the incident since I started this article, I'm guessing the collapse won't ultimately be blamed on malconstruction or by extension Reiber. NickCT (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he had an obituary and was mentioned in the news before the collapse, I see enough GNG even before the collapse. --hroest 16:01, 25 August 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) 17:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Hawk International Public School & College, Battagram[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG, only sources in the article are a index of schools and a link to Google Maps, and I cannot find any other sources online -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir, please review this article, i hope now it is fully ready, also a great reference Anis Ur Rahman Anas 14:55, 21 August° 2021 (UTC)

Delete nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:35, 23 August 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) 17:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

System Recordings[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom fails GNG as lacks significant coverage. Tulkijasi (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and containing "Independent Content". I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 24 August 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 Barbie Maan#Discography as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teri Gali[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:NSONG, only routine coverage. Ab207 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barbie Maan#Discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Siever[edit]

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

Local journalist (blogger?) and unsuccessful political candidate that does not pass WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, or WP:NPOL. Issue isn't COI (disclosed), it's the overall notability of the subject. Many references are to articles by the subject - this isn't a substitute for *independent* articles *about* the subject. Madg2011 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it’s worth, this article was submitted for AfC review and was independently assessed and approved. —Kmsiever (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at online sources only, the only reliable sources in the article are passing mentions of the subject or links to the subject's social media feeds. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The rest are primary sources. I'm sure the offline sources are no better. The fact that the primary editor has been the subject himself does not help the situation. At this point, as the subject is running in the upcoming Canadian federal election, this amounts to undue weight on the candidate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People don't get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, so neither running for city council in 2001 nor his current candidacy get him in the door at all — and actors are not "inherently" notable just because it's possible to use IMDb and the self-published primary source websites of theatre companies as technical verification that acting roles have been had, but require evidence of distinction (such as a Canadian Screen Award nomination, or other reliably sourced evidence of the significance of said acting roles). Obviously no prejudice against recreation (with better sources) on or after September 20 if he wins a seat in Parliament (spoiler alert: very unlikely, given that he's running in Alberta but not as a Conservative), but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article about him to exist today. And yeah, the fact that he started the article himself doesn't do him any favours either (though it isn't in and of itself the killing blow.) Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 24 August 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 Binance. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WazirX[edit]

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

A classic case of WP:ADMASQ. Also, it lacks WP:NPOV. - Hatchens (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is not even a single sentence in the article which is not referenced with WP:RS. Regarding WP:NPOV, read WP:POVDELETION, especially the last paragraph. Even if it lacks WP:NPOV that needs editing not deletion. This company is in the news recently for both good and negative reasons. Anybody can add more information if they wish. I expected issues when created this article because it was deleted earlier, but I chose to be WP:BOLD. Since this nomination is based on 'assuming bad faith' and not on notability, I don't have anything else to add. Leaving to others. - The9Man ^(Talk) 13:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear The9Man, you're an experienced editor with a good number of edits (as a history) under your belt. If you, yourself added a sentence - "At the point of its launch no other exchanges has this feature that helped the company to grow rapidly." [3]- which is nothing but directly contradicting the very essence of WP:NPOV. You have the right to make your assumptions and at the same time build your articles. And, so do I. Since I may make mistakes in my assumptions and to overcome this or to make it doubly sure that my tags are not affecting the pages or the editors like you - I always call for an unbiased assessment from the expert editors who have much more experience in dealing with such doubtful pages. Lately, I have done a mistake of my own in approving an article in the first place. Our job as reviewers is to learn from such mistakes and do the needful. - Hatchens (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally have the market knowledge that P2P is the one thing that helped this company to grow fast at that point in time and they were the first. It is a FACT for me, supported with references.12 Could I have used better wording? Maybe. You found this is intentional promotion? OKAY. - The9Man ^(Talk) 15:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The9Man, thank you for sharing these links. The first carries a byline "Bloomberg Quint Brand Studio" , which clearly tells it's a sponsored post. And, the second link what you have shared is from Inc42 which is known for sharing promotional content like YourStory.com (which has been duly banned by Wikipedia). It may be FACT for you, but I regret to inform - your FACT is not a FACT as per the Wikipedia guidelines. Now, I have serious doubt on your capabilities of handling AfC reviews. - Hatchens (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, I messed up with the first link in a hurry that I didn't see the brand part. But I don't remember that I have seen anything regarding Inc42, please lead me there.
        I am not defending this anymore, and if the community feels the article is not notable, let it go. I am agreeing. Thank you. - The9Man ^(Talk) 19:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ping: Need unbiased experts' opinion on this AfD. Hence sending this ping -> @Timtrent, HighKing, Nomadicghumakkad, and GermanKity:. Let there be a "general consensus". -Hatchens (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Not a Healthy AfD Practice. In agreement with MarioGom. -Hatchens (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, see WP:CANVASSING. MarioGom (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- MarioGom, agree with your suggestion. May be my intent is right, but yes my act can easily qualify for WP:CANVASSING. Thank you for pointing at right direction. - Hatchens (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since it has been acquired by Binance, then it's better to be merged with it (if not deleted). - Hatchens (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASIC, enough coverage (reliable sources): Topic: WazirX (Google News), Google trends: Term: WazirX 💤ER✌A ^(TALK💬) 03:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. Also see WP:GHITS. If you can point to individual references that meet NCORP to establish notability, please post links. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Binance which already mentions the acquisition as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Hamman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual. Got a flutter of news coverage at the time, but isn't otherwise notable. PepperBeast (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. Subject passed as a doctor for some time (despite lacking a medical degree), which got a brief spike of news coverage. Little other sign of notability, and I don't think there's enough to overcome WP:BLP1E. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be an attack page and not realy a suitable encyclopedia entry, might qualify for speedy G10. MilborneOne (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what that guy was messed up but it's not important enough to warrant its own page. I'm sure even the subject of the page doesn't want this on Wikipedia... BuySomeApples (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite arguments to the contrary at the first discussion, the subject did not appear to meet WP:GNG even at the time, and any argument that there was news coverage can plausibly be explained away by WP:NOTNEWS. Ultimately, this is a WP:BLP1E of an individual, and lasting encyclopedic notability has not been demonstrated. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gum Crossroads, Delaware[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gum_Crossroads,_Delaware&action=edit

