Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 05	July 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PickupAlpha[edit]

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

I feel that this company does not meet WP:NCORP. The Yahoo! article is promotional and reads like a press release and looks like one. Besides, the coverage is not sufficient enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The other references used are all primary sources and, therefore, fail to establish notability.

I could not find any in-depth coverage or analysis of this company in my WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I saw in a search was an nyweekly.com item, which I can't show here as it triggers the spam blacklist. NCORP fail. --- Possibly ☎ 23:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No evidence at all of significant coverage if you discount the Yahoo! article that does, indeed, appear to be a pure promotional piece. Searches return nothing that would demonstrate sufficient notability and the article is a piece of paid editing purely intended to promote the company. DocFreeman24 (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.-KH-1 (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Advice needed - Please advise me as to what is needed for this company to pass Wikipedia's standards. Like how much notability is acceptable etc. Need this for future reference as well. Thanks :) -Abracadabra4201 (talk) 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:NCORP very carefully especially the guidance on independent content found at WP:ORGIND Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bima Alfareza[edit]

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

A similar case to Brylian Aldama, where there was clear consensus to delete.

This player still fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has never played a game of football at senior level. Apart from the one Tribun News reference, the sources are passing mentions only. The Tribun News coverage is not enough for a WP:GNG pass on its own. It confirms his DOB and place of birth and then has a small quote from him. Nothing more.

I did some Google searches and an Indonesian source search and stumbled upon a few Wikipedia mirrors and passing mentions in U17 match reports such as Waspada. I found one article on him in Bola Sport but it's just a transfer announcement with only a small amount of coverage.

Generally, the GNG pass would need to be quite clear cut for us to keep an article on a footballer that never played a game. I'm not seeing enough coverage here to justify this. Most of the trivial youth coverage is a violation of WP:YOUNGATH as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, and no evidence he'll actually play any games to generate coverage about him anytime soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Doesn't matter if he had passed WP:NFOOTBALL as all footballers must have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG for their article to be kept. Alvaldi (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Luisa Alanis Ruiz[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC or WP:SIGCOV. Sources provided are not very reliable. Slovenichibo (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Slovenichibo (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Slovenichibo (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep - The Oregonian is a major newspaper, García, Mario T. (2014). The Chicano movement: perspectives from the twenty-first century. New York: Routledge. pp. 244–262. ISBN 978-0-415-83308-0, is published by Routledge, a multinational academic publisher, and the Oregon Historical Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal, which are all WP:RS and support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC) And specifically, the book noted above includes Sin Fronteras: An Oral History of a Chicana Activist in Oregon during the Chicano Movement, i.e. "This chapter focuses on the life history of Maria Luisa Alanis Ruiz, whose work in the Chicano/a community has left an indelible legacy on the Pacific Northwest." Beccaynr (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Updated !vote per discussion Beccaynr (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Which sources, specifically, are you disputing? The major source appears to be The Chicano Movement, a scholarly book edited by Professor Mario T. Garcia of UC Santa Barbara and published by Routledge. pburka (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chicano Movement is a reliable source, and while I don't own it, I'm going to assume that it covers her in fairly significant detail considering that the article cites to it 28 times. Mlb96 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The chapter in the Chicano Movement appears to be an interview (the chapter title begins "An Oral History"), as do the material in We are Aztlán and also the Oregonian piece. So these sources are in good part primary; other sources are quite a bit weaker. OTOH, the interviewers believed the subject here to be notable enough as an activist to interview. That is, the data of the actual interview is a primary source (useable only for non-controversial details), but the meta-data surrounding it I believe to be secondary. I think it's weakly enough for WP:BASIC. Like others here, I have not actually examined the text of most of the sources. The article could use a good trim. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:GNG. FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several of the sources are significant, reliable, and independent per WP:RS. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Clear consensus to redirect here, albeit some slight disagreement as to where. I've picked this target, but anyone can feel free to change it at their editorial desire. If anybody wishes to merge the content to a suitable destination, it is still available in the history behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ingsoc[edit]

