Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 23 December 25 >

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 merge to R. Wallace & Sons. (non-admin closure) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grande Baroque[edit]

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

An article on a single silverware pattern, unsourced for fifteen years. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Can't see any notability here.--Darwinek (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was hoping the Chicago Tribune article would be good, but it simply talks about sliverware in general, there's a magazine article talking about 1950s items, same thing, a few scattered mentions of the pattern but nothing major. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Grande Baroque pattern by Wallace is the most popular tableware pattern at least in the United States and probably in the world. I appreciate that this may be unfamiliar to some but anyone with even some knowledge in this area would agree.
I understand that this in of itself is not enough and it has to be sourced. But consider "grande+baroque"+"wallace"&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4hPLo_vD0AhUamXIEHRN2BeMQ6AF6BAgLEAI#v=onepage&q="grande%20baroque"%20"wallace"&f=false This where as much is noted in court preceding about the pattern.Bloger (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only is Grand Baroque a pattern, it also was the part of a major trademark case which could be used to expand the article.[1][2][3]. Other sourcing includes New York Times (I'm a subscriber and have full access to this, in which Grande Baroque is awarded a major award and a section discusses it), a bit of BASIC: [4]. There are surely offline sources, especially in decorative arts, flatware, and antique guides. If all else fails we can merge it into the Wallace Silversmiths article. Missvain (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Missvain and Bloger. Seems should have been kept before relisting (in the WP:Shadow of Keep, an essay I've thought of writing). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could be improved with more secondary sourcing, but the content appears notable and is a good addition to Wikipedia. As has been noted, the Grande Baroque pattern is of definite note to silverware.Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge/Redirect to Wallace Silversmiths - does not meet GNG - it properly belongs in a List of Silverware Patterns or something like that, but I couldn't find any such list or related article - being a popular pattern is not enough for a Keep, see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, "arguments which base notability...upon...popularity make no use of policies or guidelines." - Epinoia (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I nominated this I was unaware of the existence of the article R. Wallace & Sons. I think a merge there makes sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect as suggested by Epinoia. Several people here have argued that the pattern is well known, but no one has added anything to the article to support their argument. Lacking improvement, the article still has only a single source and thus totally fails the RS requirement for notability. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomme Tønner[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM . Film does not appear to have won any major awards. Non-notable film. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why you have not mentioned the links of them to article as the references? Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing me of hoaxing? If you are keen on links, there is google. Geschichte (talk) 14:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple reliable sources reviews have been added to the article so that WP:GNG and WP:NFILM are clearly passed so there is now no valid reason for deletion in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306:, Could you mention couple of those multiple reliable sources? I can't see any links in the article. Brayan ocaner (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OFFLINE. While links are obviously useful if available, online accessibility is not required, and I see no obvious reason to doubt the sources cited in this article. Lennart97 (talk) 11:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lennart97:, As you know those citations are not available to be checked out. How can we understand they are exist and correct? Brayan ocaner (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a matter of assuming good faith. Although asking for confirmation of a few of these sources is reasonable, nominating an article for deletion for lack of online sources is not. Lennart97 (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lennart97: so by assuming good faith, we should consider everybody's claims for this type citations, as reliable sources! Also because of lacks of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, I concluded tgat the film is not notable. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that Geschichte is an experienced admin? You're lack of WP:AGF is disappointing, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some links to reliable sources coverage here, here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple sources cited in article, as well as additional ones found by Atlantic306. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The general gist with RS is that the source must be reliable, must discuss the topic/film in some depth, must be independent of the topic, and there must be enough information so that people can verify the information if they wanted to pursue this. The source doesn't have to be online. I say this as someone who has made this same mistake before when I started editing: I came across an article (a draft at the time) that lacked online sources and was certain that they weren't usable. I was absolutely wrong in that situation and got an education on sourcing that day.
Now it has happened that some articles were created based on misinterpreted and even outright fake sources. The Chaneyverse is an infamous example of just that situation. However this is not that type of situation - there's enough out there online to show that the film was made, did well, and received coverage. This gives off the impression that more coverage exists that isn't online, which is highly likely given the time period in which it was released, as not every media outlet put their content online and kept it online. It wasn't uncommon for outlets to take stories down and archive them in order to save on server space or similar. This makes it extremely likely that the sources listed here are genuine and not fake. This doesn't give off the signs of a hoax, so AGF should come into play here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:G5 as unambiguous advertising. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UNO (mobile game)[edit]

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

This game appears to fail WP:GNG. It was rejected at AfC but rather than improve the article, the creator simply did an end run around it and moved the article to mainspace themselves. However, the only mentions I can find of Uno Mobile are just glorified press releases and any reviews or substantive coverage are lacking. The article has been refbomb'd with sources but most are simply announcements/press releases. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justice League (band)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND; filtering out Justice League-related results to the best of my ability, I can find no significant coverage of this group or any other indication of notability. (One member went on to play in some notable bands, but that doesn't make this one notable.) Lennart97 (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Ah...the straight edge hardcore scene. Never was my cup of a tea (I was on the opposite side of the spectrum lifestyle wise ) but, despite my due diligence, I don't see how the coverage I could find and that others presented significantly covers the subject enough to where I'm convinced they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not even close. No significant coverage anywhere. I appreciate that this was probably a real band that tried real hard to make a mark, but there's no evidence of notability that I found after searching. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ferry (footballer)[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. If people want to discuss a redirect or merge, that doesn't require AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles–Falcons rivalry[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY as there is very little evidence of a rivalry between these two teams. A WP:BEFORE search of Eagles Falcons rivalry shows very few relevant hits; most are affiliated with one of the teams (such as the two “Falcoholic” blogs referenced in the article). I could only find one reliable secondary source (this AP article) but this is not close to enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Frank Anchor 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment, this may actually be a notable rivalry, as my search brought up the following: Eagles-Falcons building fierce rivalry from The Daily Tribune; Falcons renew rivalry against Eagles tonight from The Atlanta Constitution; A bitter rivalry? Falcons, Eagles just warming up from Chicago Tribune; and Falcons outlast Eagles to continue rivalry from South Idaho Press. I'm currently neutral on this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This from Sports Illustrated also calls it a "rivalry". BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The SI article does NOT call the Eagles and Falcons rivals (while only using the term “rivals” to describe the Eagles’ division rivals). I came across this source during my WP:BEFORE research and discounted it for that reason. It only says the Eagles and Falcons have a “history” with each other, which can be said of literally any pair of teams. Frank Anchor 22:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see the subtitle say, "Here are six things to know about Eagles openers and the rivalry with the Falcons". BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I apologize, I should have been more clear, I meant the body of the article. A lot of news articles artificially use terms like “rivalry” in their title to manufacture hype without backing it up in the body of the article, and I think that is the case here. To address some of your other concerns, the Daily Tribune article was pulled from the AP and is the same one I referenced. Atlanta Constitution is WP:LOCAL and the South Idaho Press article also uses rivalry in the title without mentioning much about a rivalry in the body of the article. All in all, not enough to satisfy GNG. Frank Anchor 23:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wondering. Are we too strict in our scrutiny of NFL rivalries? These sorts of articles are quite interesting and useful. Cbl62 (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if anything we are too lenient. A lot of these articles have popped up just because there are one or two blogs or articles that refer to a set of teams as “rivals.” Being “interesting” or “useful” are not justifications for inclusion here. Frank Anchor 13:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying, but there is coverage of this as a rivalry, and we shouldn't reject the notion that "useful" and "interesting" are valuable features for an encyclopedia. Also, if the articles are well written and maintained on a current basis with good sourcing from reliable, independent sources, what harm does an article like this cause? Cbl62 (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, Don't forget about WP:HARMLESS. Just because an article isn't hurting anyone, it's not a valid reason for keeping. Spf121188 (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. My comments simply reflect my uncertainty on this one and a feeling that we are sometimes overly aggressive in deleting valid rivalry articles. Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Cbl62, understood! Like I said below, this one is a tough call, and it's difficult not to come to the WP:HARMLESS conclusion. I'm guilty of that myself pretty often. Spf121188 (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, there are not enough reliable independent sources to pass GNG as explained in my nom and previous arguments. Frank Anchor 19:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There needs to be some more meat on the bones for sure, but enough references (including those mentioned here in the AFD) to save this article, IMO. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to National Football League rivalries. Don't think this satisfies WP:GNG for it's own article in mainspace, but there are enough games between the teams historically to redirect, plus redirects are cheap. Spf121188 (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't quite get off the fence, but "redirect" does not seem like a solution. If it's a real NFL rivalry, then a redirect has little to no value. If it's not a real rivalry, then delete would be more appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cbl62, Can I ask why you think a redirect would be of little value? I was only suggesting it because redirects are WP:CHEAP, and it's at the very least, a compromise. Spf121188 (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. My thinking is this: The NFL is the tippy-top of the American football world. If there is a true rivalry between two NFL franchises, it warrants a stand-alone article that recounts the history. National Football League rivalries is essentially a summary, and every entry on that list links to the corresponding stand-alone article on the rivalry. If it is not a true rivalry, then deletion seems to be the right result. Sometimes compromises are good, but I think not in this case. We need to make the hard decision. Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I can understand that POV. I didn't notice before that the page links every summary to the corresponding article. This one is tricky IMO. I just don't see quite enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but I'll let an admin determine that :) Spf121188 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am satisfied that the sources, including the ones mentioned in this AfD, that this satisfies the criteria for a notable rivalry. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that the discussion is leaning towards keep, but only very slightly. The other topic of discussion seems to be if this is redirected, where would it be redirected to appropriately.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, snood1205 21:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "that there's a history of meeting between both teams that have been regularly by RSes" is the definition of WP:ROUTINE coverage, and this alone is not sufficient for a Wikipedia page. Frank Anchor 14:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Barbarians (band). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Moulton[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 20:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely unsourced now. He has an Allmusic page - https://www.allmusic.com/artist/victor-moulton-mn0001793486/biography - and some other sources exist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghmyrtle: No. It is a profile. Either created by him, in part by him, or the record company man. Either way it a very poor reference. All profiles are created in the manner. It is very poor. scope_creepTalk 00:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle: I see your updating it. I'll leave it a few days until your finished, then I'll check your references. scope_creepTalk 00:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to accept that Allmusic is not the best possible source, but there's no basis for saying it's "very poor" or assuming anything about its author, and the claim that the article is unsourced is now untrue. Deleting articles over the holiday period is not generally a good idea, but I'll get back to it when I can. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Victor Moulton, better-known in rock circles and to record collectors as the legendary Moulty of the Barbarians, is an enigmatic figure whose appearance on the Nuggets vinyl and CD compilations only added to his mystique," when describing the drummer of a marginally notable band which topped out at #55 on the Top 100 over half a century ago, is the sort of fawning that's the reason so many editors are down on Allmusic as a reliable source. (And with that, the holiday period is not one whit less valid for proposing deletions as any other.) Ravenswing 23:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krishn Charan[edit]