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

Mass-produced stub with questionable GNIS source. Previously prodded with the rationale: "Gum Crossroads, Delaware" is not an unincorporated community in Delaware. It is an intersection in the middle of farmland with no houses around. An intersection is not notable. Geschichte (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a couple houses down the road, but I'm pretty sure they're just rural farm houses and not part of a community. I would say keep if there was some sort of general store or gas station with the name, a trace of a post office in this location, or any sort of small collection of houses centered around the intersection to form a legitimate community, but its just a general intersection of country roads and there's not even a label for it on Google Maps. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete The few houses are shown in aerials to have been built in the last 25 years or so, and are jjust randowm;y shoved into the forest. Other than that quadrant, it's just farm fields. Really, the PROD message should have been cause for taking a second look rather than blindly trusting a listing. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnotable and unreferenced. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a useful navigational aid for Sussex County, Delaware. USGS maps say that in 1917 nothing was there, in 1944 there were a couple houses nearby, in 1992 it was the same story, and a Google satellite map from today says that there really is not anything going on at the location in question, or immediately around it. Barring anyone coming up with news sources or books mentioning the area as having had some historical significance, I am forced to conclude that -- as the kids say -- this is "literally not even a thing". jp×g 09:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Idunnox3 (talk) 23:04, 26 August 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) 17:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IndieGala[edit]

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

Not a notable website to be included as a Wiki. - Iamrajdeepdas (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: See the notes at the foot of WP:NVIDEOGAMES - this is promotion and product placement (possibly of Steam keys). Fails WP:WEBCRIT. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only coverage I've found is sales announcements, which are not about the website/business itself (missing WP:ORGDEPTH). We wouldn't keep the article just to list the bundles, as that amounts to simple advertising, not an encyclopedia article. czar 20:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per others, there is a distinct lack of indepth coverage about the company. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional content and advertising. It's not a notable video game store or digital distribution platform. Wario-Man ^talk 14:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Fails WP:GNG. IceWelder [✉] 19:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very familiar with the site and used it many times, but recognize it is rarely discussed in sources as a storefront compared to things like Humble Bundle. --Masem (t) 19:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historically (i.e. in the early 2010s!) it was more notable as being one of the first sites to come along in the wake of HumbleBundle and being more linked with Desura than Steam. We do not delete articles in general when things become less notable, and IndieGala retains 740k+ followers on Steam, apps to assist in using it on Chrome and in greasemonkey-alike setups, references in the past year on EuroGamer and PCGamer, references in the past year on numerous indie game sites etc etc etc. With the shift of HB to be less community-oriented, IG remains one of the top indie game stores behind itch.io. Lovingboth (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We also don't Keep articles unless there are references which establish their notability according to the appropriate guidelines, which in this case is WP:NCORP. It would be very helpful and lend weight to your !vote if you can provide links to the best WP:THREE references below. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the spoons to look for hundreds of them, rate them all, and decide on which are the most important three, but it is treated as notable by assorted significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources eg

Eurogamer eg https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-11-18-paradox-interactive-publisher-sale-goes-live-at-indiegala

Rock Paper Shotgun eg https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/topics/indiegala

PC Gamer eg https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/indiegala-bundle-defies-its-own-name-includes-mass-effect-2/

I can't find any other site in the 'Software digital distribution platforms' category that has more members of its Steam group than https://steamcommunity.com/groups/indiegala.