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

One moe follow up to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inner Party (3rd nomination). PROD was declined, so here we go. This is pure plot summary, the only two citations are to the book. The article contains no discussion of the significance of this concept outside the book, and in my WP:BEFORE I didn't see anything outside passing mentions in the form of plot summaries. For the record, I reviewed the academic articles which appear to discuss this, and sadly, I came to the conclusion that they do not do so (despite mentioning this term in the title). [1] just uses this term few times as a metaphor or a literary synonym to communism, and mostly focuses on United States, using it (or rather, the Newspeak as an excuse to invent(?) new neologisms (the terms Amcap, Amerigood, and Marketspeak) which it discusses in more detail. [2] is even worse, the term is used twice in the article in passing, the author just took the quote from the book for their paper to make it catchy (as they note, "Ingsoc in relation to chess" is the title of an in-universe paper which they thought would be fitting for their real world paper too...). This book chapter which also uses Ingsoc in its name, likewise doesn't seem to contain any in-depth discussion of the concept. [3] contains a single sentence about how Ingsoc is similar to some modern bureaucratic governments... Sigh. In summary, the topic does not seem to have any in-depth analysis, just plot summaries and obvious "sky is blue" passing comments that IngSoc is a metaphor for extreme bureaucratic communism. Such a one sentence can and should exist in our main article on Nineteen Eighty-four, but there is no need for a stand-alone plot summary about this. No scholar has analyzed the term, although a few used it in passing as a nice catchy term here and there (which probably makes it worthy of inclusion in the Wikitionary, but not on Wikipedia - there is really nothing to be done here, it's DICTDEF expandable to some more plot summary). On that note, the existing article also doesn't contain much (even ORish) discussion of this topic, as most of the text here is not about IngSoc but about the sem0related "Oceanian social-class system", a topic that is otherwise actually more notable than IngSoc, but there is nothing to rescue (split) here, as it is all unreferenced plot and OR. As for redirecting this, just a generic redirect to the main article should suffice, no section discusses this concept in any detail, but we should have a blue link. Hence I recommend to redirect this term to Nineteen_Eighty-Four. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Probably redirect but to Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four (unless that article is going to be AFDed as well). Part of the point is that the name of the ideology doesn't really matter. Whether it is the "Ingsoc" of Oceania, "Neo-Bolshevism" of Euarasia, or "Obliteration of the Self" of Eastasia, all of them are totalitarian superstates in perpetual war. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sjakkalle, A quick glance at the "political geography..." suggests that the article is probably notable, so at least I am not intending to AfD it anytime soon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect Redirect to Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four or similar. Ingsoc is notable, however, it always seems to be used as a synonym for "1984" or "Big Brother", both of which are far more notable. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep - I believe we should discuss totalitarian regimes, be they real or fictional, given Wikipedia's educational purpose. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge→Nineteen Eighty-Four I can agree a lot of this is plot summary, which is why I think it's relevant to Nineteen Eighty-Four. A lot of the material from this article could be used to create a new sub-section there. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Merge is off the table anyways due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merkle Inc.. Daniel (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HelloWorld Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable company Dexxtrall (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Suggest merging it with the Merkle Inc. article as it is the same company. Rogermx (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not worth merging it. Also there isn't anything on either page that says they are the same? FiddleheadLady (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the press release announcing the merger which took place in January 2018. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you! Still think it is not worth merging. Keeping my vote as is. FiddleheadLady (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upsilon function[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since 2017. I am unable to find reliable sources that cite this function, and nothing that has been published in an academic journal about it. Google search brings up a lot of Wikipedia mirrors and some sources about something else by the same name (different mathematicians). ... discospinster _talk 21:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be unsourced original research. Google Scholar has no publications on this by Emami and Jamali. MathSciNet has no listings that even mention both Emami and Jamali. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like David Eppstein, I tried and failed to find evidence of a published paper to which this refers; I do not believe one exists. Coincidentally, the creator of this article returned to WP a few days ago, after 4 years absence, to write Draft:Jamali_equation, an equation apparently introduced in a paper by Jamali in May of 2021 linked on Researchgate. In other words, this article is the creation of a SPA/COI account promoting brand-new, unpublished research. --JBL (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is not coincidental: the new draft (and repeated attempts to push it into mainspace) brought attention to the earlier article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, sure. --JBL (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search finds some upsilon functions, but none that are clearly the same as this one. Looks like Wikipedia may have the honour of being the original source for this particular gem! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've also not been able to find anything published supporting the claims in the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely self-promotion, and not wiki-notable. The term "upsilon function" appears occasionally in the literature, but it refers to other things (in knot theory, for example). XOR'easter (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've also tried to find sources for this, or even figure out where it was published ("suggested"), but failed. /Julle (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watpracharangsan School[edit]

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

Primary schools are, as a general rule, not considered notable. There are no references in this article nor anything else to indicate this school is exception to that rule. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable primary school with a fervent WP:COI involvement. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said primary schools are not inheriently noteworthy, and I wasn't able to find any information or sources that would elevate this to a noteworthy level. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 05:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL. No in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As already said primary schools aren't inharently notable and this lacks any kind of references. So it clearly isn't. Adamant1 (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under CSD G5 criteria by admin Bbb23. (non-admin closure) – robertsky (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Of Islam Radio UK[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Sources used are either primary sources or do not indicate notability. Have gone through AfC review but was declined. – robertsky (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and comment Not jumping on the speedy delete wagon just yet, but I'd just like to mention the fact that this is not the first time an article related to this station is created or discussed. I wouldn't be able to tell you when or who submitted it, but I'm fairly certain I've seen this subject before. Might have block evasion going on too. Toyota Impreza (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Toyota Impreza: you are right. It was deleted here Voice of Islam Radio, judging by the accompanying draft version. – robertsky (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Lisina[edit]

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

Very dubious tabloid sources, some of them circular (e.g. the 'Tranding' article is just reporting on the New York Post's story). There are more sources covering her death online: all the ones I saw were similarly tabloidy/Daily Maily, but there might be some reliable ones; WP:BLP1E, however, suggests that we shouldn't have an article about someone when the only coverage about them is about their death. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nomination reasoning. — Mainly 16:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, per nom - just removed Daily Mail and The Sun for example - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:BASIC and WP:ENT with a lack of coverage by reliable sources. Sources covering the subject are of low quality. Nominator's assessment is correct. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominators reasoning. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Gray (album)[edit]

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

Currently sourced with a non-RS review and a short blurb. Hardly the type of coverage to pass WP:NALBUM, and searches did not turn up nearly enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every review listed passes WP:A/S.RF23 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear fail of WP:NALBUM. Non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is absent. Polyamorph (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm sorry... reviews from Allmusic [4], Ultimate Guitar (Staff) [5] Spin magazine [6], The Chicago Tribune [7], and a "Emeritus" (former staff) review from Sputnikmusic [8], plus discussion of it in this book about prog rock, and an appearance on the Billboard Heatseekers chart aren't reliable and non-trivial? (I mean, charts alone don't guarantee notability, but STILL, it can add to it). Additionally, it was named by an AMP music journalist as being one of their favorite albums of 2007 [9], and discussed in this NY Times (albeit via only two paragraphs) as being attributable to landing them on the Warped Tour. The Warped Tour! Definitely a significant part of the band's career. Additionally, several sources interviewing or talking about the band in general ask questions about the album in relation to their newer work or constantly bring up this album as one of their early works: see the results of [10] and [11]. Yeah, pretty good case for keeping, though I still would hope for more coverage to motivate me to !vote for a strong Keep. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - simply blurb "reviews". Even the Chicago Tribune piece which is technically 5 paragraphs, if you realize that 4 of those paragraphs are single sentences. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sputnikmusic's review is five paragraphs, each with multiple sentences. The Spin review is one paragraph, but it packs quite a bit into that one paragraph, and it still remains that the review had this album as its main subject. AllMusic's review is one-paragraph, but not only are there like ten sentences in that, but the sentences are very lengthy and with a lot of analysis and opinion on the album's music there. The reviews aren't overly long, but not what I would call "blurb". Plus, the reviews still indicate secondary, HQ source interest in the subject. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:NALBUM Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography. The fact that some sources exist, with arguments being made over how many sentences they contain, is not enough to justify a standalone article.Polyamorph (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is ample material already here for a standalone article. NemesisAT (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note the expansion was done after I commented here.Polyamorph (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't check the dates sorry. NemesisAT (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has already been improved significantly since nomination. Now passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by 👨x🐱. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:HEY and should not have been nominated in the first place. Geschichte (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. The article has already been moved. Daniel (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of major attacks against Israeli embassies and diplomats with zero fatalities[edit]