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

Chess players are normally given articles only if they have international titles, FIDE arena titles for online play are not inherently notable. Quale (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chess players come to FIDE Online Arena for the official FIDE-recognised international ratings and titles. AGM is an international title. It is an internationally notable title provided by FIDE. AGM is the HIGHEST and most notable international title in FIDE Online Arena. Many top chess players play in FIDE Online Arena to achieve titles. AGM title can be obtained by winning against many high rated players. It is not easy for everyone to get titles like AGM from FIDE Online Arena. Only the best of the chess players can get AGM title. Arena titles are visible in FIDE profile. AGM title held by any coach and a player is a significant fact of the professional excellence in chess career. In this pandemic of COVID-19, FIDE Online Arena platform helped the chess players hugely around the world as they were unable to travel worldwide to play the chess tournaments. So, FIDE Online Arena platform has scored above OTB in this situation. It also saves huge time and money. Reference: www.chessarena.com Speedyking5 (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability as a chess player or a coach; fails WP:NCHESS and WP:GNG. Note the article uses phrases such as "represented" and "played in," he does not appear to have won any significant tournaments.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Krishn Charan is a notable chess player and coach. He has played for India in Asian Junior Chess Championship 2016. He also played for India in Commonwealth Chess Championship 2018. In these prestigious tournaments, everyone cannot participate. Only the best and selected players of the country can participate. AGM is the HIGHEST and most notable international title in FIDE Online Arena. AGM title held by any coach and a player is a significant fact of the professional excellence in chess career. Reference: www.krishncharan.com shows the huge achievements of the students of Krishn Charan as a notable coach, including 1st Position in US Open S-U-1000 in August 2021. Bio-data of Krishn Charan shows his professional excellence as a notable coach and a player in chess career by a young person. Reference: www.krishncharan.com Speedyking5 (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: In December 2021 national rank among active Indian players is 2824, when including inactives it is 14441 (https://ratings.fide.com/profile/25021753). Online chess has been very important during the global pandemic, but there are plenty of online tournaments that offer the opportunity to compete against strong players with over-the-board titles such as International Master. If Krishn becomes notable as a chess player in the future then an article can be created then, but I don't think it's time for this yet. Quale (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Offline/OTB (Over the Board) tournaments held by FIDE has 3 formats – Standard, Rapid and Blitz. FIDE Online Arena has 3 formats – Bullet, Blitz and Rapid. Each format of OTB and FIDE Online Arena has their own rankings. One chess player can have different rankings in the respective formats he has played. Holder of AGM title means that the player is among the top ranking in FIDE Online Arena. Anyone who has an understanding of chess, knows that AGM is the HIGHEST and most notable international title in FIDE Online Arena. Also, serious chess players know that FIDE Online Arena is the OFFICIAL (by FIDE) and most AUTHENTIC platform for online chess which offers opportunity to compete against strong and top players having both FIDE Online Arena and OTB high rankings. Any chess player having AGM title is a notable chess player and any notable chess player can create an article. Reference: www.chessarena.com. Reference: www.krishncharan.com Speedyking5 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at our article on FIDE titles which you linked, it states that Arena titles are intended for players in the lower rating band and that should a player with an arena title gain an over the board FIDE title, this title replaces their arena title. In other words, the title is for a weaker standard than International Master, FIDE Master and even Candidate Master, and we generally do not have articles on players with those titles unless they are notable for some other reason.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least this is an acknowledgement that AGM (Arena Grand Master) title is a NOTABLE TITLE. Notability is due to the achievements. A chess player reaching to the level of playing in Asian Chess Championship, Commonwealth Chess Championship and having AGM title (out of about 395 AGM title holders in the world) has achieved BIG which gains notability in society to world level. Now, ignoring achievements, references of a chess player and taking discussion to the wrong direction by discussing lower or higher titles clearly shows unnecessary, unhealthy, deliberate, prejudiced and unethical attitude towards the achievements of a chess player or FIDE Online Arena platform or FIDE or all of them. There may be some vested interests in it by putting and pushing these types of misleading arguments. What will anyone lose by this article? and who and what will gain by deleting this article? Reference: www.krishncharan.com, https://chessarena.com/, https://web.archive.org/web/20190228142636/https://arena.myfide.net/ratings-and-titles/titled-players/ Speedyking5 (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Just going to point out that Draft:Krishn Charan also exists, but it was never submitted for review and it wasn't WP:MOVEd to the mainspace. So, if the consenus turns out to be that this article is kept, the draft probably would need to be redirected to the article. On the other hand, if the consensus turns out to be delete or even WP:DRAFTIFY, then perhaps the creator can continue to try improving the draft and submit for review via WP:AFC at a later date when they feel they've addressed the concerns being raised above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to FIDE, his standard rating is 1327, rapid is 1374, and blitz is 1413.[9] CM title is at 2100, FM title is at 2300. His world rank is #293,854. In theory, someone who can keep a 2000 online rating for 50/100/150 rapid, blitz, and bullet games ought to be able to do the same IRL in standard chess so perhaps a CM title or FM title is in the future for him (which would supercede the kids' table AGM title were he to do that). But per WP:CRYSTAL we should wait on the article until that happens. BBQboffin (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vasu Kanojiya[edit]

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

Amateur footballer with only passing mentions in the media. He hasn't even come close to playing at the level required by WP:NFOOTBALL and comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you would consider this or guide me for further improvement rather than deletion of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shubhamkushwaha269 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment was left on the talk page, but I moved it here as it seemed a more appropriate location) snood1205 16:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The comments do not address GNG or NFOOTBALL so my vote remains the same (delete). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Hero Santosh Trophy 2021-22 (75th Edition)". Retrieved 24 December 2021.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston Aerodrome[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage. Should redirect to List of airports in Newfoundland and Labrador#Defunct airports. MB 19:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MB 19:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. MB 19:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot seem to find anything about this airport almost anywhere on the internet. Looking through the cited CFS, I cannot find reference to that airport, but it's possible there's an appendix that I missed or something. Even so, just being listed in the CFS as a defunct airport does not confer notability. There is a reference to a "Livingston Aerodrome" in a newspaper from 1932, but it appears to be a different one that is in Australia. snood1205 19:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with the other ridiculous one sentence stubs on abandoned airports created by the same user with garbage sourcing, such as Twin Falls Aerodrome, Buchans Airport, Davis Inlet Aerodrome, Michelin Falls Aerodrome, and Menihek Aerodrome. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, unreferenced defunct aerodrome. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many years ago it was acceptable to create airports in the same way that railway stations were (are) created. As long as the airport existed at the time it was OK to have an article. However, there was never any intention to create defunct aerodromes unless they were actually notable, see Croydon Airport. This one isn't. I have the current Canada Flight Supplement. Of the five listed by Trainsandotherthings only Davis Inlet appears in the "List of Abandoned Aerodromes/Heliports". As for Livingston it does appear in the list but it's in Yukon. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to RejctX. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Masi Wali[edit]

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

Only a single significant role, in RejctX. Meets neither GNG or NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 15:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous undo of redirect and removal of AfD template suggests that a soft deletion would not stick, so relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect back to RejctX as an alternative to deletion. I agree that the single significant role isn't sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR, and my searches find only trivial mentions in news coverage of RejctX. If he appears in other noteworthy roles or otherwise attracts significant coverage, recreation can be considered; until then, notability doesn't seem to be established. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Johnson Woodruff[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO, WP:BIO and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Full of press-releases and sps sources to support framework with no real encyclopedic content. scope_creepTalk 18:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: It would be nice if there was two or three of them, but she doesn't seem still to be alive, although I'm not sure? scope_creepTalk 11:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Her law firm website profile indicates she is alive [10], but the mix of primary sources, press releases, brief mentions and brief burst of coverage related to her legislative advocacy, e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14], do not appear sufficient to support WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or any other form of notability pursuant to our guidelines. I have also not found evidence that her legislative proposal was successful, or independent secondary coverage of the Woodruff Ensley Foundation. In my review of the article, it also appears that many claims that might help support WP:BASIC notability are not sourced or supported by the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks independent, in-depth coverage supporting that WP:ANYBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability.Brayan ocaner (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aasim[edit]

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

A search shows that this article fails WP:NMUSIC. Cannot find anything related to awards or billboard hits, and the sources used are not the most reliable. The BBC mention in the references (which is the only reliable source) is plainly a trivial mention of this artist.

Even if this person is notable, this fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as the title that is being used here most commonly refers to the Arabic name Asem, of which this is just one alternate spelling. (If you look at my signature you can understand as well.) So either this article must go and redirect to Asem or this article gets moved to Aasim (rapper) or Leroy Watson (rapper) and this title redirects to Asem. This extra bit of text before my signature is so the XfD does not look awkward with all the "Aasim"s being thrown around. Aasim (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Author Keep The sources aren't unreliable, and awards or billboard hits are only two possible paths to notability. Most of the problems the nominator identifies can be solved with a hatnote or piping, rather than deletion. Chubbles (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The Puff Daddy/Diddy/PDiddy name drop is about all that's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are a crowdsourced database, a blog, and a bare namecheck. If that's all there is, this person isn't notable. —valereee (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no crowdsourced databases in the reference list. I'm concerned that !voting editors in this AfD are not looking very closely at the matter. Chubbles (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Bashir[edit]

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

There's no evidence of notability of subject. He is notable for his film that has a Wikipedia page. In my opinion it's better to be redirected to Izzat (2005 film) Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. Withdrawn by nom without any other "delete" !votes. Randykitty (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Investing[edit]

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

No sources are cited. Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The important thing is whether sources exist, not whether they are listed. The article itself does not indicate anything that would indicate any notability, but that is reason for expansion, not deletion. Does your comment mean that you are withdrawing the nom? If yes, I'll close this AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randykitty, well first off, the page lacks indication of notability like you said and does not appear to be useful within the articlespace at this time, in my opinion. The only external source in the page, which is the purported official website, shows a 404 error. And the ISSN indexing, the only functioning hyperlink, just lists the tile, genre and format of the journal, but it should not be the only evidence of notability. I still believe it requires possible deletion, and so the deletion nom. should remain to get input from more users. Multi7001 (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you wish, but deletion is not going to happen. What counts is not the (sorry) state that the article is in, but what it could be. We can spend our time better on improving the article (because it can be improved) than on having this useless discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randykitty, the page looks more appropriate, given that a user has added references. I agree that the page should remain and be improved further. Please close the AfD discussion, I have withdrawn the nom per the new edits. Multi7001 (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Randell[edit]

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

Contested draftspace move. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from participation in multiple bands. No significant coverage can be found for this artist. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Effectively unsourced. The editor who created this seems to be history of creating article without references, and fighting to keep them in mainspace. scope_creepTalk 20:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom; unsourced and no real indication of passing WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Moved to draft for development and quickly restored to main without improvement. Eagleash (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, effectively unsourced. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. With no references, does not pass general notability or musical notability. As noted, this article was moved to draft space and then was move-warred back to article space, which is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He was indeed a member of two notable bands, but his histories in those bands can be described at each of their articles. None of his activities outside of those two bands gained any coverage, so as a solo performer he is not notable under the various Wikipedia requirements cited by the previous voters. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 18:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Douyin original programming[edit]

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

This appears to just be a list of videos uploaded by users to TikTok, but there's nothing inherently notable about them. Singularity42 (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page that was created by the same author that appears to have the same issue:

List of Kuaishou original programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I also note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bilibili original programming may appear to be a related AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge Douyin list to TikTok, merge Kuaishou list to Kuaishou These are not series uploaded by Douyin/Kuaishou users, but longform shows that Douyin/Kuaishou have a hand in creating (similar to List of Facebook Watch original programming). However, the lists are not that long so they could be merged to the parent article, though I'm not sure how it can be fit into Tiktok, given it mostly discusses the overseas version and not the mainland China one. If no good way of merging can be found for the Douyin, I would be inclined to keep the list instead. Jumpytoo Talk 21:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on WP:NLIST, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This criteria is met here in Chinese coverage, including an article from last month discussing statistics and characteristics of Douyin's originals in Jiemian, a modestly respected tech news startup (link) and an article specifically talking about the competition between Kuaishou and Douyin on originals in the Beijing Daily from September (link). These and other examples mirror the English coverage seen in e.g. Netflix Originals — not only are individual shows subject to media attention but also are the broader business and content strategy the respective tech giants adopt when it comes to these productions. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've added an additional non-primary source for one of the shows demonstrating notability and will do so for additional ones in the following days. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RobOps[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEO. If anything, this is a thinly-veiled advertisement for a conference slated for 2022. I don't see enough coverage of this concept to pass WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2014-1870
  2. ^ https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ROBOPS-Approaching-a-Holistic-and-Unified-Interface-Jaekel-Brunner/e5e14263571cb7b03c198e2c8436bf49fc2cd9e3
  3. ^ https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2016-2474
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing South Indian films[edit]