When the threat of deletion has ended, I can spend the spoons adding more references to the article. Lovingboth (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources/references have been added, the article has been slightly updated with more notable and up to date information, and it should be further updated with time, in the near future. StevenCojo (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nitesh003 (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Improved significantly since all the delete votes above. NemesisAT (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the added sources and they are exactly the sort of coverage discussed above that does not meet the general notability guideline sourcing standards. ilfoglio.it is ostensibly the only coverage that discusses the company itself and not just the company's deals. Otherwise we have a bunch of promotional links, an interview from an unreliable source, and non-noteworthy controversy over posting a meme. Still lacks significant coverage. czar 00:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Relevant, article should be improved. GamedevExpert^{(Talk to GamedevExpert)} 5:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Struck vote of blocked sock. IceWelder [✉] 12:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG Idunnox3 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Alcázar[edit]

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

Probable autobiography with no evidence of notability found in a WP:BEFORE search. I can't find any coverage of his roles relating to composing music for these obscure indie games and I can't find any independent coverage of his career as a musician or as an actor. I can't see any criteria at WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN that he actually meets. A lot of the references used to support notability don't mention Alcázar at all, which is bizarre. The only thing I'm not too sure about is video game composer notability standards, so I would appreciate if someone from WP:VG could weigh in and confirm whether he can be presumed notable for that, since it looks like he fails everything else. Source analysis for WP:GNG to follow. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment - GNG not met Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12851006/bio		User-generated and unreliable, see WP:IMDB	Contains barely any info	✘ No
https://www.elperiodico.cat/ca/tele/20180226/salvados-la-sexta-retrat-gent-anonima-dese-aniversari-6649813			Fails to mention him	✘ No
https://www.formulatv.com/noticias/8791/jordi-evole-la-edicion-semanal-de-salvados-dejara-de-ser-tematica/			Not mentioned here	✘ No
https://www.espinof.com/la-sexta/la-curiosa-evolucion-de-salvados-en-sus-cinco-anos-de-existencia			No mention here either	✘ No
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nippleeatanna/	User-generated	User-generated		✘ No
https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt15267314		User-generated and unreliable, see WP:IMDB		✘ No
https://open.spotify.com/artist/0c5Ry6QOy30kSddNs36oo5		Spotify is an unreliable, user-generated source	Being on Spotify doesn't indicate notability	✘ No
https://www.sevenwordsmusic.com/	Apparently his own website		Link doesn't work	✘ No
https://soundcloud.com/sevenwordsmusic		SoundCloud is user-generated and largely unreliable		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockmaster; see SPI. Mz7 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Response #0000 to Spiderone[edit]

Hello Spiderone, first of all; hope you're having a wonderful day and we together improve this article so it meets the Wikipedia's guidelines by far.

Regarding your comments:

As exposed on the article this celebrity "is better known by his nickname Seven Words"; evidence of notability could be found in a WP:BEFORE search (just unveiled his real name).
His roles related to composing music, his musician career and as an actor could actually be found with his real name and or nicknames (all of them are cameos playing himself as a "unkown person" but he's mentioned in the credits).
Not all references mention Alcázar because some of them are not for him but for mentioned items related to the subject (Salvados, for example). I don't find that bizarre; enriches the article imo.
I'm sure he meets game composer and or developer notability standards exceeding aproved articles as for example bignic, "he's the Spanish Toby Fox" (as said on TV about him) with a huge influence in the Spanish indie gamedev community, less than Toby Fox but well known for a set achievements in different areas related and not related to audiovisual projects.

I've updated the source assesment table (hope you don't mind, I thought that creating another table could be confusing):

Deleted rows: related to Flickr (this one should not be placed in the body, my bad; just corrected that). SoundCloud, website of this celebrity and his Spotify channel are not reliable sources; they weren't trying to be, just external links related to the subject, see WP:EXT.
Updated second row: the celebrity is quoted several times and meets criteria at least as presumed, see WP:SIGCOV.
Updated fifth row: sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications on IMDb could be used as reliable sources, see WP:CITEIMDB

All that said, I'll keep working on this article so we reach a consensus. KharmaJoy^{(Talk to KharmaJoy)} 17:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response #0001 to Spiderone[edit]

@Spiderone: I apologize for modifying your table instead of creating a new one, didn't thought of it as a comment out of ignorance; my bad. I'm adding mine here, don't want to touch yours anymore (obviously) to avoid misunderstandings; you may want to roll yours back, the article has been updated so you may want to update it too.

Source assessment - GNG met:

Source	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.elperiodico.cat/ca/tele/20180226/salvados-la-sexta-retrat-gent-anonima-dese-aniversari-6649813	Quoted several times	✔ Yes
https://pro.imdb.com/title/tt15267314	Cast list, character names, crew lists, awards and soundtrack listings are reliables sources, see WP:CITEIMDB	✔ Yes
http://www.udat.es/alberto-alcazar-bronce-en-el-regional-de-400m-vallas-con-marca-personal/	Independent newspaper WP:INDEPENDENT	✔ Yes
https://ahoraclm.com/2018/06/02/el-talaverano-alberto-alcazar-plata-en-el-regional-de-atletismo/	Independent newspaper WP:INDEPENDENT	✔ Yes
https://eldiadigital.es/art/297395/el-talaverano-alberto-alcazar-bronce-en-el-regional-de-400m-vallas	Independent newspaper WP:INDEPENDENT	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