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

I am genuinely unsure about this new article, so am flagging it to the broader community for discussion. It is well-sourced, which is good. But it seems a remarkably specific list. Why only embassies and diplomats? Why only attacks with no fatalities? Why only against Israeli targets? I am concerned that the list is both unnecessary and it's very specific inclusion criteria may breach WP:NPOV. I would like to hear more opinions about it's inclusion on Wikipedia. Laplorfill (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Laplorfill (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Laplorfill (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a remarkably specific list. 1) Why only embassies and diplomats? Attacks on Israeli diplomatic missions by Palestinian and leftist militant groups were extremely common throughout the 20th century and part of the broader Palestinian insurgency against Israel. Some of these attacks had significant geopolitical effects in the Middle East, as well as in the countries where the attacks took place. I have created separate articles for these more significant attacks such as:

Killings like that of Baruch Cohen, for example, led to significant Mossad side operations where Mossad agents targeted Palestinian militants who had assassinated Israeli diplomats or intelligence agents. Some of these covert operations strained diplomatic ties (Ex: Lillehammer affair).
1970 Asunción Israeli Embassy attack, the first notable attack on an Israeli embassy
Killings like that of Efraim Elrom had significant, long-lasting effects on the diplomatic relations between the host country and Israel, either positively (Ex: Bangkok hostage situation mentioned in the list) or negatively. (Turkey and Israel in this case)
Killing of Yacov Barsimantov, which was considered a violation of the terms of the July 1981 ceasefire with the PLO. The attempted assassination of Shlomo Argov shortly after would be used as Israel’s justification for its invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

2) Why only attacks with no fatalities? In retrospect, it does seem unnecessarily specific. Should we move the page to "List of major attacks against Israeli embassies and diplomats" and include those with fatalities, hyperlinking the already created articles?

3) Why only against Israeli targets? Like I said, this is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The insurgents were targeting Israeli diplomats and diplomatic mission, for the most part. A few attacks on American targets already have their own list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_U.S._diplomatic_facilities

Perhaps an article like this would be more ideal for the subject matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooonswimmer (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of attacks against Israeli embassies and diplomats Limiting this list to only major attacks (whatever that means) with no fatalities is arbitrary and too specific to have a whole article. Broadening it to include all attacks against Israeli embassies and diplomats would make it an acceptable list. Mlb96 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of attacks against Israeli embassies and diplomats I agree with Mlb96. Shoestringnomad (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Article has been moved, and there are no other policy-based concerns. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPas per @laundrypizza03 --Steamboat2020 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin. Check back if he wins or otherwise demonstrates evidence of independent notability. RL0919 (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lasry[edit]

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

BLP of a person whose notability appears to derive entirely from his status as a candidate for election. But for this I don’t see any basis for our having an article on him. However per WP:NPOL status as a candidate for election does nit meet our notability requirements. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin. Does not meet WP:NPOL as a political candidate at this point. Also doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, as most sources briefly mention him in connection to the sports team he is involved with. KidAd • SPEAK 22:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- If he were any random candidate for office I'd say redirect, but he's a billionaire co-owner of one of the two NBA teams in the 2021 Finals and was the chief financial driver behind the 2020 DNC in Milwaukee. He's one of the top five most important people in the political and business community of the city of Milwaukee over the last decade and I believe he fits the category of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." (WP:NPOL) --Asdasdasdff (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like his father (who has his own article) is the billionaire co-owner, not this man. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidate for public office. His business activities are not enough on their own to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. G7 by Fastily. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aikuisten oikeesti[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 19:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love's Everlasting Courage[edit]

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

Yet another article on a non-notable Hallmark film that also lacks significant coverage per WP:NF. Pahiy (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found reviews at Dove (definitely a Wikipedia Reliable Source) [[12]], Catholic Lane [[13]], and Box Office Revolution [[14]]. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a rare case where the copy and paste Hallmark feature just about passes NFILM (per the reviews from Donaldd23). Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Year We Seized the Day[edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence of notability for this book. The excerpts from notable media are copy/pasted from the book's webpage and I am unable to independently verify their existence on the papers' sites. There is otherwise no indication of notability or reviews found to meet book notability criteria. Survived PROD due to a lack of deletion reason. Courtesy @Phil Bridger: Star Mississippi 18:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think WP:BKCRIT is satisfied for the article, fails WP:GNG. My search resulted in no sources that would count as a reliable source. Justi yaya 19:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Austlit lists multiple reviews [15]. duffbeerforme (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews as brought out above. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn I'm not going to close it as there's a valid delete !vote, but I'm not sure how my search didn't turn up the Austlit reviews, which do establish notability. In the interim, going to add. Star Mississippi 16:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this should be kept for the reasons raised above, particularly the Austlitt reviews. Cabrils (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falling in Love with the Girl Next Door[edit]

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

Non-notable Hallmark film that also lacks significant coverage per WP:NF. Pahiy (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing establishing notability came up in my search. Fails GNG, NFILM ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage, fails NFILM and GNG. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. ... discospinster _talk 18:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lavonna young[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, also see page creator's talk page for deletions of the same page (not via XfDs) under different names. Creator is also likely COI/UPE. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - LaVonna Harris, which would be the correct location for this article, is indefinitely salted and for good reason. This person has been trying (unsuccessfully) to promote themselves on Wikipedia for years. Harris still fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN and has no coverage outside of her own self-published sources. Please delete and WP:SALT this as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Pahiy (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — possible undisclosed conflict of interest editing on a non notable musician who fails to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Evidence has been provided that there are at least enough independent reliable sources covering first nominated article, and probably all of the series. RL0919 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me Francis Tucket[edit]