List of highest-grossing South Indian films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While Cinema of South India is recognized as an entity in some form, this list appears to be a WP:CFORK of List of highest-grossing Indian films and/or the respective language cinema articles. There is little need to maintain a distinct article for a set of four languages as the content is/can be covered in the aforementioned pages. More lists mean less editorial oversight and more prone to disruptions. Ab207 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Ab207 (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It would be helpful if the sources mentioned by User:Goldsztajn were incorporated into the article, but this is not required for keeping. RL0919 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Countryside Party (UK)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazatteer of political parties. No proof of notability. No evidence of lasting impact, notable results, or notable third party press coverage. No evidence of notable, newsworthy coverage during elections. No proof of importance, if any exists. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nothing has changed since nominator previously unsuccessfully nominated this article for deletion as part of his continuing campaign to delete all minor parties from Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin This is a personal attack that falls short of CIVIL and AGF and does not address the AFD. You may be minded to disregard this unconstructive, unhelpful edit doktorb wordsdeeds
      • Emeraude made a valid constructive criticism. They didn't engage in any sort of personal attack (in fact please point out the specific phrase that you interpret as an attack). This is quite a manipulative comment, and a long-standing editor such as yourself should know better. Curbon7 (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nomination contains no argument how circumstances have changed since last AfD. No evidence of an adequate BEFORE. 42,000+ votes in the UK 2004 EU election.[1] Party discussed in various sources.[2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ "European Election: United Kingdom Result". BBC. 14 June 2004.
  2. ^ Woods, M (2015). "Explaining Rural Protest: A Comparative Analysis". In Strijker, Dirk; Voerman, Gerrit; Terluin, Ida J. (eds.). Rural protest groups and populist political parties. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers. p. 47. ISBN 9789086868070.
  3. ^ "Hunt lobby scents blood at election". the Guardian. 18 June 2000.
  4. ^ Woods, Michael (January 2002). "Was there a rural rebellion? Labour and the countryside vote in the 2001 general election". British Elections & Parties Review. 12 (1): 226. doi:10.1080/13689880208413078.
  5. ^ Kavanagh, David (2006). A country pillow book. Dram Books. p. 129. ISBN 9780954856717.
  6. ^ "Revive Countryside Party to oppose wind farms says councillor". Northern Times. 26 November 2012.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to SAFF U-15 Women's Championship. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 SAFF U-16 Women's Championship[edit]

2021 SAFF U-16 Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In this edit, a PROD was added claiming that the tournament was cancelled but this was later removed by another IP with no explanation. This Goal.com reference is only a passing mention and, considering that this tournament was supposed to have happened 4 months ago, I can't find any mention of it all anywhere. Perhaps someone with better searching skills than me will have better luck but I have tried many search terms and I can't find one single news source or match report relating to this tournament. If it did get cancelled as the IP editor suggested, I can't even find a news source about the cancellation! If no news coverage can be found, my strong suggestion is to delete the article for failing WP:V, WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nigej. Looks like the IP that put the PROD on was correct after all. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for this to be redirected per above comments Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anouk Geurts[edit]

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

Per WP:NOLY, the subject of an article is presumed notable if they have won a medal at the olympic games; however, Anouk Geurts only participated in the 2020 olympics, but did not win a medal and finished 14th in her event. Per previous standards, anyone who participated in the olympics were considered notable, but this changed after a recent RfC. I can find no coverage of her being particularly notable within sailing and I don't see wider WP:SNGs are satisfied. Coverage is routine and the article of low quality. StickyWicket (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Ah, a revenge AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Dewé, haven't had one of these in a while. Anyway, did you even try a WP:BEFORE search? E.g. Google News[15] wheer the first 9 sources are directly about her (even with her name in the title of the article), with reports beyond her Olympic results (e.g. this about her World Championship results, this 4 minute video introduction of her from "Sportweekend", the sunday evening prime time sports show on the largest Belgian TV channel, Newspaper articles about the Wc competition). She is part of the Belgian Sailing Hall of Fame[16] as winner of both the young sailor of the year (individually in 2016) and as part of the (2 person) team of the year in 2019. Fram (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad-faith nomination of clearly notable athlete with plenty of significant coverage as noted above. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dewé[edit]

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

No reliable, independent indepth sources to establish that this player meets WP:GNG. Sources are either statistics databases, educational institutions about their alumni, or very short mentions in the London Gazette. Actual independent sources giving some real attention to this cricket player seem to be missing, which means that while he meets the low standards of WP:NCRIC (played two first class games for the University cricket team), he fails the standard which these cricket rules try to codify, i.e. actually meeting the WP:GNG. Also no evidence of notability as an educator or as an officer. Fram (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A bad faith nomination from a user with a personal agenda against several members of the cricket project. StickyWicket (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets CRIN and wider GNG established by his career in education. All sources are independent and reliable. StickyWicket (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that his "career in education" is only established through sources from the school and the University he attended. To be precise, the Marlborough source has this to say about his educational career: "Asst. Master Stancliffe Hall, Matlock". The "Alumni" source gives similar terse entries for his functions as assistant master and later joint head ùaster in some schools. How is this supposed to show meeting the GNG? Fram (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Let's go through the sources:
  • Marlborough College register from 1843 to 1904 inclusive. With alphabetical index - There is no Charles Dewe on p.185 of this. A keyword search for "Dewe" brings up no hits that that are obviously connected to Charles Dewe. I'm sure he's in here somewhere, but not at the location he was supposed to be at. Even if he were, this is a register of every student who entered this school, so does it really indicate notability? Since it was published by Marlborough college, is it independent? EDIT: seems the actual listing is on page 510, but it's not WP:SIGCOV and does not mention a cricketing career.
  • Alumni cantabrigienses; a biographical list of all known students, graduates and holders of office at the University of Cambridge, from the earliest times to 1900 - There is a listing for Charles Douglas Eyre Dewe here, but I do not see any mention of a cricket career here. Instead he seems to have been a worthy (but not notable) educator and military officer. Again, as the title say, this is a book listing everyone who studied, graduated, or was taught at Cambridge up until 1900, so does it really indicate notability? Since it was published by Cambridge, is it independent?
  • cricketarchive - statistical database. Clicking on it and pressing escape before it redirects allows me to read the entry. This appears to be a "database source[] with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion" and so excluded per WP:NSPORT.
  • The London Gazette - these are merely commissioning/promotion notices and do not constitute WP:SIGCOV.
I'm open to this guy having a WP:BASIC pass somewhere, but not with the sources presently provided in the article. FOARP (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with FOARP. This article and its non-cricket sources fail my "grandfather" test. Could I write such an article with similar sources about my grandfather? The answer is yes. He was university educated and a school teacher and served on the Western front and was an officer. Is he notable enough for us? No, nowhere near. Nigej (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Between the combination of his cricketing career and education/military life I think there is just enough for a keep here, although not by much. I'd like to see a bit more, but as always with players from this era finding online sources can be difficult. At worse it should be redirected to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players as a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players - Throwing together a bunch of things that don’t actually indicate notability doesn’t get you to notability. FOARP (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players - Still nothing to indicate anything approaching notability. Nigej (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players no significant coverage --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players per above. Regardless of the dishwater weak provisions of NCRIC (which the cricket project's been stonewalling against improvements for years), there's just no significant coverage of the subject; what exists are casual mentions and namedrops in non-independent sources, and no NSPORTS criterion supersedes the GNG. That finding sources from a century back is hard may be true, but the answer there is not that the provisions of WP:V and the GNG are thereby suspended. 0+0+0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 07:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The cricket project just so happened to agree to improvements, but if disruptive users decide to move the goalposts that's hardly our problem. StickyWicket (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Riiiiiight. They agreed, after several years of intermittent discussion, to drop Regional Finals from the criteria. That we're seeing so many cricket articles with zero SIGCOV suggests that was inadequate. Ravenswing 02:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the number of competitions and leagues that were removed from being notable in the guidelines, this is quite a erroneous comment. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given examining the guideline a year ago and the one today, it's not anything of the sort. Ravenswing 19:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thousands of players who would have been notable under the previous guideline, are now no longer notable. I'd say that's an improvement. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per A7. XOR'easter (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mohammad Rehan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE, seems like a test edit Pathworkzerone (talk) 10:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NGX Storage[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY Pathworkzerone (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid K. Parekh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Pridemanty (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old Milwaukee East Colonia, Texas[edit]

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

While I'm not particularly familiar with colonias, I'm not finding anything that would support notability here. Searching for the exact English string is only bringing auto-generated items, likely created due to this article and its inclusion in GNIS. I tried using Google translate to produce a Spanish translation and searched with that name, but couldn't find anything useful, either. I'm suspecting this may not be a proper name for this colonia that is actually in use.

Also included in this nomination is:

Old Milwaukee West Colonia, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hog Farm Talk 08:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand national under-17 football team results[edit]

Thailand national under-17 football team results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the same reasons as at the the Bhutan AfD as well as almost 10 other active AfDs that are similar. This does violate WP:NOTSTATS and coverage from RSSSF, ASEAN Football and AFC is stats-only and therefore not significant. List does not meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG and under-17 football is not inherently notable (i.e. playing at under-17 level does not guarantee you an article, due to youth football getting hardly any coverage compared to senior level). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron, South Carolina[edit]

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

The article includes GNIS as a source, but I can't seem to find a Aaron in Anderson County, SC in GNIS. Name doesn't seem to appear on small-scale topos, and searching is difficult for obvious reasons, with the fact that "Aaron Anderson" being a name making things worse. I turned up a single passing mention to Aaron from a 1902 newspaper source, but I'm not finding enough to support an article on this topic. Hog Farm Talk 08:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Llysse Smith Wylle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.

NOTE: The subject's real name is Lissa Lucas. Lucas is also an author under her real name and fails WP:NAUTHOR. She ran for political office in West Virginia and was "outed" by right wing media as being pagan. Her big claim to WP:1EVENT fame is being removed from a public hearing at the West Virginia House of Delgates and she was covered in national media.[17][18] She also fails WP:NPOLITICIAN.

Anyway, that's that. I don't believe this subject, either as Llysse Smith Wylle or Lissa Lucas merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Missvain (talk) 06:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The sources found by Fieari failed to convince the other two participants in this debate. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space Capone[edit]

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

Article is heavily WP:REFBOMBed with passing mentions of individual performances. While he did release one album on Average Joes Entertainment, it seemed to get no coverage. Extensive searching turned up only social media, music sales sites, and promotional fluff. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A google news search comes up with a number of articles mentioning them, not sure if these are reliable sources however. I'll just leave them here and let those more familiar with musician notability criteria judge. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] - Some of these look like coverage to me, but again, I'm not really all that familiar with musician notability requirements or what counts as reliable sources for the scene. If it would help, you can count this as a !vote of Keep, but feel free to ignore it if arguments are made to shoot these sources down. Fieari (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Cannon Reed[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. Via WP:BEFORE I checked the usual suspects of online sourcing as well as my newspapers.com subscription - nothing. She has written many books, but, is not as "widely known" as promoted in this obituary-like article.

Thank you for assuming good faith on this nomination. Missvain (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Solar Loan Programme[edit]

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

A 4-year loan program of United Nations Environment Programme. Won some awards. I don't think it as a notable programme when UNEP funds many programs every year. It can be deleted after a two sentences summary dropped in UNEP article. I don't think redirect is useful either. The article looks like an essay with half of it unreferenced. Nizil (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Lipp[edit]

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

Author with my books under her belt but I was unable to find how she passes WP:NAUTHOR during my WP:BEFORE. It seems the thing she is best known of, aside from passing mentions regarding her Neo-Pagan work, is a WP:1EVENT that happened when she was 16 when she refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom.[25].

I did find one decent newspaper article about her, but, it isn't enough to establish WP:GNG.

Hoping others can prove me wrong. Thank you for assuming good faith in this discussion. Missvain (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b - See my comment above. Missvain (talk) 01:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sirona Knight[edit]

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

Despite my best efforts WP:BEFORE I can't find any reliable secondary sourcing that covers the subject or her work extensively. Yes, she's published a lot of books, but, she fails WP:NAUTHOR and N:ACADEMIC - even WP:GNG.