KharmaJoy^{(Talk to KharmaJoy)} 20:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No reliable sources available for WP:GNG. TheChronium 13:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Non-notable. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing discussion involving blocked socks; see SPI. Mz7 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep Per nominator. Notable. User:KharmaJoy (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Spanish famous celebrity, pretty well known among indie video game developers and more important; there's plenty of coverage in reliable sources for WP:GNG and WP:VG. I made some research myself and even more reliable sources could be added. User:HelenaMCRfan (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Relevant, article should be improved. GamedevExpert^{(Talk to GamedevExpert)} 18:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KharmaJoy: Per WP:TPO, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning. Adding your own entries to a table someone else made counts as changing the meaning, because you are making it seem like that user said something which they didn't. It does not matter if it would be "confusing" to create your own table, you should not ever add your own content into other users' comments without their express permission. Mlb96 (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Mlb96: I'm sorry, didn't thought of that table as a comment; my bad, won't happen again. User:KharmaJoy (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - firstly, how is this athletics Alcázar the same person? Do you have proof of that? This looks like a case of WP:FRANKENSTEIN where a non-notable athlete and a non-notable musician are erroneously considered to be the same person. Anyway, being a regional medallist clearly fails WP:NTRACK. The musician subject to deletion is called Alberto Alcázar Martín but the athlete, subject to the sources that have recently been added is called Alberto Alcázar Casasola. See RFEA profile. This article is incredibly misleading. Are you writing an article about AAM or AAC? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As @Spiderone: has pointed out "A. Alcázar Martín" is clearly not "A. Alcázar Casasola", there are records of an "A. Alcázar Martín-Casasola". Maybe the confusion came from there, maybe "Casasola" and "Martín-Casasola" are the same person; but Wikipedia isn't built upon "maybes". I'm changing my nomination on this discussion. This article started being about "A. Alcázar Martín" the indie game developer and score composer @HelenaMCRfan: so I suggest you to do more research on that athletic Casasola if you want to write a different article about him. @KharmaJoy: I suggest you to focus on research "Seven Words" the nickname for which Alcázar is known. GamedevExpert^{(Talk to GamedevExpert)} 18:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock; see SPI. Mz7 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My search comes up with nothing to establish any notability. --MuZemike 11:26, 27 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Sobaszkiewicz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted due to failure of WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG after the NTENNIS guidelines were revised to exclude 10k and 25k ITF wins. User:Fyunck(click) raised some excellent points in the previous discussion and, as far as I can see, absolutely nothing has happened since that makes her any more notable than she was before. No Fed Cup appearances and no coverage found in a Polish source search that would count towards GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you comment on why "In 2013, she played for Poland at the XXVII Universiade in Kazan, Russia where she won the bronze medal in womens' doubles" is not sufficient for NTENNIS or WP:ANYBIO#1 (The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor) or #2 (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field)? Mind you, I am not saying it should be, but it sounds "nice" for someone like me who knows nothing about this sport. I concur Polish sources have no SIGCOV of her, and I nominated her for discussion on pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2021:08:14:Barbara Kapaś). I'll report anything of interest said there, but I fully expect people to raise the same question I did (isn't "one bronze medal" an indication of notability?). For the record, I do have serious issues with spamgraphies of minor sportspeople who attracted zero attention in media and just have participated in few niche events, but then, the same is true for people in other fields too we write articles for, and just say that some niche elected politicians, CEOs or scholars are notable due to the virtue of having some particular post or such (the problem is just much more accute for sport bios, since they form what, like half of Wikipedia biographies in existence...?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is never going to be that clear for tennis players due to the relatively low participation at AfDs. The Universiade isn't mentioned anywhere at NTENNIS so we can't say that this player meets NTENNIS even if she did win a medal. I did raise a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis but, again, participation was low so hard to draw any clear consensus. I think NTENNIS would need to be reworded to include the Universiade if we did want to go down the route of presuming notability for its participants. In my opinion, there would need to be some sort of convincing argument that most if not all players that get a medal in this student event pass GNG. With regards to ANYBIO, this is an interesting point and I don't think that it gets raised often with sportspeople. I could definitely see #1 applying for ATP Awards or WTA Awards and #2 applying for anyone in, say, the International Tennis Hall of Fame but, then again, such people almost always pass GNG anyway. It'll be interesting to see what comes back on pl.wiki in any case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: FYI, the pl wiki discussion was closed quickly as apparently pl wiki's equivalent of NTENNIS I was not aware of does lists winning a medal at Universiade as sufficient for notability. Knowing very little about this event I am abstaining on whether it's overly inclusive or just right; I remain concerned that there is no evidence of media coverage of her career. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's certainly a very different NTENNIS. I would also say that winning a medal at the Youth Olympics doesn't make you automatically notable, although many such people pass GNG or NTENNIS anyway so it's a bit of a moot point. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone I don't have much of an opinion here (and in fact I am leaning to delete myself given the lack of coverage, which suggests that sadly nobody cares about the Youth Olympics outside the participants and those closely connected to them...), but I'll just note the discussion at pl wiki ended with a near universal keep. Interesting how different groups of Wikipedia volunteers arrived at different conclusions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In looking at her article she is not even close to being notable per Tennis Project or NSPORT. I can't speak on whether she has reached GNG by some other means. Has she ever played on the WTA Circuit? No. Won a WTA tournament? No. Played in international Fed Cup? No. Perhaps entered the Olympics? No. WikiProject Tennis has a pretty low bar for automatic notability and she fails. Editor Vecihi91 has created a whole bunch of articles over the last year that have had to be deleted. This looks like another. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Five gold (and some others) medals of the Polish championship (2011-2013). [4] [5] Nedops (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 6 criteria at WP:NTENNIS would this count towards? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of them. The world of sport does not end at these 6 criteria :) Nedops (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that this is the second time that this player has been up for debate and still there is no evidence or even a suggestion that she might meet GNG, which is ultimately the guideline that she should meet. We have policies like NTENNIS and GNG for a reason. NTENNIS allows enough GNG-failing articles to be created as it is, I really don't see the point in lowering the bar even further. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's argument. The Universiade is in practice an age-restricted tournament, and falls short of WP:SPORTCRIT's stipulations. Geschichte (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's also a completely unreliable predictor of GNG, as is the case here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing significant has changed since the first deletion, except she has retired, which does noting to enhance her notability under WP:NTENNIS or any notability guideline. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchi Rojulu Vachchaayi[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not many sources found. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:23, 21 August 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 Ellora Patnaik. ✗plicit 13:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devraj Patnaik[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge he and his sister to an article about their company, which appears to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 19:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - I added a couple of references, but doesn't seem particularly independent of his sister or mother. Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge; fails to meet WP:GNG on his own, and notability is not inherited. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:22, 21 August 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. Sandstein 10:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living presidents of India[edit]