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

Nominating entire series. No reviews, no coverage. Fail GNG and NBOOK. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gary Paulsen. Fails GNG and NBOOK but as works by a notable author they are reasonable search terms and should redirect to his page. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As reviews have been shown to exist to satisfy WP:NBOOK, changing to keep Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gary Paulsen per reason above. Justi yaya 19:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess I should have included this in my nom, but I support redirecting. Just wanted a community consensus that no pages are warranted, or I would have just redirected myself. Cheers ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just a suggestion for editors looking at the notability or otherwise of children/young adult books, don't just have a look at google, check the catalogues of library systems that have plenty of those books ie. with Tucket's Gold (TG) a gsearch brings up a kirkus review (here) only from the 1st fifty hits, but looking at the catalogue of the King County Library System also shows reviews by School Library Journal, Booklist, and The Horn Book Magazine (here), while the Washington County Cooperative Library Services system also shows a review by Voice of Youth Advocates (here), so with a total of 5 reviews its a keep from me for TG. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meet WP:NBOOK with multiple (2 or more) reviews ie. Call Me Francis Tucket - Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Booklist, The Horn Book Magazine, Kirkus Reviews (here), Tucket's Ride - Publishers Weekly, School Library Journal, Booklist, The Horn Book Magazine, Kirkus Reviews (here), Tucket's Home - School Library Journal, Booklist, The Horn Book Magazine, (here), btw Mr. Tucket (presently a redirect to the author) has 3 reviews (Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and The Horn Book Magazine (here) so is also entitled to an article. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Coolabahapple's digging. Ifnord (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's certainly possible for a historical figure of this type to meet our notability standards, but so far the evidence is lacking to show that he does in particular. RL0919 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Avent[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be editing the main page and adding additional information that will hopefully address the concerns Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. My search on Google Books turns up no significant coverage of this person. My search on Newspapers.com turns up a flew short burbs from Nashville newspapers about Avent's travels to China, but this is not sufficient for GNG. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Bryanmackinnon: Please make an argument for notability if there is one. Deletion discussion's aren't typically kept open for more than a week or two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Basically the same rationale as that of 4meter4 I do not see in-depth significant coverage in RS. Furthermore why has this not been closed per WP:NPASR ? Celestina007 (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, I think it was relisted to give Bryanmackinnon more time to present evidence of notability. However I suspect there has been no further response simply because there isn’t any more evidence to be found.4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. "Executive" is too vague a term, we cannot assume it was a c-level. No other real claim to notability noted other than familial relations which do not transfer notability. Ifnord (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Quintanilla[edit]

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

Not notable. I believe he fails WP:NMOTORSPORT though I am not 100% sure. In any case, it is nigh impossible to find sources about him. I found only this where he is mentioned in passing, and this little convincing profile. LordPeterII (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:GNG. Google search turns up statistics databases and Wikipedia mirrors, so no significant coverage is evident.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Categorically passes WP:NMOTORSPORT Indy Lights is and was a fully professional series. This is exactly the type of case that this guideline was written for. -Drdisque (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added 3 references, including one solely about him in the Los Angeles Times -Drdisque (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per Drdisque. Thanks, I was not aware that Indy Lights is professional (tbh I'm not much into motorsports). Together with the LA Times source that has convinced me he is notable. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm not sure the keep expression is particularly convincing, however with 3 relists and no further expressions, there is no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevan TV[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub about non-notable TV channel. Search finds a couple of mentions from around the time of its launch (nearly 20 years ago), otherwise just social media, programme guides, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:NMEDIA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the first TV channels from Kerala as well as the first catholic TV channel in Kerala. I am putting some sources here even though I think it wont help. [16] [17] [18]. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 18:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more; some analysis of the presented sources would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all to Gary Paulsen. No prejudice towards recreation of Stand, Ambush and War using appropriate sources, with a strong recommendation that any recreation goes via the AfC process. Daniel (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy (novella)[edit]

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

Nominating entire Murphy series. Fail GNG and NBOOK. One book is reviewed in Publisher's Weekly, but none have multiple reviews in RS, or otherwise have in-depth (or any) coverage in RS. Author appears notable, but someone took this to mean all of his books needed articles. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete - ~~CSD G12~~ - most of these are likely copied from this page'. Added comment - I came here from Murphy's Herd and didn't realize there were multiple nominations here, but upon second look it seems all of the titles are borrowing from the above-linked page, so this may still apply. If this is declined, I agree that it does not appear to meet GNG and NBOOK. A S U K I T E 18:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio reports for each linked article (minus the first, which does copy a little, but not as much): [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] - I would tag them as usual but since we're here already I don't want to spam CSD tags. A S U K I T E 18:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I was able to remove most of the copying from each of these, but it doesn't really leave us with much. I'll just stick with delete, per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. A S U K I T E 18:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the removed text was written in 2007 while the Ranker article linked above is from 2017 so its more likely that Ranker took the text from Wikipedia to build its article. Also Ranker wasn't even founded until 2009. Salavat (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Salavat, Thank you, somehow I completely missed that. A S U K I T E 16:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to author. Polyamorph (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, contrary to what the nominator states ie. "One book is reviewed in Publisher's Weekly, but none have multiple reviews in RS, or otherwise have in-depth (or any (my emphasis)) coverage in RS.", there are reviews out there: Murphy's Stand - Publishers Weekly (here), Booklist, and School Library Journal (here), Murphy's Ambush - Publishers Weekly (here), Library Journal, and Booklist (here), Murphy's War - Booklist (here), so 2 titles have 3 reviews, that meet WP:NBOOK and are keeps, the rest can be redirects to the author. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the author, Gary Paulsen. Nothing to merge. Ifnord (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abelay Garam Bhaat[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete it. I created this film article in 2008, about 13 years ago and I was new to Wikipedia. Not aware of every rule. Yes, It is Non-notable. Thanks. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 17:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pahiy (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Abelay Garam Bhat" is an alternative spelling for this film. I can't find any reviews or any significant coverage, though. Just a YouTube video showing the entire film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FAILS WP:NFILM and If you create a page yourself and then change your mind, just add the text {{db-author}} to the top of it; it will be deleted shortly afterward. Nitesh003 (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Coppock[edit]

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

Article was deleted via AfD in 2013. She has not gained much notability since, did not star in any significant roles (appearing in a few Toyota commercials do not count as "significant"), won or been nominated for any major awards, nor got notable coverage. Still does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The ostensible sources in the article are simple cast lists namedropping the subject, or otherwise reviewing TV eps or commercials she was in, without providing significant coverage to the subject.
Beyond that, the nom's cogent reasoning and that of the editors in the prior AfD, there's an element of "what the hell?" in this. The article was recreated post-deletion virtually with the same text by the original creator, User:Truthanado (at some point, restoring the prior history), belying his pious statement in the first AfD of "I'll abide by whatever the Wikipedia community decides ..." On his user page, the creator invites trout slaps if he acts out of line. I think the recreation in the teeth of unanimous consensus against him earns one. Ravenswing 17:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly accept the trout slap if the Wikipedia Community believes that I deserve one. For reference, and consideration by the community ...