Hopefully others can prove me wrong! Missvain (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing of significance on GS. I can't find any book reviews to pass WP:Author: maybe somebody else can. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I found a Publishers Weekly review of The Cyber Spellbook: Magick in the Virtual World , and at the Wikipedia Library, a 3-sentence bio published in 2000 by Baker & Taylor Author Biographies, a Publishers Weekly blurb review (Vol. 247, Issue 39, 2000) of Dream Magic: Night Spells and Rituals for Love, Prosperity, and Personal Power, mentions by Publishers Weekly of Celtic Druidism and A Witch Like Me (2001), a mention of Wiccan Spell a Day: 365 Spells, Charms, and Potions for the Whole Year in a Publishers Weekly article about the New Age publishing industry (Vol. 250, Issue 35, 2003), a blurb review in Publishers Weekly (Vol. 248, Issue 12, 2001) of Exploring Celtic Druidism: Ancient Magick and Rituals for Personal Empowerment, a listing of Empowering Your Life with Dreams in The Bookseller's (Issue 5118, 2004) Publications of the Week. On ProQuest, I found a 2001 article in The Arizona Republic ("BE(WITCH) MY VALENTINE 'MAGICK' BOOKS HELP YOU PUT LOVER UNDER A SPELL") that describes her as "an expert on Celtic shamanism, magick, witchcraft and the Goddess" and noting she published Dream Magic, with a few quotes from her, and a brief mention in a 2009 article from The Spokesman Review (BEYOND THE VEIL; At a Methow Valley festival, song, dance and teaching are tools for blurring the line between human, fairy realms) of her book The Complete Idiot's Guide to Elves and Fairies. Without more, I don't think this is enough to support WP:AUTHOR notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your hard work. As there is nothing in-depth, I agree that passing mentions in trade journals (which exist to sell product) are not enough to support WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Cheers, and I agree delete is appropriate at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics. Daniel (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Barasinski[edit]

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

Per WP:NOLY, the subject of an article is presumed notable if they have won a medal at the olympic games; however, Jacqueline Barasinski only participated in the olympics, but did not win a medal. Per previous standards, anyone who participated in the olympics were considered notable, but this changed after a recent RfC. I can find no coverage of her being particularly notable within luge and I don't see and WP:SNGs for Luge. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 03:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or redirect to Luge at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Women's singles. And THIS is why you don’t go through a database and create tens of thousands of one-sentence bare technical passes of an SNG based on it, that would have to be deleted/redirected as soon as standards became even slightly more strict. Do we even know if the death date here is accurate? Because that could simply be someone with the same name - nothing says they were the Olympian and I’ve seen other cases where the death date in Olympedia was wrong. Also there’s only one real source here as sports-reference.com and Olympedia are essentially the same. EDIT: if kept Move to Jacqueline Bonizzardi per Fram’s new source. A real article would have referred to Mme. Bonizzardi by the actual name she was notable under. I don’t think this justifies the existence of the article in its present form, though, and we need multiple instances of significant coverage to actually keep. FOARP (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very week keep. Poor article, good nomination, but the death notice gave a new angle to search, and according to this, the deceased not only is the same as the Olympian, but she was also the 1965 world champion. However, even with that information, I couldn't find anything else: but it does increase the chances that there are offline sources about her. Fram (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems Lugnuts isn't the only one to create 'poor articles' on Olympic athletes... people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. StickyWicket (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, this article was created by Lugnuts (which is probably why it's the target for AfD). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely why, infact one of the users voting here has a dodgy list of olympic athletes under their belt themselves. They've just nominated an article of mine, which I can safely assume is a tit-for-tat bad faith nomination based on my comment here. StickyWicket (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
StickyWicket - Here's what happens if you have a good DELREASON to delete bad articles and go ahead and do so: they get deleted. Beyond it being WP:POINTy to do so, I don't care if FRAM has also written bad articles and you nominate them for deletion, because bad articles should be deleted. FOARP (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Dewé? I already tagged that article for multiple problems, including a lack of notability, yesterday, presumably because I knew you would now come here and make a cryptic comment which I didn't even realise you meant to be about me. That will teach me to find a source, and add information here, instead of simply keeping quiet and voting delete. Getting punished (well, an attempt to at least) for not voting delete on an article of an editor you are trying to defend is simply weird. Fram (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eshraghanimation Co[edit]

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

WP:GNG. Promotional. Ladsgroupoverleg 02:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Cobb (Musician)[edit]

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

Fails a before search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete none of these sources is independent+reliable+provides sigcov. —valereee (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Mother Was Murdered by a Suicide Bomber[edit]

My Mother Was Murdered by a Suicide Bomber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is unreferenced and I couldn't find at least one review. Non-notable film. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurakisora Dasa Babaji[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC as well as WP:ANYBIO due to lack of notable work. No assertion of notability. Can't find independent source supporting notability for this religious teacher. Being a disciple or a teacher of someone does not make a person notable. Sources associated with Bhaktivedanta or Hare Krishnas or ISKCON universe are related to the subject and not independent.

Venkat TL (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep: Have you been able to read the pages of the books cited in the article? Oxford and Chicago University Presses are certainly going to be independent; so if these pages really cover the subject in some depth him, he'll be notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done my WP:BEFORE and that is why it is nominated. OUP book is used as a filler to source a quote about the subject's disciple, not about the subject. Dont make presumptions and assumptions of notability. Do your own due diligence and then comment. Venkat TL (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am surprised at the defensiveness: AfD is just a forum where we exchange ideas about notability. As it happens, I have institutional access to the books mentioned. I can confirm that pages 77, 78, and 90 of the Oxford UP bookcover the subject. (The source refers to him as Gaura Kisora.) In the Chicago UP book, not only the pages cited, but also pp. 53-7 cover him. What's more, footnote 60 in the Oxford UP book points you to more coverage of him. I conclude that he meets WP:GNG and will change my comment to keep. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CUP book is available on Google and it does not inspire any confidence in notability . Neither does make any claims/assertion of notability. Mentions him as a religious teacher which is not sufficient. Venkat TL (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether we are talking about the same concept. What I have in mind is WP:GNG: if the subject was covered in some depth by two reliable sources independent of the subject, it will be considered notable. The OUP book covers him in some detail on several pages and refers you to several treatments about his life. The Chicago book covers him in good depth sarting on page 53 and talks you through his life, beginning with his family background and education. These two are enough for any subject. I don't know what you think 'claims of notability' are. They are not mentioned at WP:GNG, so I will not be able to offer much on that part of your argument. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an analogy. If a book is written about a political party, it is only natural that the book will mention and describe a bunch of party members. According to you, all these party members named will be notable by virtue of their mention in this book. WP:NPOL be damned. A few members may be notable, but not everyone who gets mentioned in the book. Venkat TL (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In addition to the sources Modussiccandi mentions, there is
→ June McDaniel (1992). "Mysticism, Madness and Ecstasy". In Steven J. Rosen (ed.). Vaisnavism. New York: Folk Books. p. 292. ISBN 9788120812352.
In all, this is sufficient to establish notability. Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes GNG on the basis of the sources produced by Modussiccandi and Alexbrn. Ingratis (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that all the 3 sources linked above are works about this cult. The cult is notable. All its cult members are not notable, which is what the keep votes are claiming. A book on the cult is expected to mention cult members. About Rosen, from what is visible it only has 2 paras. --Venkat TL (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Izzat Dajani[edit]

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

Please check out notability of subject.Macborano (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MerliSter:, Could you please explain more about that? Content of article was covered by the reliable sources also by a Google search you can find significant coverage about subject in English and Arabic. Brayan ocaner (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, I voted in this discussion inaccuracy and the comment was for another discussion. MerliSter (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 16:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep serving in several notable international positions in notable Banks and finance departments and founding member of a notable company; passes WP:GNG. Accidentally, the article was translated to Persian Wikipedia by me, during translating the Arab business people categories to Persian Wikipedia. Brayan ocaner (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By the references in article, she Meets WP:GNG. Ginbopewz (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the sources provided in article are sufficient to establish that significant coverage exists. NatalieRci (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rowing at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four. As in the RfC cited by the nominator, consensus here is also that Olympians known only for participating in the games should be covered in appropriate lists rather than in separate articles. Sandstein 10:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis English[edit]

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

Per the recent RFC people who competed in the Olympics are only presumed notable if they won a medal. Francis English competed in the men's coxed four at the 1932 Olympic Games, and his team did not finish in a podium position, so not winning a medal. Whilst for other sports there may be other criteria whereby someone might be notable simply because they competed in the Olympics, rowing is not one of these sports, so having (according to single database-listing) competed in the 1932 Olympic games was the only reason this article was ever thought to be notable, a reason that no longer applies.

Looking at the sources in the article shows only a sports-reference.com database listing (which is certainly not significant coverage) and a link to Olympedia, which is also not significant coverage since it consists only of statistical data taken from sports-reference.com (or the same source as it) and a 38-word biography that was likely sourced at least in part to the family of English and contains nothing that would add notability to the subject. Even if Olympedia is thought to be a reliable source (and this is in a bit of doubt given that is is an amateur project), it is a "database [source] with [a] low, wide-sweeping generic [standard] of inclusion" and so excluded from showing notability. This is therefore a WP:BASIC fail as well.

My WP:BEFORE search on Google Books found only bare mentions of English having competed in a junior double-shells competition. A Newspapers.com search also failed to find any relevant results. Other searches came up similarly dry. I considered turning the page into a redirect to Rowing at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four but there are many other equally non-notable people named Francis English (as my searches showed) and it is not a natural redirect, though I can live with this as a redirect if necessary.

This article (and the many thousands of others just like it) is essentially just a database entry transposed from sports-reference.com directly into Wikipedia in prose form, but Wikipedia is not a database. It took less than 2 minutes for the creator to write this article, and in the ten minutes either side of it the creator made eight other near-identical articles. I think it's time we started fixing this issue.