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

The article appears to contravene the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy as well as the WP:GNG guideline, being a collection of random factoids without context. There are no sources indicating that "living presidents of India" is a topic of scholarly research or interest. In other words, the topic is not notable. Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this list adds much value to the encyclopaedia (and not recommending this be kept) but this appears to be a common and accepted list for heads of state/heads of government -- Living presidents of the United States, Living presidents of Bolivia, Living prime ministers of New Zealand, Living prime ministers of the United Kingdom, Living prime ministers of India and so on. —SpacemanSpiff 09:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are common because people see it done somewhere and make another such list elsewhere and nobody bothers to tackle them. They are certainly not accepted in the sense of having been approved in a discussion. We'll scrutinize each of those. Surtsicna (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna – I created this article, and I think that the major issue with this is sources. I have added some sources, and can add various other sources and scholarly research (if available). Also, we have these types of list for head of states for various nations (as SpacemanSpiff pointed out). We do have a silly article on List of presidents of the United States with facial hair, and was nominated for deletion 4-5 times, but was kept as it had quite number of citations and notability in some sources. Seeing the number of lists relating to U.S. presidents, I guess this list should not be deleted. I'll try to make necessary changes. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some crap existing does not mean other crap should exist. If living or bearded US presidents are of interest to scholars, so be it; but if living presidents of India are not a subject of "significant coverage in reliable sources", there is no reason for a standalone article on that topic. Which are living and which are not can be seen from the birth and death dates in the general list anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same for Living prime ministers of India. Peter Ormond 💬 13:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Also, for Living presidents of the United States and Living vice presidents of the United States Peter Ormond 💬 14:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Peter Ormond – I have now added various citations to the article. With 30 citations from mostly reliable sources, I think the venerability part is not resolved. The major question for this nomination should be whether all the article titled "Living presidents/prime ministers of ...." are notable or not. If this will be deleted, I see no reason why Living presidents of the United States or Living vice presidents of the United States should not be deleted. Also, please let me know if there's any other thing that I can fix with this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list is clearly not notable and not needed on WP. However Living presidents of the United States and Living vice presidents of the United States need to be discussed in a separate deletion proposal, not deleted on the coat tails of this one. Bduke (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing this covers of encyclopedic interest that isn't already covered in List of presidents of India; the rest is textbook WP:OR and clearly useless statscruft. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To my eye, this is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statistics without context or explanation of significance, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. I don't see anything worth merging to List of presidents of India (though whether that article should transclude Template:Lifespan of each President of India could be discussed separately) and I don't think this title would make for a useful redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lexie Bigham[edit]

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

Minor actor who played small forgettable roles with the exception of one larger supporting role (but still not a leading role) in South Central. Fails the multiple significant roles portion of criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Does not meet any other notability criteria for actors or at WP:ANYBIO. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable references. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lascivious Biddies[edit]

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

91 results on Google. Only hits are standard databases like Allmusic and Discogs, plus sites selling their music. Found a couple newspaper articles, but they are merely PR fluff for local concerts. Seems to fail every variant of WP:NMUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Lucky (The Lascivious Biddies album). AllyD (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the nominator I was able to find a couple of local newspaper articles ([6], [7]), which are fairly robust but probably written in conjunction with upcoming gigs. Otherwise I can only find the typical retail/streaming entries and some gig announcements. The band has been around for a long time but significant media coverage seems to have eluded them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're the subject of this long article in the Winston-Salem Journal, another long piece in amNY, a third in LNP, and Steven Levy calls them "podcasting pioneers" in The Perfect Thing: How the iPod Shuffles Commerce, Culture, and Coolness (p.244). All three of the newspaper articles go well beyond the WP:ROUTINE mentions we might expect for a band and represent WP:SIGCOV. pburka (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The amount of hits something gets in Google doesn't determine notability. The amount and quality of references do (as pburka pointed out). I can find a ton of hits about Sia being locked in Beyonce's basement, but that wouldn't mean I can make a page about it! BuySomeApples (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough coverage for notability, which matters more than google hits.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Court[edit]