Following WP:BOLD (one of the most important Wikipedia guidelines), I originally created the article in October 2013. A deletion discussion was held and the article was deleted as failing to satisfy WP:N. Several years later, I drafted updates to the original article (I had saved a copy) and consulted with several Wikipedians who believed that the article DID then satisfy WP:N, so I released the updated article. Now, it is again being suggested for deletion. Things change, and although Laurel Coppock may not have been notable eight years ago, she may be notable now. There are, undoubtedly, several persons that are not notable now that become notable later in life. For clarification, she has starred as 'Jan' in most Toyota commercials over the past several years, much more than "a few"; plus many other roles. Truthanado (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked at the differences, which were nearly identical in every particular. As far as the "several Wikipedians" go, I'd be happy if we heard from them ... but for my money, the two editors who promptly filed speedies, the several who advocated deletion in the prior AfD, the nom in this one and myself, that's a lot of voices, and other than you, no dissenter is on record.

As to whether the subject has gained notability since, she may have? You're far too experienced an editor for that. She either is or she isn't. I believe she isn't: the "many other roles" you claim existed over the last several years consist of seven single-episode appearances over eight years, which falls far short of any notability criteria covering actors. Either come up with concrete, reliable sources which discuss the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, or let it go. Ravenswing 19:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe she is notable and that the article satisfies WP:N; that's why I created it. The Laurel Coppock article is similar to the Stephanie Courtney article (similar persons in similar roles), which has not been questioned. There are many articles in Wikipedia with questionable notability, in particular music articles ... is it notable that a now-defunct group released a single that sold 1000 copies, probably mostly to their friends? As an experienced member of the Wikipedia community, I believe in letting the community decide what is notable or not, and I thank the community for its comments. Truthanado (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The articles are not at all similar. The Courtney article has in-depth coverage of the subject from the Washington Post, Cosmopolitan, People, the New York Times ... and likely a dozen more could be whisked up at the drop of a search; of course there's been no question about it. What you have, by contrast, for the Coppock article is a single paragraph (the article, in fact, is about her mother) from her hometown weekly and a couple of automotive blog sites, one which doesn't even mention her name. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, of course, an utterly discredited argument: if you've seen articles that you don't feel are notable, take them to AfD. Ravenswing 18:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ekans: Ek Se Badhkar Snake[edit]

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

I had declined this at Articles for Creation as this series has just been premiered. The first episode was screened just over a week ago. It is WP:TOOSOON for an article on it. Editors should wait and see what independent media says about it after a few months. Currently all the coverage that I read in my WP:BEFORE was churnalism based on press releases. I didn't find any in-depth, independent, secondary coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON, and publishing a rejected AFC submission anyway is a major red flag. - Sumanuil (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Sumanuil and Curb Safe Charmer.Ratnahastin(t.c) 03:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nitesh003 (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G12 by Liz. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamyar Karimi[edit]

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

The news articles are posted by contributors/users rather than by journalists; for example, HBTV Ghana states News Ghana is not responsible for the reportage or opinions of contributors published on the website.

IRNA and Tabnak are both examples of WP:YOUNGATH and there is nothing better found about this sportsperson in a WP:BEFORE search.

Also, his careers in acting and music aren't notable, so he also doesn't pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep Oh yes it is true and I did not pay attention to it My friend, may you not delete the article for hours so that I can find a solution to the problems? Thanks

Have you got any evidence that significant coverage of Karimi exists? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Very reliable sources are being collected. But as you know, their consensus is time consuming

Delete - fails the key test: significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, which just isn't evident here. As Spider notes, user-generated content doesn't count. firefly ( t · c ) 16:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Oh yes it is true and I did not pay attention to it Based on your explanations, I understood the problem and I will try to solve them Can you give me time? My friend, may you not delete the article for hours so that I can find a solution to the problems? Thanks. My request is if you can help me too. And do not let the article be deleted in less than 7 days

If you are able to post sources here that are independent of the subject, reliable and showing significant coverage of Karimi, addressing him directly and in detail, I will happily reconsider my stance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://artofhacks.com/index.php/2021/06/26/never-ever-let-obstacles-stand-in-the-way-of-your-goals-with-kamyar-karimi-tehran-times-1-thrive-global/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=never-ever-let-obstacles-stand-in-the-way-of-your-goals-with-kamyar-karimi-tehran-times-1-thrive-global
https://flipboard.com/article/follow-the-iranian-national-swimmer-kamyar-karimi-on-instagram-and-twitter/f-0cd7ac65df%2Fissuewire.com?format=amp
https://virgool.io/@tehrantimes/kamyar-karimi-swimmer-dnkzerk8h01i
http://11amir1379.blogfa.com/post/20
https://www.farsnews.ir/printnews/8611170338
https://www.mehrnews.com/amp/1647482/
https://www.yjc.news/fa/amp/news/4018519
https://www.irna.ir/amp/9891543/

Please check these These are just a few of the resources available It is true that the source material is not about this person, but it is clearly mentioned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.107.222.23 (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment of above sources - nothing towards WP:GNG. Sources that mention him more than once are just rehashings of those already linked in the article and are promotional and spammy in nature. They are also largely blogs. The latter sources are reliable but only mention him once. See my full assessment and comments below. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://artofhacks.com/index.php/2021/06/26/never-ever-let-obstacles-stand-in-the-way-of-your-goals-with-kamyar-karimi-tehran-times-1-thrive-global/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=never-ever-let-obstacles-stand-in-the-way-of-your-goals-with-kamyar-karimi-tehran-times-1-thrive-global	?	Blog, no fact checking, not professional journalism	Literally just one paragraph long and is just an attempt to promote his social media accounts	✘ No
https://flipboard.com/article/follow-the-iranian-national-swimmer-kamyar-karimi-on-instagram-and-twitter/f-0cd7ac65df%2Fissuewire.com?format=amp			Promotional and no coverage - just asks us to follow him on Instagram and Twitter	✘ No
https://virgool.io/@tehrantimes/kamyar-karimi-swimmer-dnkzerk8h01i			Copy paste of https://hbtvghana.com/kamyar-karimi-strength-patience-swimmer-and-athlete/	✘ No
http://11amir1379.blogfa.com/post/20		Blog	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.farsnews.ir/printnews/8611170338			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.mehrnews.com/amp/1647482/			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.yjc.news/fa/amp/news/4018519			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.irna.ir/amp/9891543/			Mentioned once	✘ 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}}.