PS - just in case anyone's wondering, I found this article just by clicking on "random article" twice, which shows just how many of these things there are. FOARP (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Rowing at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four and do the same for the rest of the American team (Grossmiller, Drueding, Marshall), Japanese team (Suzuki, Shibata, Takahashi, Ban) and Brazilian team (Castro, Lima, Pereira, Popovitch). The medal-winning teams and the NZ team are notable enough, at a quick glance. There's little reason for the athletes of these three teams to have their own articles if there is no information about them, and as the nominator said, they are just database entries. Maybe there exists some old books where the lives and accomplishments of these athletes are clearly outlined, but until that book is found they do not meet GNG. I personally believe a redirect is the best solution. That way, people who come to search for Francis English is redirect to his event instead of being encouraged to create a page about him. Kaffe42 (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In that RFC it was mentioned by some that we could have a time period to allow editors to expand these articles, or to have a process by which they can be expanded or otherwise acted upon. I think that's worth discussing separately rather than asking editors to expand as-and-when a particular article has been nominated for deletion (I haven't checked whether this particular article could be expanded, but just mentioning it in general). - Simeon (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, the only way these articles are ever going to get sorted through is via checking notability and AFD'ing the failing ones. It's been two months since the RFC and it's not like anything is being done that would put much of a dent in the many thousands of problematic Olympian articles otherwise. Of course I'm not talking about mass-AFDs at the moment. FOARP (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Nigej. Honestly I think it's worth doing an RSN on Sports-Reference.com at some point. I get the impression that it's assumed to be accurate because the sports stats data matches other data for the eras that we can check, but even if this is true there's more information on there than just sports stats (e.g., the small bios) and its not really clear where it comes from. Here's an example of where the database clearly has an error on it, and doesn't include the name that this guy actually seems to have been known under (assuming these were the same people of course, which is very likely but not 100% certain). FOARP (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing from that story: we used to assume competing in the Olympics was a big thing, even if it was the 1932 games, but the journalist who wrote that story didn't think Frank English worth giving significant coverage to, and didn't even mention that he had already been an Olympian in 1932. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete, per nom, Kaffe42, and Nigej. JoelleJay (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without proper access to contemporary sources, I can see why this was nominated, but I think that the sources here in and off themselves are sufficient to pass WP:N, particularly considering that most reports of the era would have listed him as "F. English", as was the convention at the time, so at lot of reports are likely being missed. As for the suggestion that Olympedia is not a reliable source, it is run by Bill Mallon, who has written two dozen books on Olympic history and received the IOC's Olympic order in silver for his contributions to sport history. The database is even used by the IOC itself. Yes, there are errors, probably more than a few, but most reliable sources have errors. I'm not saying Olympedia is enough in and of itself to keep any article, that is clearly not the case. I'm just saying that there is no question to its status as a reliable source. Canadian Paul 22:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)t rhy sh[reply]
Isn’t the truth that we have only one actual source here (sports-reference.com and Olympedia are the same)? Also the data here has a clear error since this guy was apparently still alive in 1990, casting doubt on the accuracy of the only source we have for him. Bill Malon might be an expert (though the main proof of this comes from the IOC) but is he writing or editing every listing? And if so, why this glaring mistake here? FOARP (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that CNN published premature obituaries in 2003. Errors happen when working with large datasets. WP:RS requires general reliability, not perfection. As for Mallon's expertise, if you don't think that publishing two dozen books and being recognized by the organization in charge of the topic qualifies as expertise, I'm not sure what source would meet your standards. Canadian Paul 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CNN accidentally publishing obits (on the back-end of their website, that they keep in reserve for when the person dies like a lot of news outlets do) doesn’t mean an error here doesn’t cast doubt on the content of this website. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Olympic competition statistics for these old competitors is basically reliable but the biographical stuff is less so, because they ultimately come from different sources. FOARP (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as per Canadian Paul) or Redirect - I don't have any particular enthusiasm for sports stubs but names of Olympians are likely search terms and it's a reasonable reader expectation that they should be look-up-able on Wikipedia one way or another. Ingratis (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that it might be sensible for some of the Olympic events to have articles on the lines of List of rowers at the 1932 Summer Olympics containing the bare biographical details of the rowers. If a rower article only contains minimal details we can redirect the rower article there, and if at some point information comes available that shows that the rower passes WP:N then the article can be created with that new content. In my own area this seems a sensible approach for Golf at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men's individual where the entries were a selection of useful (and a few not-so-useful) middle-class white American male golfers many of who are no more notable than any other middle-class white American man of the time. Nigej (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This would certainly enable a quicker resolution of the issue because (as I understand it) redirecting can be done en masse. However, would this pass WP:LISTN? Can we show that "list of [Sportspeople] at [long-ago Olympic event]" is a pass for that? Probably easier than showing notability for each one though. FOARP (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of this as a second option (and as an alternative to mass AfDs). This makes it easier for editors to build up sources to demonstrate notability and gain consensus for "recreating" the article. Coordination with WP:Olympics could be helpful in this regard. Canadian Paul 19:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't need a separate list article for this. If we're going to do it for all non-medallist rowers, then add a competitors section to Rowing at the 1932 Summer Olympics or the individual event sub-articles, rather than creating a random list article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Rowing at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four RS here doesn't really establish notability, and the article itself doesn't tell us much. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The burden is on those who want to keep the article to show adequate sourcing to pass GNG. I have at least glanced though almost every article in Wikipedia on people born from 1915-1928, and the vast majority of articles in that time frame with only one source, and a large portion of those for whom we have no information at all if the person is alive or dead or where they have been for the 50+ years from the one thing that caused them to be entered into a database somewhere, are on olympians. We decided that merely entering the olympics is not enough to make one notable. We need signficant reliabe source coverage unless someone wins a medal. We do not have that here. We have a suitable redirect target. Let us do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There are good arguments on both sides so closing as "no consensus", but I must note that the "Keep" !votes are slightly stronger. Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maridhas Malaichamy[edit]

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

A non-notable youtuber with no WP:SIGCOV other than routine media coverage for police booking him for implying the Muslim community for the spread of COVID-19[26], for an email-forgery case[27] and for his subsequent arrest.