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

Article on a property development in Malaysia that is packed with great detail, mostly from primary sources, and has received some mention in general sources but nothing that looks to me like it establishes notability. Similar articles could be written for tens of thousands of new buildings each year but there’s nothing really encyclopaedic about them. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. The Wikipedia article is indeed a rambling over-detailed account of the various developments around 'Samaworld' should probably be half the current length. But the Amber Court development seems to have developed a reputation for its poor state of repair and possible haunting. After all there are a couple of news articles, a book and a German TV documentary about it. Sionk (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The developments around Genting Highlands are not like any others. More costly civil engineering work is needed because of the difficult mountain-landscape and climate. The companies working on these projects are from all over the world, hence the international attention at the time. SamaWorld is directly connected with Amber Court. The SamaWorld development had strong media attention at the time, but not so much today (but it is still relevant). Amber Court gained a lot of fame on social media over the last 10 years. There exist many videos with millions of views from "YouTubers" around the world. It's the main location for the movie "Haunted Hotel" which boosted the attention in Asia. Last year the Galileo documentary was broadcasted in Germany and my German article about Amber Court was accepted to Wikipedia. Amber Court has constant media attention in Malaysia too (as seen in the article references), and is included in the List of reportedly haunted locations. I tried not to focus on the "haunted topic" because Wikipedia should be neutral (and we all know that it's nonsense). I wouldn't call my sources "primary" because nearly all of them are from well-known newspapers (I think blueprints, statistics, etc are called primary). Thanks + greetings --126Edward (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs cleaned up, but there appears to be ample sourcing. NemesisAT (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while the article needs cleanup, there is enough sourcing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 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 Sanno Institute of Management. With no references and an external link to the university's website, there is no content to merge. ✗plicit 12:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jiyugaoka Sanno College[edit]

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

I wasn't convinced this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are Japanese and Chinese articles on this subject that are lengthy with multiple sources. I feel this article should be expanded rather than deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no sources and no more information than a single sentence... how has this article lasted this long? --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sanno Institute of Management as WP:ATD. Run by the same people and shares a campus. Jumpytoo Talk 03:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Sanno Institute of Management (WP:ATD) for the reasons given by User:Jumpytoo. Ingratis (talk) 15:22, 21 August 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) 04:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Powers (doctor)[edit]

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

An interesting combination of an advertisement for a physician sourced to press releases, and a tragic account of the death of two cats. Neither half is encyclopedic. Originally submitted as draft with the title Will Powers (physician), and quite reasonably declined twice by two different reviewers. Resubmitted a third term (with a slightly variant title) and also entered directly into mainspace. The photo was taken by the contributor of the article. NOT ADVERTISEMENT and NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability guidelines, as well as per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hi I created the page after attempting to create a draft and feeling that the draft got unfairly declined. I don't believe I used any press releases in this article, only sources considered reputable on Wikipedia. Please explain which sources are inappropriate for Wikipedia, and which aspects of the page are not notable? I believe all the sources indicate notability. I have no conflict of interest other than personal interest in the topic of transgender healthcare. Like the underrepresentation of women on Wikipedia, transgender topics are also underrepresented. I also want to clarify that I used a public domain image, not a photo taken by myself. Please assume good faith. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article after the draft has been declined multiple times is not acceptable, period. First and foremost, the doctor is not notable, even if the sources are reliable. And no, a supposed underrepresentation of transgender topics is not an excuse for dodging or ignoring notability guidelines. There is nothing that sets this doctor apart from any other conscientious citizen who does something for his or her community. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that the individual meets GNG, and while I have no doubt that the creator acted in good faith, the only sources available resulted in the article taking a tone that could be seen as promotional. BilledMammal (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A majority of the sourcing is promotional or otherwise hagiographic in tone. There is a lack of significant coverage, and thus WP:GNG is not met. The information about the cats does not convey any notability whatsoever. The attempt to circumvent the process is not relevant to my !vote, but it is noted. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:03, 28 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Aficionado Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Never met WP:SIGCOV standards. There is only a single source "The Mythology of Cats" that even references it more than trivially. Elephanthunter (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elephanthunter (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Elephanthunter (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to delete it. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 解培华 (2014-07-19). "世界名猫亮相哈尔滨集中选美(图)" (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
2. 牛莹 (2005-01-24). "周末到王府井看名猫选美". Legal Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
3. 曹囡囡 (2005-01-31). "北京：世界名猫与京城百姓共贺新春(组图)" (in Chinese). China National Radio. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
4. 汪震龙 (2005-01-30). "纯种猫抢眼新东安(图)". Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
5. "北京保护小动物协会爱猫分会宣布成立". Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). 2001-03-05. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Sina Corporation.
6. 陳家倫 (2014-12-06). "北京名貓展身價破3萬". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
7. Chen, Huiwen (2006). 貓典一籮筐 [Mao Dian Yi Luo Kuang] (in Chinese). Tianji: Baihua Literature and Art Publishing House [zh]. pp. 25–27. ISBN 7-5306-4362-2. Retrieved 2021-08-07 – via Internet Archive.
8. Ling, Heng Yi (2013-03-19). "Cats are the top dogs for many pet owners". Shanghai Daily. Archived from the original on 2021-08-07. Retrieved 2021-08-07.
  The passing mention notes: "This is especially obvious at the recent 5th Shanghai Pet Fair in early March, where over 20 pure-breed cats were the highlight at the World Cat Pageant organized by the Cat Aficionado Association (CAA), China's largest cats registry."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cat Aficionado Association (simplified Chinese: 北京市保护小动物协会爱猫分会; traditional Chinese: 北京市保護小動物協會愛貓分會) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Thank you for taking the time to find these sources. Although not a requirement, it would be nice if the article was updated to include some of these sources so for readers it would be verifiably notable, and it doesn't inadvertently get nominated for deletion again at some point in the future. The logo may be on the verge of deletion (see discussion) due to the inability to verify its origin. Does the CAA have a website or other materials that could be used to source an accurate logo? --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sources to the article. I cannot find a website for the Cat Aficionado Association and cannot find anything to verify that File:CAA international logo for distribution.jpg was created by the Cat Aficionado Association, so I agree with the current consensus that the image is unverified. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - By the additional sources added. (WP:HEY) Suriname0 (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the sources has been added by Cunard. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 14:52, 21 August 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. MBisanz ^talk 18:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yurii Barybin[edit]