Delete — Per rationale by Spiderone. I do not see our notability threshold satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Yes it is quite acceptable. But do you think it is not possible to modify the article? Because it is not so invalid The decision is up to you, my friend But if possible, keep the article. Because. Can meet the criteria Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.212.255.22 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:ATHLETE. Peter303x (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter303x - ATHLETE/NSPORT doesn't cover swimming. He fails WP:SPORTCRIT as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read all other sports you can assume that generally a national player of any sport should qualify. However, you have a good point. I will withdrawal my vote and will remain undecided on this. Peter303x (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moot. Article was improperly created, by usurping a location article to create a page about this individual. This discussion was certainly headed for a consensus for deletion, but presently the discussion is moot as the article no longer exists. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anas Ahmad Shah[edit]

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

Non notable activist. Was PRODed, but an IP deprodded it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 'activist' is a generous term. He is a doctor who started a non-notable blog. Fails GNG. Sources in article are a physician listing which only establishes that he's (probably) a licensed doctor, and a link to his own website. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per rationale by Headbomb. Furthermore they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking at the edit history I see this was originally started in 2013 as a Geostub about a village in Iran by Carlossuarez46 as part of his campaign of mass article creation. It was sourced only to the Iranian census and GEOnet, both not reliable sources for notability per WP:NOTGAZETTEER (and essay, but persuasive). The Iranian census identified it as an Abadi (i.e., not a village per se) and its population of 25 makes it too small to be classed as a village in Iran. In May 2021 USER:Anasahmed24 edited it to instead be about the Pakistani doctor - this is clearly WP:PROMO and COI editing. As other editors have pointed out the doctor does not appear to be notable, I would propose simply reverting back to the village topic but this also appears not to be notable so delete it is. FOARP (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — As mentioned earlier by FOARP, this was a small village in iran before this May 27 move. After move he played smart by Adding back all the moved content to redirect page. By the way he doesn't passes any criteria, so delete. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 808 State discography#EPs, compilations and remixes. ✗plicit 03:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

State to State[edit]

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

Nomination also includes:

Non-notable compilation albums which fail WP:NALBUM. All three are only sourced to the band's website and I cannot find any significant coverage on them nor any other indication of notability. I suggest redirecting to 808 State discography#EPs, compilations and remixes. Lennart97 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 808 State discography as it's already covered there. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 808 State discography#EPs, compilations and remixes. All of them fail WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Zero (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 14:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolute zero coverage. It's tagline should be changed to "no warning, no time, no escape, no notability." 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFILM. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DVD Talk is such a good source but unfortunately I found no other coverage, only some databases and a blog review. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nitesh003 (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian Nationalists[edit]

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

Fringe political party that only lasted 18 months and stood in elections but never gained any seats or more than a few votes. Sourcing is scant and largely primary. There may be a suitable merge target as an ATD but I don’t know enough about Latvian politics to suggest one. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of every political party that ever existed. There are thresholds to pass, which this party did not. The suitable merge target would be the leader, but he doesn't have an English Wikipedia page. Geschichte (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 12:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Corporation o' Squaremen[edit]

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

Borderline, but I don't think there is the coverage for a standalone article, and no clear merge/redirect target. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years, and I think that is due to lack of notability rather than neglect. Boleyn (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did a quick Google search and I'm seeing that it's actually "Ye Corporation O' Squaremen" rather than "The Corporation o' Squaremen". Even then, a gbooks search for both names only brought up books about the Freemasons which fail to mention the group, zero hits on gnews and gnewspapers, and all the gsearch results are primary sources, though there's 26 hits on Newsbank but I think that would just prove they're still active today CiphriusKane (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay gone through the 26 hits on Newsbank, and none of them are useful as the only ones that I'm certain reference this specific organisation are either brief mentions about charitable donations and advertising a radio broadcast from 2013 that's unavailable CiphriusKane (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source, a book which dedicates a couple of paragraphs to the organisation CiphriusKane (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LifeJive Radio[edit]

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

Article about an online internet radio platform, not reliably sourced as notable per WP:NMEDIA. The references here are a mix of its own self-published content about itself, Blogspot blogs and simple directory entries in online streaming catalogues, none of which are notability-making sources, and the article claims nothing about the topic that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have anything better. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Nothing found in my research. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does't follow WP:GNG, can't find any other sources.Niftysquirrel (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation Army Radio[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an internet radio station, not properly referenced as passing WP:BCAST. As always, internet radio services are not automatically deemed notable just because they exist, but must be able to show reliably sourced analysis of their significance -- but the references here are entirely to the station's own self-published content about itself on its own website, with no evidence of third-party media coverage about it. And further, the article was created by an WP:SPA with a direct conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did multiple searches and dug through many pages of results. I was unable to find any independent Reliable Sources with any significant coverage. There may have been a single passing mention, but it was so short I didn't bother to check if it was even a match. Alsee (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now defunct, non-notable internet radio station. I could not find a single IRS via a ProQuest database search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers (deeper and broader than Google). Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear that the improvements made after the nomination and sole delete !vote demonstrate notability. I will procedurally open a RM discussion as follow-up. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star trak real time[edit]

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

The article has several significant issues, and with no references, it is not possible to tell the extent to which it is based on original research. Additionally, the subject is of questionable notability.