He has written two self-published books (Why I support Narendra Modi, Why I oppose urban naxals) supporting the ruling BJP and fails WP:AUTHOR. The subject was only known as "youtuber" in nearly all reliable sources and not one source refers to him as an "activist". - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Several unreliable news outlets which report significantly about the subject including Opindia./com(RSP entry), Swarajyamag./com(RSP entry), tfipost./com were blacklisted in Wikipedia over fake news, persistent abuse and doxing several Indian Wiki editors.- SUN EYE 1 04:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - SUN EYE 1 17:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has POV issues and maybe "activist" isn't the best descriptor. But he seems notable. The news coverage I could find isn't WP:ROUTINE. Routine would mean getting arrested for drunk driving and having that reported in a newspaper. This guy seems to have been accused of many serious crimes and has plenty of articles covering said allegations many of which are included in the Wikipedia article right now. The newspapers certainly seem to believe he's important given they're giving coverage of his appeals. [28] In my experience newspapers don't care about the ultimate outcome of cases unless its somewhat important. Additionally, WP:CRIME doesn't apply here, as due to the nature of the offenses that are alleged, there's no singular identifiable person who would be considered the "victim". That isn't to say I'm saying he's allegedly committed "victimless crimes" but that the alleged "victim" here would be the Indian Muslim community or something along those lines, and it would be inappropriate to put all of our coverage of this guy in an article on such a broad topic. There's also no "main crime" since the Maridhas has been alleged to have done/said a lot of bad things. I'd say this guy passes the WP:GNG and the WP:CRIME threshold for his own article.Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Chess, thanks for the comment, there is almost no Significant coverage about his background or what he is. All the news coverage are about the alleged crimes and religious hate speech for which he was booked and arrested. The coverage is due to social media outrage among the Hindu nationalist right-wing circles in social media. I don't think it passes WP:CRIME, the subject is not yet convicted, the policy states Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. Please note, the right-wing sites like opinida./com, swarajyamag./com and tfipost./com which are the only ones who cover significantly about this guy are blacklisted in Wiki for abuse, fakenews and doxxing several Indian wiki editors.[29][30] Thanks- SUN EYE 1 04:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see tons of articles in the Indian Express about him. [31] 6 by my count. Meanwhile 18 articles in the Times of India about this guy. [32] This guy keeps getting arrested over and over again while the media continues to give him more and more attention. He's not really notable for his YouTube channel or his background or whatever, he's notable because he keeps criticizing the government and possibly spreading conspiracy theories and the media constantly reports on him. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess Please see WP:TOI, it is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. The media reported once during 2019 for a police complaint for fake news and promote enmity between religious groups, once during 2020 for a complaint filed by the police for Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings. The next coverage season started after 8th of this month when was booked and arrested by cyber crime police, arrested for a email forgery and for blaming Muslims for spreading COVID-19 and for his court verdict for a single case. That's all the coverage he got, two times in the last two years and this month. All of these coverage were only about his legal issues, nothing about what he has accomplished and no WP:SIGCOV. I don't think the subject passes WP:NBASIC. - SUN EYE 1 05:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    His "accomplishment" are his legal issues, it seems. The media reports on this guy getting arrested very often. You've provided plenty of sources to support that. If we take your claim that coverage of being arrested doesn't establish notability and extend it to its logical conclusion, then this guy could have hundreds of articles on him and full length books and still not meet notability criteria if they only cover his arrests. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my claim, WP:CRIME states A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. - SUN EYE 1 18:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And the whole crux of my original comment was such an article doesn't exist. What article would that be? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The defamation case filed against him by News18 can be incorporated in News18 Tamil Nadu or News 18. His comments about Muslims spreading COVID is already in COVID-19_pandemic_in_Tamil_Nadu#Misinformation_and_discrimination. His arrest about Helicopter crash is everyday politics in India, several people were also arrested all over the country for spreading misinformation on the very same incident[33], this can be incorporated into 2021 Indian Air Force Mil Mi-17 crash if possible. - SUN EYE 1 19:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His notability seems to be more about his legal troubles rather than what he's accomplished. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For future reference, you don't need to add that many delsort tags. Curbon7 (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Curbon7 I was unaware, will keep that in mind. Thanks - SUN EYE 1 04:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Chess. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his notability is about his legal problems than what he has accomplished WP:NOTNEWS applies the coverage is over his arrest and legal problems.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete this person fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. I looked at all sources online and tried improving the article. His 2 books are not notable. His criminal background cannot be appropriately covered without violating WP:BLPCRIME as he has not been convicted yet. If you remove the crimes, there is nothing to write about this WP:SUSPECT. It is common for politicians in Tamil Nadu to do some kind of controversial stunts to get publicity. This youtuber appears to be using the libel and insinuation as political stunts to gain youtube subscribers. There is absolutely zero achievement. Abusing others online and then getting WP:NOTNEWS type coverage for arrest should not qualify for getting Wikipedia articles. Or else every loud mouth will get a Wiki article. --Venkat TL (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The indivual in the article is mononymously know as Maridhas. Is that mononymous name important ? Well, if you click on find sources, it looks for "Maridhas Malaichamy". However, when I searched Maridhas, I found these articles (all credible sources: Wire, Hindu-1, Indian Express, Hindu-2, Hindu-3, Hindu-4, Hindu-5 and BBC in Tamizh). That's a handful. There are a few other sources that have publised on Maridhas that aren't in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. These don't necessarily mean 'unrealiable' (I haven't included them though). These are perhaps in addition to 6 - The Indian Express (again credible) articles already pointed out by User:Chess. Apart from these article, his name has poped up in a PhD dissertation submitted to the Teachers College, Columbia University, USA (The Transnational Consciousness of Second-Generation Indian American Teachers - page nos. 15,16,343) and a Masters thesis submitted to University of Ottawa (a Tweet Analysis System to Study Human Needs During COVID-19 Pandemic page 49). Therefore its not WP:BARE but passes (also per User:Chess) the GNG. Comment: I'm curious why WP:DSPROF, WP:DSBOSS, Journalism, News Media, Discrimination and WP:DTERRORISM have been added here. μTalk 21:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination is not about the credibility of the sources. There is no WP:SIGCOV about this subject apart from arrest and complaints for his crimes. Can you provide sources with significant coverage apart from the routine coverage about his crimes which violates WP:CRIME. Trivial mentions from thesis of right-wing authors have no notability and are considered same as opinion pieces. Tweet Analysis System to Study Human Needs During COVID-19 Pandemic (available online) has nothing about him except a single hashtag saying #Maridhas. - SUN EYE 1 05:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we just going to dismiss any coverage of legal issues as not being "significant coverage" now? This guy has endless coverage of his legal issues in detail. We might as well delete every page we have on serial killers at this point. I'll nom Meyer Lansky right now. He wasn't convicted of anything and all the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage about alleged criminal acts. Lansky was a gangster and illegal activities are par for the course. If we take a reducto ad absurdum and take your argument that coverage of alleged crimes does not demonstrate notability to its logical conclusion we
    should just delete any and all coverage of organized crime figures or anyone who wasn't convicted of crimes they were alleged to have committed. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not dismissing the coverage about his arrests, the available sources are only about his legal issues and detention and nothing else. This subject is a Youtuber who was arrested and the media reported the arrest as usual. This is everyday Indian politics. I'll say it one more time; there is no coverage about him or his role as a youtuber other than his alleged crimes and detention and this violates WP:CRIME. Meyer Lansky has coverage about his early life other than his crimes although he is unrelated to this AfD, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are multiple people covered in Indian media everyday of repeated crimes and Maridhas is no different. - SUN EYE 1 07:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chess, a single arrest would fall under WP:SUSPECT but multiple arrests and coverage goes beyond that. At this point, this is significant coverage. --hroest 16:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hannes Röst Where is the source you are claiming "significant coverage"? 2 arrests with WP:NOTNEWS type coverage of WP:SUSPECT does not make the subject notable. Remember this if kept is going to be a wholly negative BLP consisting of allegations and accusations. Something that we should avoid. Venkat TL (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, but news coverage is our number one source of determining notability in practice. NOTNEWS doesn't mean we just ignore news coverage. These are a bunch of arrests over a sustained period of time. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So according to you every pickpocket with more than one arrest and WP:NOTNEWS article deserves a wikipedia article. Hope you see the fallacy of your position. Venkat TL (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If said pickpocket had dozens of articles on his multiple arrests, then yes. See George Barrington, a very important pickpocket who has been arrested many times and had plenty of coverage on his life. We have a whole category Category:Pickpockets on notable pickpockets. By the way, I don't really know why you keep wikilinking WP:NOTNEWS in the context you are. Are you trying to say that the newspaper articles themselves are WP:NOTNEWS? Because you've wikilinked it three time saying that the sources/articles themselves are WP:NOTNEWS and I'm confused as to how they're WP:NOTNEWS. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 07:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are not asserting Importance in any way. This guy get arrested. 4 news papers published WP:NOTNEWS reports. You are calling them different. No. Moreover the depth of coverage is severely lacking. The subject has not done anything worth a wikipedia article. The sources are only covering the WP:NOTNEWS of the arrest. WP:BLPCRIME applies. Venkat TL (talk) 07:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you even saying at this point? How is it possible that newspaper articles are WP:NOTNEWS? You appear to be misapplying WP:NOTNEWS in a a very specious fashion. The entity that is not supposed to be news is Wikipedia itself. The header is "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Our own articles are not supposed to be newspaper articles and singular news events are often not notable. WP:NOTNEWS is not a guideline or policy used to discard sources from satisfying our notability criteria because they happen to be news articles. It especially isn't a guideline or policy used to discard sources because the sources themselves are not news articles. Every day at AfD we use newspaper articles to determine notability. Go look at pretty much any AfD that resulted in keep. The majority of them cite newspaper articles as sources used to establish notability.
    Here is a person who has been arrested multiple times for a variety of different alleged crimes. Muon has provided a bunch of sources covering these arrests. How does this not count as WP:SIGCOV? It's literally significant coverage. Where are you pulling this rule that "coverage of arrests isn't WP:SIGCOV" from? It's absurd. Pretty much all of those sources address the topic (Maridhas) directly. They do so in detail, providing lengthy coverage of this person's (alleged) activities.
    Your argument that WP:BLPCRIME applies here is also really questionable. Go read WP:LOWPROFILE. This is a person who openly goes out there and says stuff. He pretty much fits every single criteria listed to be a "high profile" individual. Maridhas actively seeks media attention by being a YouTuber. He actively engages in promotional activities for himself. He "performs" by hosting his own YouTube channel that the entire world can see and the policy says he produces books to promote himself. He seeks a high profile position as a YouTuber, a high-profile job. Maridhas doesn't in any way satisfy WP:NPF. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are claiming he passes GNG, which are the WP:THREE sources you are basing your claims on? Venkat TL (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources describes him as a criminal, he is not yet convicted. All the criminal cases are related to his YouTube videos which is his profession. The If we consider himself as a WP:CREATIVE, he fails all the criteria here;
    • The subject is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
    • The subject is not is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique,
    • The subject has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.
    • The subject's works has not become a significant monument, been a substantial part of a significant exhibition or won significant critical attention.
    The number of subscribers are the only of the reason for his coverage. If the number of his subscribers is a reason for his notability, then there are literally a thousand Youtubers will more subscribers than him in the Tamil Youtube circle alone. There are zero sources for his work on YouTube. The arrests started only after December 9th. Are we going to create an article to list all his alleged crimes? - SUN EYE 1 09:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SNGs don't "override" the GNG except for WP:NCORP. An article can satisfy an SNG or the GNG in most cases. You can't just ignore the GNG here 4and perform mental gymnastics to justify it. Also, here are two sources from before December. [34] [35] The second one covers an arrest. You yourself brought up an April 2020 source covering an arrest of him, which contradicts your claim now that "the arrests started only after December 9th." [36] You are blatantly lying about the state of the sourcing. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference this is the source that I am referring to. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I already said it does not passes WP:SIGCOV, if you believe otherwise, let the closing admin decide. Read the source properly before accusing me of "blatantly lying", it clearly states he was "booked", filing a First information report in India is not arrest or detention. If you can't continue with a WP:CIVIL discussion without making baseless accusations, I don't want to continue discussing with you. - SUN EYE 1 19:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Define "booked" because I've always heard it used as being arrested. If it means something else in India, I apologize. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In India, it means to register a case, see this for example. The police may later continue with a First information report if it is necessary and arrest or detention comes after that. - SUN EYE 1 19:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for attempting to conclusions and saying otherwise. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. - SUN EYE 1 13:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Venkat TL (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here is a SIRS table I have made for fun. I can update this table with as many sources as we need. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Chess
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Maridhas arrested by DMK out of vendetta, claims BJP chief" Yes Not affiliated with Maridhas Yes See WP:THEHINDU Yes Article deals mainly with Maridhas and a tweet he made ✔ Yes
"Held again, YouTuber Maridhas moves fresh petition in Madras High Court" Yes Yes See WP:INDIANEXP Yes Article mentions Maridhas in the headline, body of the article covers a video he made ✔ Yes
"YouTuber Maridhas remanded in Chennai in connection with fake email case" Yes Yes See WP:THEHINDU Yes Article mentions Maridhas in the headline, provides significant coverage of an email he allegedly forged ✔ Yes
"Crime Branch books Youtuber Maridhas for forgery, hacking" Yes Yes See WP:THEHINDU Yes Article covers the arrest of Maridhas for the aforementioned email he allegedly forged ✔ Yes
"YouTuber Maridhas appears before Central Crime Branch" Yes Yes See WP:THEHINDU Yes Article deals with the ongoing saga of the alleged email forgery ✔ Yes
"YouTuber Maridhas moves HC again for relief" Yes Yes See WP:THEHINDU Yes Article provides significant coverage of legal troubles stemming from the video he made mentioned in source 2 ✔ 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}}.
  • Comment I disagree with your assessment of depth of coverage. See my comments in the table. Venkat TL (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Venkat TL
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Maridhas arrested by DMK out of vendetta, claims BJP chief" 10 December 2021 Yes Yes No Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the arrest and the accusation.
No Biography material included. 		✘ No
"Held again, YouTuber Maridhas moves fresh petition in Madras High Court" 18 December 2021 Yes Yes No Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the arrest and the accusation.
No Biography material included. 		✘ No
"YouTuber Maridhas remanded in Chennai in connection with fake email case" 13 December 2021 Yes Yes No Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the arrest and the accusation.
No Biography material included. 		✘ No
"Crime Branch books Youtuber Maridhas for forgery, hacking" 24 July 2020 Yes Yes No Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the arrest and the accusation.
No Biography material included. 		✘ No
"YouTuber Maridhas appears before Central Crime Branch" 10 August 2021 Yes Yes No Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the arrest and the accusation.
No Biography material included. 		✘ No
"YouTuber Maridhas moves HC again for relief" 17 December 2021 Yes Yes No Short WP:NOTNEWS article only covers the legal steps taken and the accusation.
No Biography material included. 		✘ 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}}.
  • Keep. In-depth news coverage of his activities over multiple years, for multiple incidents, makes a clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein So I assume, people on Wikipedia will have no problem if whatever is written about his "alleged" crimes is put into his Wikipedia bio. WP:BLPCRIME prohibits a lot of such stuff, but it seems you all would love to include those prohibited things since that is what you people are basing your comments on. @Muon @Superastig. Venkat TL (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The stories I saw included headlines like "Madras high court quashes yet another FIR against YouTuber Maridhas" suggesting that the legal accusations have been resolved. BLPCRIME prevents us from reporting on accusations that have not been resolved, but in cases where they have been resolved (including when, as seems to be the case here, the accused was exonerated), I don't think there is any obstacles to reporting the case and its outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will update more info on these cases. Venkat TL (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – 1). All sources that appeared after December 2020 fails to satisfy WP:GNG since they are about arrests, FIRs etc. The first FIR was registered in December 2020, but allegations or accusations seems fails to qualify WP:CRIME. Since the subject is not convicted by court and hence it fails WP:CRIME. WP:BLP must conform WP:CRIME to avoid BLP violation.
2). Some sources discussion subject's book because it is about a politician. None of the sources discussion discuss it as required by WP:NBOOK, and thus it fails to pass significant coverage. Do we have any source that talks about it independently? in fact, no.
3). If there are any non-trivial/independent source(s) about the subject published before December 2020, i will be glad to struck my del vote. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on all the counts listed above. Thanks for summarizing the points. There are no GNG sources that satisfy the depth criteria.
Note (To the closing admin): Since this is a WP:SUSPECT case and there are strong negative BLP concerns, please give appropriate weightage to comments on the adherence to policy and evidence provided (or lack of evidence) in the comments. A no consensus, is in effect, a keep, an undesirable outcome in my opinion. A negative BLP will affect the subject in real life who is undergoing trial. Please use admin discretion. Venkat TL (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Creepers[edit]

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

Seemingly WP:NN feature film of only regional possible interest. Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviews in Roanoke Star and Rue Morgue Magazine, both cited already in article. Passes WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm finding some stuff and this came up as a potential source. The GB preview wasn't promising, but I've requested it anyway from McFarland since I figure it would be nice to try and find enough sources for some of the hosts mentioned in the article, to see if I could create an article for them. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I know that the sourcing here isn't the greatest, but it is just enough to squeak by notability guidelines at this point in time. Something I would also recommend, which could help push this to a firmer keep, is to have a section for the individual film Hi There Horror Movie Fans. It's not exactly a spinoff per se, but it definitely came about as a result of this documentary. I think that there's probably enough coverage for the article as a defacto series page. The director Kotz also helped get more episodes of Bowmans Body made, so that can go in there as well since these are usually mentioned in relation to the documentaries. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a section about the Bowman doc. I think this serves as a good landing page for the Kotz documentaries as a whole, minus the Hokies one. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appears to have enough review to meet GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands. Or 2021 Dutch curfew riots, as to be detemined by interested editors. Sandstein 10:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 riots in the Netherlands[edit]

November 2021 riots in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article reads like a news report, provides little context for those unfamiliar with the subject, and has not been significantly improved since 22 November. I do think that the event is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, but not in the article's current state. While deletion is an option, its content could also be merged into COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands, or be moved to the draftspace where it can be further improved (and potentially expanded to include other protests and riots over COVID-19 policies in the Netherlands, cf. Protests over COVID-19 policies in Israel and COVID-19 protests in the United Kingdom). Any other suggestions are also welcome, of course. ― Ætoms [talk] 17:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support a merger into 2021 Dutch curfew riots, as I think that these particular riots are notable and distinctive enough to be kept as a separate article. Having been described as the worst riots in the Netherlands since 1980, they were the subject of much more media attention, and are commonly referred to as the avondklokrellen – a term that does not apply to the November 2021 riots. Therefore, I think that the creation of a new article that provides an overview of the (smaller) COVID-19 protests and riots in the Netherlands would be a better solution. ― Ætoms [talk] 18:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arcahaeoindris: Please see my response to Shadow4dark above. What are your arguments for merging the article into 2021 Dutch curfew riots? The latter is already quite a solid article on its own, in my opinion. ― Ætoms [talk] 14:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have particularly strong feelings on this either way; I see where you're coming from but I'm hesitant to support deleting mention of the November protests altogether, and I think probably easier and more manageable to have one single article for COVID-19 protests for a specific country. How about summarising and merging into Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic instead? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I found some time to provide my rationale. For clarity, I will build in steps. [Q1] Could this be kept? [A1] Certainly, the riots are notable and there is no problem at all of NOTNEWS or not anything else. [Q2] Should it be kept? [A2] Definitely not, it is very brief and has little unique content versus the parent. The article is a premature WP:SPINOFF. The content can be combined, streamlined a bit, and lives very well under the parent, COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands. [Q3] What about the other merge options that were suggested, 2021 Dutch curfew riots and COVID-19 protests in the Netherlands? [A3A] The first option, 2021 Dutch curfew riots, is totally unacceptable. Against policy. Bad and wrong. This is a sibling of the subject and we merge only into a parent if the current content structure is preserved. Never into a sibling. [A3B] COVID-19 protests in the Netherlands would be a spinoff for all children combined. I do not know if this is already needed or justified yet deserves more scrutiny. If someone wants to build this case, based on literature that deals with a range of protests in the Netherlands, I will read it with great interest. A simple and solid solution without a complete subject overhaul is a merge into the parent. gidonb (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What article shall we merge it with?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Nuwaiseeb[edit]