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

Non-notable sound engineer, not covered under WP:NMUSIC. Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources currently in the article help. Mottezen (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This person is working with the most famous artists in the world, owns a recording company in LA, has patented some unique recording techniques. I suppose a sound engineer and producer can hardly get more notable than that. I found a couple of interviews. They are not enough to pass GNG, but at least they do confirm that this person is influential in the recording industry. This one was written after the Burning Man and contains some biography before the actual interview: http://royaldesign.ua/ru/burning-man-kak-ukrainskiy-prodyuser-yuriy-baryibin-pokoril-festival.bXnnN/ Another one: http://liferead.media/culture/interview/ledi-gaga-ya-sdelal-fontan-iz-krovi-i-trup-v-royale.html Dr.KBAHT (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I randomly clinked on a bunch into the articles at Category:American audio engineers, and indeed, most of them don't have the sources to meet WP:GNG already in their article. It might be that audio-engineers don't attract that much attention for working with stars. I think the solution to this is either to propose creating a special inclusion criteria for talented technicians working with stars, or begin a large purge of audio engineer articles from Wikipedia. Mottezen (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found more sources. This one is about a master class in 2013: https://happymagazine.com.ua/sobitiya/kak-proshel-master-klass-saund-prodyusera-yuriya-barybina/ Another one: https://glamurchik.tochka.net/248190-yuriy-barybin-zvukorezhisser-odna-iz-klyuchevykh-figur-v-komande-artista/ The latter doesn't look reliable though. Therefore, I'm voting for a Weak Keep. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the broken links, added the patent source and the one about the Burning Man festival. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I always feel bad supporting the deletion of long articles, but the problem here is that after you've gone through the article all you know is that he's a person doing a job. The famous people he's worked with don't matter, because notability isn't acquired by association. What we're left with is just someone doing his job, and you're not notable just for doing your job. This page would be better if rendered down to bullet points and moved to LinkedIn, which is where I suspect it really belongs. The closest this guy comes to having done something notable is his work on in-ear technology, but even on this there's no obvious novelty or notability. Yes, he got the first Ukrainian act to use in-ears, but that's not per se that notable. Whilst the recent additions of more references have attempted to be helpful, they unfortunately emphasise the key point: he's just a guy, doing a job. He may be respected by his peers, but if that were the criterion for notability I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that most Wikipedia editors would qualify for their own articles immediately. Sorry, but this doesn't belong here. RomanSpa (talk) 09:31, 21 August 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 COVID-19 pandemic in Russia. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in North Asia[edit]