Given this, it would seem preferable to delete the article and if sources for notability can be found/are produced in the future, the article can be recreated on the basis of these sources. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This would probably deserve a PROD. Seems promotional as well. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of academic references like this and this and this. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was improved. It now meets WP:GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has been improved since nomination, and I've already removed some text that could have been seen to be promotional or unencyclopedic. NemesisAT (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, there appears to have been further press coverage but unfortunately, I haven't been able to recover any of it as the newspapers have removed their online articles. NemesisAT (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the added sources seem to establish notability. A consideration might be made for changing the article title to "Star Trak" per WP:COMMONNAME but that's outside the scope of this AfD. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per academic coverage provided, and Rename to Star Trak. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also support a rename, do we need to wait until the closure of this AfD to do that? NemesisAT (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carriage House Studios[edit]

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

Some famous associations - does that make the venue notable? I'm not seeing the coverage for that. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years, and I think that is due to lack of notability rather than neglect. Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously a PROMO article. All it does is list artists who recorded at the location. The only 'real' information is that it is a recording studio in Connecticut. Notability is not inherited from the people who recorded there. It's like saying Bill Gates' childhood home is worth talking about. It isn't. Sungodtemple (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at first I thought I could not find any sources on this, but dug a bit deeper and was able to find some. Perhaps there are more out there then? I've improved the article and added several sources since the nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the added sources, the coverage is mostly just "notable band recorded there." The only significant coverage comes from primary sources like Stacks of Wax (a recording company that uses the studio). I don't think this article can be salvaged to meet the standards of WP:NCORP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless a suitable redirect could be found. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the reference meet WP:NCORP requirements. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G12 (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slut Boy Billy[edit]

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

An WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY on a non-notable rapper who fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Only decent source is Ghana Web, which is totally insufficient on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Copyvio, tagged CSD G12 JW 1961^Talk 13:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProtonMail[edit]

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

Little reliable sources to effectively write an article and establish notability beyond routine coverage. Ardenter (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ardenter (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ardenter (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, there are many sources without independence or reliability. However, there are also independent and reliable sources as The Register, The Registar again, Reuters, Vice, Bit-Tech, Info Security and Gizmodo. The coverage goes beyond routine coverage. Meets WP:GNG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough coverage for WP:GNG Justi yaya 19:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stong keep Easily meets notability requirements, one of the most discussed email providers in recent years—blindlynx (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the cited articles above. Plus, I am aware of multiple people whom have used ProtonMail for quite some time. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 05:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly enough good sources to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per A.WagnerC ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 09:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the most widely known alternatives to Gmail and widely used by journalists and activists for secure email. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong keep. It seems we need to revisit the AfD process and notifications given to users before they bring an article here, to curb down the recent influx of articles brought here incorrectly. Dr. Universe (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per A.WagnerC. The notability policy WP:NEXIST says, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." --WhirlWithoutEnd (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe even SNOW - Notable service. Melmann 12:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ProtonMail has millions of users (as stated in the Wikipedia article). It provides "zero access encryption",[25] but it is a controversial service and that might be a lie[26] ("Protonmail Dev's Do Not Use Protonmail", in 2018 it didn't really have end-to-end encryption[27]). --User123o987name (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuele Berry[edit]

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

Berry has had a short career so far and has not yet reached the level of coverage required to sustain a Wikipedia article. She does not meet WP:CREATIVE, and fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage provided by independent reliable sources. The secondary sources cited are all passing references. ninety:one 09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added several additional non-primary references on Berry, including interviews with The St. Louis Public Radio, Deadline, Vulture and coverage of her reporting in E! news. The article should now meet the minimum for WP:CREATIVE, WP:THREESOURCES and should not fail WP:GNG given the significant coverage on her work. Rayopk1 (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid none of those meet the GNG. She was working for St Louis Public Radio at the time, so that's not a secondary source for an article about her, nor can it be said to be independent because she wrote it herself. Deadline is the briefest of passing mentions in a regurgitated press release, as is Vulture, and E! literally just mentions her name as the interviewer in coverage of a story about someone else. It's not just "three sources that mention the subject in some way" that we need, it's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". ninety:one 14:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to examine the coverage yet, but re "short career", executive editor of This American Life (arguably the most respected and highly produced show in American radio) is a highly significant role. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I first thought - but hers is a brand-new position of unclear importance, and shouldn't be confused with that of Ira Glass, the very-much notable and long-running executive producer. Glass would undoubtedly meet many of the criteria in WP:CREATIVE because of the impact of his work, but no matter what her title, I can't see that Berry does at this stage. ninety:one 23:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak Keep, as sources from Vulture and E!, ya know, those independent from Berry, discussed her work covering bigger topics. However, I would hope for far more to make my Keep strong. Additionally, "short career" is subjective and not a comment on the coverage of the topic, which is what we normally measured when determining whether an article should be kept or deleted. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Vulture article starts with a selection of unrelated snippets before leading into the actual subject of the article, and in respect of her it simply says: "Emanuele Berry is This American Life’s new executive editor. A former editor and producer at Gimlet Media, Berry joined TAL last year." It's not close to being significant coverage and certainly doesn't discuss her work. The E! article looks like it might come closer at first glance, but it only namechecks Berry as being the host of a show on which someone else said something, which the article then goes on to discuss - there is no further mention, let alone discussion, of her, nor the show or the interview. I agree both looked promising but they just don't meet the requirements for GNG.

I only mentioned her "short carer" by way of noting that although there is a good chance that on her current trajectory Berry could, in ten or twenty years' time, start to become the subject of significant coverage, she's not at that stage yet. There are a lot of early career creative professionals getting articles created at the moment and it's important to be able to contextualise this given the numerous, but often a little too weak, claims to notability in many of them. ninety:one 23:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE per Rayopk's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator recommended that the page be deleted or redirected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He Mengfu[edit]