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

Geostub made by Spokane Ball yt who was blocked for creating similarly poorly-sourced stubs. This one fails WP:GEOLAND which requires populated places to either be legally recognized or have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Please don't just add a GEONAMES entry as a ref; community consensus has consistently been against using such databases to establish legal recognition or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 22:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm overlooking something, simply being a "genuine and separate settlement" does not satisfy GEOLAND. I don't think that appearing in the address of a hotel contributes to notability in any way either. –dlthewave ☎ 23:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the address gives no other town it is clear that this is the legally recognised postal settlement in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We generally don't accept post offices as evidence of legal recognition. In sparsely populated areas, the postal district will often simply take the name of the village or hamlet where the post office is located, even if that location is fairly insignificant. –dlthewave ☎ 13:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention a post office. I have no idea if it has a post office. And it's clearly a substantial settlement (as a look at a map will confirm!). Being "insignificant" is not a reason to fail WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No evidence of legal recognition, no evidence of a WP:GNG pass. As much as I often agree with Necrothesp in other areas, no, merely having an address is not evidence -at all- of legal recognition, which requires some evidence of self-governance/administration, and not simply being part of a larger administrative unit. All the address does is allow a post-man to find you whilst delivering post, it does not involve any process of law. The reason dlthewave is mentioning a post-office is that these are the source of many postal addresses. There is no WP:GNG pass here either - the thing about it having the hottest recorded temperature in the middle east is a one-sentence mention. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, but that's not true. British villages and hamlets, which have no separate administrative/self-governing status (that's the parish, which usually consists of several such settlements), have always been held to be notable if they are recognised as separate settlements with signs showing their name on the access roads. I see no reason why that standard should not be applied elsewhere. Different countries have different ideas of what a settlement is. It certainly doesn't require actual recognition as a separate administrative entity. It merely requires recognition by a government agency (e.g. a local council) as a distinct settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:WAX argument. The guide specifically says legal recognition, that is, recognition through a process of law by, for example, being given certain powers. It does not say administrative recognition, or even mentioned in a government document, or even has a sign (and literally anything can have a sign!), which are clearly broader terms. In reality most British hamlets are typically GNG passes based on local histories/newspapers rather than WP:GEOLAND#1 passes, and the ones that fail GNG should probably be deleted (e.g., Cross-in-Hand is a hamlet I'm familiar with which is facially a GNG fail as it presently stands, with also no sign of legal recognition EDIT: though I've now added a couple of refs that make it a GNG pass). FOARP (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet consensus disagrees with you. Having a nameboard erected by the council clearly is legal recognition. My point is that it doesn't need to have "some evidence of self-governance/administration" as you claimed above. That's not the same as legal recognition. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? There is no such guideline, policy, RFC outcome, or even essay. A sign is simply a sign - or do you think laybys have legal recognition? Car parks? Public toilets? FOARP (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus does not have to be written down to be consensus. If a settlement has a nameboard erected by the council at the entry points then it is clearly legally recognised. Not toilets or a car park. Not just a sign pointing to it. And if you're still not sure what I mean, this is what I mean, or, for a hamlet, this, which is the standardised British settlement nameboard erected by councils all over the country. Here's one in France. Clearly recognised settlements with a sign erected by the council to acknowledge the fact. But with no self-government or administrative independence. How anyone can claim that recognised settlements are not encyclopaedic is frankly beyond me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus does not have to be written down to be consensus" - um, how else do you ever get a consensus for anything on Wikipedia, a written-word forum? We have enough trouble with people imagining consensuses that never actually existed on this site.
"If a settlement has a nameboard erected by the council at the entry points then it is clearly legally recognised." - Road signs in the UK are mounted by a number of different agencies, including the highway agency, and unofficial road signs can be put up by anyone. Village name-plates are typically ordered by the parish council - you can even order them yourself if you think one should be on your road and the parish council supports you. Simply the existence of a sign does not prove anything because signs can come from anywhere and be erected by anyone - it is the existence of a parish/village council etc. that needs to be shown. Frankly, if (which I doubt) we've been allowing articles just because the settlement had a hotel with an address in that settlement, then we shouldn't have been doing so.
"How anyone can claim that recognised settlements are not encyclopaedic is frankly beyond me" - Really? Is it really impossible to comprehend that, if we simply cannot write an actual encyclopaedia article about something due to lack of anything to write about, then we shouldn't? What, you think we should try to write contentless articles? FOARP (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. Further, scrolling through the first ten pages of a google books search yields multiple sources which could easily be used to prove Al-Nuwaiseeb is a legally recognized populated place. Clearly a competent WP:BEFORE search was not done by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 - which GBooks hit are you referring to specifically? I see bare mentions as a crossing-point/potential place for a free-trade zone and that's it. I don't see 10 pages of result using speech-marks to limit my search to books that actually mention the subject. There's no evidence of either a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass or a WP:GNG pass here. FOARP (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: see if a week brings us closer to consensus. At the moment, it's not one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being bold and relisting for one more week. I was *this* close to closing as "no consensus." Looking forward to seeing some sourcing. Maybe even some WP:HEY.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. as an exception. Since it is used as an example of a temperature extreme in a very prominent source, it's reasonable that people may want some information on it, and this is the place they would belikely to look. reasonably look.. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 00:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vmoto[edit]

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

promotional article from an editor who appears to be WP:CONTENTFORKING/WP:WALL on a non notable organization that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP:NORG. A before search is identical to the sources already existing sources in the article, which is, almost all of them are mere announcements thus do not meet WP:SIRS. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please note that Vmoto is also known as Vmoto Soco, the international distributor of the Super Soco brand.
Super Soco was the no.1 electric motorcycle in France in 2020, it was also the top selling electric scooter in the United Kingdom in 2021.Inchiquin (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Thank you creating the article but Please can you show any sources that show the organization satisfies WP:NCORP? I’m not seeing any reliable sources that substantiate that the organization possesses in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Even using the other name you provided above “Vmoto Soco” I still do not see anything tangible that shows this particular organization is notable. Furthermore notability isn’t attained via proximity to a “notable entity”, but is deemed notable by its own merit. Celestina007 (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, allow me a minute or two, and I'll explain the thought processes underlying the creation of this article, and this should shed some light onto the question of meeting the criteria of notability.
A few weeks ago I created the article on Super Soco, a popular brand of electric motorcycle. At the corporate level, the Super Soco brand is controlled by a number entities with a somewhat Delphic relationship, which is not particularly easy to untangle. So when I booted the article on
Super Soco, I opted to focus on the brand, side-stepping the thorny question of which group was in control of the brand.
After creating the Super Soco article, I started to unpick the details, and I realised that the approach that I took on the page was probably wrong.
Essentially, the corporate structure that governs the brand Super Soco somewhat resembles a Push-me-pull-you, whereby you have two
independent heads on both ends, with Super Soco being the body in-between. One of the heads is Shanghai-based Super Soco Intelligent Technology, with
the other head being the Vmoto Soco group (which essentially falls under the control of the Perth-based company Vmoto).
As I have best determined, these two companies struck a deal in 2020, and as a result which Super Soco Intelligent Technology controlled all Super Soco sales in China, whereas Vmoto Soco gained the right to market the brand everywhere except China.
Super Soco proved to be a hit in Europe, thus Vmoto Soco ended up controlling the most successful market for the brand.
But not only that: As part of the 2020 deal, Super Soco agreed to move all of their production into the Nanjing factory that was owned by Vmoto, and
so effectively all the Super Soco bikes, be they destined for China or elsewhere, are produced in the factory controlled by Vmoto.
So there is a bit of a web to have to untangle here.
After I punched out the Super Soco article, I realised that I needed to do an article on both Vmoto and Super Soco, as it wasn't going to be possible to skirt around the question of brand ownership.
The point of the above, is that Vmoto (Vmoto Soco) and Super Soco are basically joined at the hip. It is hard to split between Vmoto and Super Soco. In other words, the notability of Vmoto rests on the question: Is Super Soco notable?
Here, I think Super Soco is on pretty solid footing. It is one of the more successful e-motorcycle brands globally, on par with the likes of Zero Motorcycles of California.
One final point I should mention is that some of the details in the Super Soco article are not quite correct, as when I wrote it I didn't fully comprehend the ownership structure. So, for example the deal between Ducati and Super Soco and relationship with former Moto GP champion Jorge Lorenzo
should actually relate to the Vmoto/Soco company, rather than the Shanghai-based Super Soco company.
All in all, it isn't a particularly easy corporate structure to understand, but in a nutshell, almost all the activities of Super Soco outside of
China will relate back to Vmoto.Inchiquin (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now added a reference that should unambiguously meet the notability critera raised above by Celestina007. The other critique was that the articles (Super Soco and Vmoto) are a 'walled garden', I'm pretty sure I can fix that. I'll add some content to tie the Super Soco article into the issue of carbon emissions and the broader clean tech sector.

German Vmoto article[edit]

Link to German Wikipedia article on Vmoto, which was created over a year ago: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vmoto Inchiquin (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Reference[edit]

In response to Celestina007's critique, I spent some time sifting through the internet, and I identified a source which unambiguously meets the WP:SIRS.

The article is one from 2019, titled "Ducati partners with Aussie electric bike and scooter company Vmoto", published on News.com.au. News.com.au is a major news website, thus a reliable, independent, and a secondary source. Secondly, as is evident from the headline, it contains significant coverage of the subject, Vmoto. Finally,it concerns a deal between with Vmoto and the famous Italian brand Ducati, and thus is also notable.

One point I should mention, is there is no shortage of sources on Super Soco across the net, in many different languages, and the majority of these fall within the sphere of Vmoto Soco (Vmoto), which, as I've noted above, are the international distributors of the brand. However, most of these sources don't even mention Vmoto, as very few of the writers understand the arcane relationship between the brand and the two controlling entities (Indeed, I didn't understand it myself until recently)Inchiquin (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

New Links[edit]

To address the concerns that the Super Soco/Vmoto articles risk becoming a 'walled garden' I've added a couple of new sections in Super Soco, which link to other articles. Firstly, I created a section on carbon emissions, which links to the page on the same subject.

Secondly, I created an article on the competition, with links to the wiki articles on Askoll and Niu. Inchiquin (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Haselhurst, David (2010). "Scooters Go Electric; David Haselhurst checks out a Chinese-built, Europeandesigned transport option". Money. No. 122. pp. 92–93. Archived from the original on 2021-12-13. Retrieved 2021-12-13 – via Gale.

      The full citation is available here from EBSCO Information Services.

      The article notes: "Shares in an Australian company importing motor scooters from China have had a very bumpy run since listing in 2006 as Vmoto (ASX code VMT). But it seems the company is poised for a turnaround in coming months. Work is under way to more than double the size of its now wholly owned manufacturing plant in Nanjing, China, and expand its growing global presence in petrol and electric motor scooters and all-wheel-drive vehicles." The article notes, "In 2006, Vmoto joined the Australian Securities Exchange with a back-door listing through the shell of a one-time dotcom boomer company, Optima Corp."

    2. Haselhurst, David (2012). "Scooter injection. David Haselhurst won't park his scooter shares just yet". Money. No. 145. p. 89. Retrieved 2021-12-13 – via EBSCO Information Services.

      The article notes: "The company has had a bumpy run since listing on the ASX as Vmoto in 2006 to import Chinese-made scooters under founding managing director Patrick Davin. In 2001, Davin was a marketing executive in the iron ore exporting business. Sent to China to seek orders for ore, he was offered a most unusual barter deal - swapping Davin's ore for a load of motor scooters to be sold in Australia. Although that deal didn't come off, it sparked an awareness of the potential for Chinese manufacture of "knock-offs" of classic European motor scooters. With other backers, Davin sold his first Chinese-made scooter - a Vmoto - here in 2002. Davin has long since moved on but in the years since Vmoto's listing it has persisted in overcoming various manufacturing, supply and cash-flow problems."