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

All of North Asia is in Russia, so this article seems redundant since COVID-19 pandemic in Russia exists. Velayinosu (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My first thought is a procedural close since this would actually be a merge discussion with a need to discuss what information to fold into the parent article, if any, if there was a consensus for a merge. That said, I can't see a reason to delete on the grounds that this is a sub-national article when a national article exists - we certainly have plenty of those, viz England, Wales, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Ohio, Alaska, Tasmania, Queensland, North Rhine-Westphalia, Telangana, Kerala, Eastern Visayas, Caraga, etc, etc. Given the large geographical area, the high incidence of cases, the well-developed state of the article, the high level of coverage and sourcing, and the obvious interest in encyclopedic documentation of this pandemic at levels other than the national, I'd say this was an obvious keep. Spokoyni (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I think this can be merged with COVID-19 pandemic in Russia if necessary. I agree with most of @Spokonyi's arguments but I think the "other subnational areas are covered" may fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF? Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Otherwise though, this article does seem to stand on its own. JayPlaysStuff (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Russia. There is no such official sub-nation (region, etc.) as North Asia. -GorgonaJS (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant details in the article to COVID-19 pandemic in Russia per GorgonaJS. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant sourced content to COVID-19 pandemic in Russia and redirect. I believe Spokoyni's argument that other subnational articles exist is adequately countered by the fact that North Asia is not an official subnational entity of Russia; we don't have this article, for example. On the other hand, separating the content by oblast/krai would seem logical, assuming sufficient content exists for standalone articles, but that is a discussion to be had if/when necessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:37, 27 August 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 12:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chimeric cytoplasmic capping-prone phage polymerase expression system[edit]

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

This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosetta and may be a repeat nomination of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Synthetic_gene_therapy, which was deleted. This article is about a product/service developed by Eukarÿs, a French biotechnology company. The company only has one product, which is the subject of this article. Few secondary sources exist about this, and the ones I've found are not independent. The article appears to be written by someone affiliated with Inserm. Some people at Inserm were involved in developing/researching the C3P3 system,[8] and the company's scientific advisory board has someone who was the CEO of Inserm,[9] so this article may not have been independently written. The author has not written anything else but did create the redirect C3P3, which was previously deleted as a result of the aforementioned deletion nomination. Velayinosu (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velayinosu (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger, Pontificalibus, Agricolae, Arthistorian1977, and Maury Markowitz, you each participated in the previous deletion nomination, so you may want to comment here. Velayinosu (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same product marketing under a new name, with nothing added to demonstrate notability overlooked in original process. Of the 9 referenced sources, 7 of them are directly attributable to the same person, either in his role as research scientist whose team developed the approach or as CEO of the company marketing it. Of the other two, one is foundational, predating the technique's development by a quarter century. The other is an abstract or agenda of a scientific meeting I have been unable to find online, but as it predates the formal publication of the approach by three years (and apparently predates them coming up with their cutesy name for it), it can only be a presentation by the developer (which wouldn't be WP:RS even were it independent). Notability requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and we appear to have no single instance of that here. Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 22 August 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 12:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zaner Group[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kstern (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I believe business profiles can be used for confirming some details such as the number of employees and establishment date and the like, they can't be responsible for verifying notability, and two of the three sources in the article are business profiles while the other is a primary source. No notability proven here. Just another company that exists. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:09, 21 August 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. Consensus is that it's a hoax. Not sure how to add it to the hoax list, but happy to undelete for anyone who wants to move it there...? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Corrochio[edit]

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

Hoax/invented article Andrew Kuchling (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article gives no sources, and I've been unable to confirm most of the claims it makes.

Google web search for "Eduardo Corrochio" only finds references that are mirrors or translations of this Wikipedia article. So do searches for his purported teacher "Damiano Tutador".

Two other names in the article, "Henry Rogers" and "Bernie Howard", are more common and harder to search for, but I can't find any indication of tap dancers with those names. [A US Library of Congress article on tap dance doesn't mention any of these names.

The NYT archive doesn't contain either "Eduardo Corrochio" or "Damiano Tutador". "Bernie Howard" appears once, in a 1974 article as having been arrested for computer fraud.

Worldcat.org and Abebooks.com show no copies of Corrochio's claimed autobiography, "Soul of a Tap Dancer".

Google Books only finds references in three recent humour books that might be machine-generated.

If you look at the earliest version of the article, it references an episode of Seinfeld where "Elaine makes up an elaborate story that she once dated a matador from Spain named Eduardo Corrochio."

This article was created in 2005, fairly early in Wikipedia's history. Much editing has been automatic, adding categories or links, but none of these edits have substantially altered the claimed facts from that initial version. That seems unlikely if this is an actual person.

Andrew Kuchling (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it is a hoax, it will be the new record-holder for longest-lasting hoax on Wikipedia, surpassing ~~the recently deleted Suez triangle~~ the Warsaw extermination camp hoax by ~~four months~~ 13 months. Gildir (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator's findings. Likely a joke that a Seinfeld fan made up as a spin off of The Good Samaritan (Seinfeld), in particular this scene. Just a shame that it's stuck all of these years as a bio claiming to be that of a real person. If people really want an ATD then maybe redirect to the Seinfeld episode but I would delete the history of this hoax first. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ridiculous article. Good catch! Geschichte (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I'm impressed by how believable this article is, it is almost certainly a hoax that arose from Seinfeld. Good find. Kstern (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – in addition to all of the above, the phrase tap dancing first appeared in 1928, so the statement that a "Tap Dancing Championship" occurred in 1890 is singularly implausible. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Extraordinary Writ's finding, and add to the top of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Gildir (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Note that Suez triangle has now been deleted from Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia due to lack of consensus that it was a hoax. Gildir (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is obviously fake, but pretty funny. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:40, 25 August 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.