    3. Blue, Tim (2008-01-16). "Criterion". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2021-12-13. Retrieved 2021-12-13.

      The article notes: "Vmoto acquired the 1.2ha Nanjing site for $US750,000 last September and will fund the Stage 1 construction schedule internally.Sales of scooters in Australia are small beer: about 15,000 a year, of which 3500 are Vmotos -- the second-biggest brand after Honda. ... Vmoto lost a tad over $1million last year, but looks likely to move into profitability this year. Criterion has always liked the story, and more so since the price has eased to about 11c. It must be a speculative buy."

    4. Stevenson, Harry (2021-03-03). "Vmoto Ltd" (PDF). Euroz Hartleys Securities Limited. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-12-13. Retrieved 2021-12-13 – via Australian Securities Exchange.

      The analyst wrote, "VMT has released unaudited preliminary final results for the full year ended 31 December 2020. Results for the year were strong across the board with the company exceeding our previous forecasts (adjusted for impact of share based payments approved late in the year). With the award of the of VMT’s largest B2B order from strategic partner Greenmo Group in early FY’21 we look for a step change in unit sales through FY’21 with the company set to benefit from easing of lockdowns across Europe and continued transition to E-vehicles. [two more sentences about the company's product launches and the analyst's adjustments to the forecast]."

    5. Stevenson, Harry (2020-11-06). "Vmoto Limited" (PDF). Euroz Hartleys Securities Limited. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-12-13. Retrieved 2021-12-13 – via Australian Securities Exchange.

      This is another analyst report written by Harry Stevenson.

    6. Stevenson, Harry (2021-08-21). "Vmoto Limited" (PDF). Euroz Hartleys Securities Limited. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-12-13. Retrieved 2021-12-13 – via Australian Securities Exchange.

      This is another analyst report written by Harry Stevenson.

    7. Hemming, Richard (2015-05-09). "Tesla's two-wheeled scooter rival powering ahead but lags in volume growth". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2021-12-13. Retrieved 2021-12-13 – via Gale.

      The article notes: "The ASX-listed Vmoto produces electric motor scooters from its manufacturing facility near Nanjing in China, while Tesla Motors is a Silicon Valley electric car company. ... Both have increased their forecast profits for the current year. Vmoto aims for revenue of more than $69m based on selling 60,000 units, to produce a net profit of about $6m. ... Vmoto says it aims at revenue growth of 50 per cent, yet its volume growth is only 20 per cent."

    8. Rice, Denice (2007-03-04). "A big V for WA victory". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2021-12-13. Retrieved 2021-12-13.

      The article notes: "Patrick Davin has a pretty clear goal -- world domination -- and he's heading there on the back of a scooter. A Vmoto scooter. European inspired, WA designed, Chinese manufactured and sold in Australia, New Zealand, the US and the United Arab Emirates, the Vmoto already has an international pedigree."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vmoto to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Cunard. The sources above show that the company has been around for a lengthy spell, and my feeling is that does add weight the the 'notability' factor. That said, I feel article should pass the notability test just on back the relationship with Super Soco, which in many European countries is a mainstream brand.
I did consider the possibility of merging the Super Soco/Vmoto articles but I don't think this option is really viable, as the two companies have distinctive identities: Super Soco is a recent Chinese start-up, whereas Vmoto (as highlighted in the sources above) is primarily an Australian company that has been around for some two decades. Inchiquin (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Inchiquin - Vmoto has some operations with Super Soco, but has its own separate manufacturing facility and distinct business, so I think that qaulifies a distinct article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to have its own wikipedia article. More sources would help a lot. HelpingWorld (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more time would be helpful to assess the sources Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. There is an abundance of RS here featuring this company from major Australian media sources (Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Australian etc)...plus plenty of material from e vehicle/scooter/bike media. Vmoto is an established firm in the scooter market, it would appear pushing the new electric vehicle market in Australia. IMHO I don't know why this article has been put up for RFD with this level of RS sourced. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added a bit more content to cover over some of the export activity and more recent developments with the company, included a few new sources. Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the new sources (in keeping with the suggestion of HelpingWorld, above). Those were actually very good sources, especially the one relating to the MotoE World Cup.
I'd completely overlooked that one. The involvement of the Vmoto Soco group in the event is a strong indicator that it is perceived as a mainstream motorcycle brand in Europe and adds weight to the notability of the organisation.
I'll see if I can also add some more sources to the article over the weekend. Inchiquin (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My real job is as a business librarian, so I can look up some databasese and add a bit more to this as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Hatchens, could I politely suggest that you please not throw around pejorative suggestions about editors without any supporting evidence?. Almost everyone here has not had a problem with the article apart from yourself, albeit with the suggestion by some that it needs a re-write, which is gradually progressing.
For those who aren't familiar with the background behind the above, the editor previously tagged the Revolt Motors page for RFD, based on an unsupported claim that I worked for a company called RattanIndia. The same assertion seems to be being made again, except the suggestion now is that I work not for RattanIndia, but for Super Soco/Vmoto (the two aforementioned companies are competitors, by the way, and seem to be currently locked in some kind of ugly dispute. I intend to mention this in the two articles as soon as more detail comes to light).
Why is it only these few pages that you seem to be fixated with? Why not the askoll or Niu Technologies pages, which are actually very similar, yet without anyone apparently calling for the deletion of these pages? And again, I raise the question as to why no-one has had any problem with the | German Vmoto page1, which has been up on Wikipedia for over 12 months now, without ever meriting a single deletion nomination?
I would guess the primary reason as to why none of these have been tagged for deletion is because one of the fundamental principals of Wikipedia is Good Faith If you haven't got any supporting evidence that an editor is paid by a company, please don't suggest as much. Almost every editor on Wikipedia is not paid for their contributions, myself included, and most will invariably find such assertions objectionable.
I actually suspect that the issue of articles being created for payment on Wikipedia is far less common than many editors assume, but I am getting a bit off-track.
Please note, if your beef is with the way any of these articles are written, feel free to re-write them. That is what I do when I find content on Wikiedia that I think is objectionable, and in almost all cases, it is the ideal course of action.
1 link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vmoto Inchiquin (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatchens As far as I am concerned, there is a quite a bit of media supporting notability of this company. Vmoto is one of the frontrunners for electric scooters outside Asia, especially in Australia, and pushing electric scooter sales in Europe. It is the O/S distributor for Super Soco, which I believe is one of the biggest brands for electric motorbikes in many countries in Europe. Vmoto is an international company with offices in a number of European cities. In short, there is enough media here to support this Vmoto page, and your arguments (which seemed to be unproven?) about its connection to any other page is not relevant. I've been editing and adding to this page, and I'm certainly not part of any promotion campaign (nor do I work for any of these concerns, nor in the automotive industry). Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Checking Nexis Uni, there are at least 400 articles on there mentioning VMOTO. I've added about 10 new ones here, from sources such as *The Australian* and *The West Australian*, which are both top news mastheads here in Australia, as well as more finance and automotive/tech industry sources. This article is pretty well referenced by RS, and I would advocate that it should come off RFD now. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to me to pass WP:NCORP. Not all of the references are of stellar quality, but I view enough as being. The article will benefit from the removal of those which are churnalism FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was incorrect and have struck my prior opinion. I was premature and made misassumptions about the referencing. The references are almost all churnalism and this is WP:ADMASQ. The org has not been proven to pass WP:NCORP. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Faddle
I couldn't help but notice that just a few lines above your comment about churnalism, one editor pointed out that the company has been covered in The Australian and The West Australian, both of which are major mastheads in Australia.
The fact you have overlooked this comment is a strong indication that some of the editors here don't understand the significance of the Australian sources that are referenced. Certainly, next to no-one in Australia would describe articles in the Australian or The West Australian as 'churnalism'.
In fact, there is one even more significant and credible source I recently noticed which hasn't even been mentioned here yet:
The Australian Financial Review, November 9, 2019: The Australian start-up riding the global e-scooter craze.| Link to Financial Review Article
This was a feature article in a major Australian masthead.
I might note that the fact that the company was subject to a major write up in the Fin Review is also solid evidence for WP:NCORP, even if you completely disregard all of the other 25(!) referenced sources.
P.S Once again, why is it that so many here overlook the fact that there has been | German Vmoto page, active for 12 months now? Why is it that the German Wikipedians don't seem to have a problem with the alleged 'notability' and 'churnalism' issues that so many here keep banging on about?. Isn't the fact that there is a long-standing German Vmoto Wikipedia page pretty strong evidence for WP:NCORP by itself? Inchiquin (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As most editors know, other language versions of Wikipedia have different rules; doubtless that is the reason why no-one has commented on the matter. The English Language version is probably the most stringent. Having an article elsewhere in another language version is of inters, but not of relevance.
Any article stating with the location among its very first words has the immediate red flag saying "Press release or regurgitated press release" and many otherwise reliable media outlets will take PR pieces, even with a bylined article. This is a matter of judgement. Mine is that it is churnalism. I used to write press releases for part of my living, and place them with journalists. They are formulaic, and for some reason journalists like them that way. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Faddle (sorry if I got your name wrong, by the way.)
The English Wikipedia has more stringent standards...really?. Any regular user of the site would know the claim is doubtful. If the standards are so high, why is it that the occasional Spider Man villain Mister Negative warrants a feature article, or likewise, the occasional Green Lantern villain
Necron? These are fictional characters, who hardly anyone knows about, and have next-to-no real-world relevance. I'd like to say these are isolated example, but no, Wikipedia is full of article on this kind of pop culture trivia.
This is what I find so bizarre about these debates around notability. No one seems to have a problem with the countless articles about highly obscure, fictional characters, but when it comes to real-world companies, you'll get these often pedantic arguments rolled out that an article isn't justified, despite the fact that these companies have large fan bases, and have been featured in major newspapers (in contrast to, say, Mister Negative?).
Your opinion on journalism is fair enough, and you aren't alone in that view. However, you would surely have to agree that this is a minority view, the majority of people wouldn't consider a major article in a masthead such as the Fin Review to be churnalism. Inchiquin (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment HI FiddleTimtrent I noticed you've made the statement that the RS here supporting notability is churnalism. This is incorrect, I've spent quite a bit of time finding these articles on the news database *Factiva*. There are a number of articles from the major newspapers here in Australia, including The Sydney Morning Herald, The West Australian, The Australian, The Australian Financial review - together, these four are the main Sydney, West Australian, National and Financial Newspapers for Australia respectively. Those articles at least are *not* churnalism, and would certainly be considered RS. If you like, we can follow this up with the WP:RSN to confirm that they are acceptable sources, if you want to contest it, but it would be obvious to any Australian Wikipedia Editor. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Curious if there is any hope here using WP:BASIC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I noticed this in an article about trends in the moto/scooter market in the Netherlands: The electric motorcycles and scooter segment is the largest in the entire Europe and the top seller manufacturer is the Australian V-Moto, advanced in 4th place in the industry with a spectacular +930.6% already at 5.8% of market share.
View source: https://www.motorcyclesdata.com/2021/11/26/netherlands-motorcycles/
If the details in the article are right, and Vmoto controls 5.8% of the Scooter market in the Netherlands, I can't see how there can be any justification for this article remaining in the afd bin, in light of everything else we know about the company.
I suspect there is truth in what is stated in the article, as there are other indications that the brand is popular in Europe (for example, the existence of the German Vmoto Wikipedia page, as alluded to previously, which was created over 12 months ago). Inchiquin (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yes someone (was it you?) mentioned that Vmoto/Super soco is big in Europe - so here we have a reference that vmoto is the biggest brand in the Netherlands, so I would think that would make them notable...I might check the wording of WP:NCORP. That reference is probably worthy of inclusion in the article, may be you should add it in? (or I'm happy to). I had a look at the German article, there was a reference or two in there this article could use, but I will have to translate them. Though, I thought this article is pretty solid with all the Australian masthead articles.. (and I am still confounded why the delete votes are ignoring them!?). Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_December_24&oldid=1063116560"