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

Not notable I believe. There's only this single source, the one currently in the article. Maybe I missed something, but everything else that turns up in google is about the far more famous Zhao Mengfu. LordPeterII (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. LordPeterII (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 張丹 (December 2020). ""不僅為死者悲"——作為公共事件的賀孟斧之逝及其影劇人生" [“Not only Grieve over the Dead”——the Death of He Mengfu as a Public Event and His Cinema Life]. 當代電影, Contemporary Cinema. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07.
  Details about the seven-page journal article are also available here^{archive.today}. The abstract notes from Google Translate:
  On May 10, 1945, He Mengfu's death in Chongqing plunged the film industry in the rear area into a silent grief. The memorial activities and commemorative chapters entrusted the memory of the filmmakers to the deceased, and they have also become a spiritual dialogue with them and even express their realistic demands. Opportunity. This article intends to use it as the starting point for the discussion, while combing the activity tracks of He Mengfu's movie director, stage art, movie theory and document translation, while comprehending the artistic ideals and life temperature engulfed in the turbulent history.
2. 刘静沅 (1982). "忆贺孟斧" [Recalling He Mengfu]. 戏剧艺术 (in Chinese).
  This article^{archive.today} cites this source: "忆贺孟斧[J]. 刘静沅. 戏剧艺术. 1982(02)".
  This is translated to: "Recalling He Mengfu[J]. Liu Jingyuan. Dramatic Art. 1982(02)".
3. "贺孟斧" [He Mengfu]. Chinaculture.org (in Chinese). China Daily. 2004-06-28. Archived from the original on 2016-03-05. Retrieved 2021-07-07.
  From Google Translate:
  Chinese stage artist and drama director. Formerly known as Shanke. People from Wujin, Jiangsu. In 1931, he graduated from the Theater Department of the National Peking University Art College. Worked in Shanghai Lianhua Film Company and Chengdu Northwest Film Company, organized the Shanghai Weekly Experimental Small Theater with Zhao Dan, Zhang Ming and others, and participated in the Amateur Theater Association, Amateur Experimental Theater Troupe, Anti-enemy Theater Troupe, and China Theater Arts Society. And other theater groups. He was also employed as the director of the Research and Experiment Department of the National Drama School and taught stage installation.
4. 斯氏體繫在中國（修訂版） (in Chinese). Sichuan: 四川文艺出版社. 2019. ISBN 978-7541148811. OCLC 1111078854. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2021-07-07.
  The book has a section titled "第三節曹葆華、天藍、田禽、舒非、趙如琳、賀孟斧的譯介 21", which is translated to "Section 3 Translation and Introduction of Cao Baohua, Tianlan, Tianqi, Shu Fei, Zhao Rulin, and He Mengfu 21".
5. 胡曉軍, ed. (2009). 戲折書痕︰《上海戲劇》50年名家白篇文選 [Bookmarks of Dramas: "Shanghai Drama" 50 Years of White Papers by Famous Artists] (in Chinese). Shanghai: zh:文汇出版社. ISBN 9787807417248. OCLC 502635718. Archived from the original on 2021-07-07. Retrieved 2021-07-07 – via Books.com.tw.
  There is a chapter titled "賀孟斧軼事", which is translated to "An Anecdote of He Mengfu". The book summary notes: "The more than one hundred articles contained in this book are works by famous artists selected from the vast volumes. They reflect from one aspect the path of the publication of "Shanghai Drama" in the past 50 years, and thus the development path of the drama art industry in the past 50 years."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow He Mengfu to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cunard, the Chinese sources are sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. Jumpytoo Talk 23:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw my nomination. It appears I should have been searching for the name written in Chinese characters. @Cunard: If you have time, could you add some of these sources to the article? I don't feel comfortable doing it myself enough since I can't read a word of Chinese. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte#Barangays. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parang, Camarines Norte[edit]

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

Stubbish article of a barangay. Such type of Philippines-related articles have been point of contention for the past decade, with latest discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?) and the then-active Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarusan. Consensus remains that only barangays that are really notable by reliable sources are considered as worthy to have Wikipedia articles.

For this barangay, it only contains one external link to the 2007 mid-decade census (outdated!), and contains basic info like statistics, barangay captain, and natural description like geographical location. But it lacks other content, and worse it lacks reliable sources. Thus this should not benefit from WP:GEOLAND and must be nuked. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Jose_Panganiban,_Camarines_Norte#Barangays as plausible target. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of bus routes in London. I must discount all "keep" opinions because they fail to address the suggested reason for deletion (lack of coverage in reliable sources), or violate WP:NPA/WP:AGF, or both. Sandstein 09:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 278[edit]

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

What makes this bus route notable? Some London bus routes do appear to be notable, having attracted some media coverage or mentions in sources, but this one has very little going to it - few passing mentions that fail WP:SIGCOV. Btw, since someone could be confused by formatting, Changes to suburban bus services to support the Elizabeth line is NOT an academic journal article, it is a primary (government) document, and one either case, it just briefly mentions this route in one paragraph in the technical discussion of a proposal ("New route 278 would be introduced between Ruislip and Heathrow Airport..."). Anyway, this entity (particular bus line) does not appear to meet GNG requirements for stand-alone articles, and at best can be redirected to List of bus routes in London. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this was tagged with {{notability}} only minutes before the deletion nomination. What was the purpose of that? This is a well-written article with lots of info and ten sources. How does removing this information improve Wikipedia? NemesisAT (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NemesisAT It was tagged to explain the reasons for the nomination. Since 95% of notability tags stay on articles for years and see nobody addressing the issue, it doesn't make any sense to tag it and wait for years or decades hoping this elicits an action. Anyway, you present no argument for keeping outside WP:ITSHARMLESS (which is hardly a valid one, per linked discussion). Removing this improves Wikipedia since Wikipedia should only have articles that pass WP:GNG requirement. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article now passes WP:GNG as additional sources (including newspaper articles and a book source) have now been added. NemesisAT (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect. How many times does it need pointing out that deletion is never the right answer for bus routes that or were are part of a notable set (a notable set meaning one that is the topic of an article, section and/or list)? This is because they will always be, at the very least, plausible search terms that should be redirects, and frequently they will contain information that should be merged into a broader article. In this case the history of transport in (north) London is a clearly encyclopaedic topic, and while we don't have such an article yet we will at some point in the future, so keeping the history available is a Good Thing (although it wont be soon, as few people are motivated to write and improve such content when bus related content has to be continuously defended against those who dislike it). Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thryduulf: As I note in my nom, I am fine with redirecting. But just stealthily readirecting it would be, IMHO, a bad practice, equivalent of stealthy deletion. Since we don't have a separate forum to discuss redirects, AfD has to do. The only other option is no discussion at all, and that I think would be the least desirable outcome, letting one person decide the fate of the article for maybe years, with nobody else aware of this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  You could have started a discussion on the talk page or Wikiproject page if you didn't want to boldly redirect it. If you had boldly redirected it anyone one else could have reverted you if they felt it inappropriate, and then you could have a discussion per WP:BRD. AfD is only the correct venue if you believe the article should be deleted and no alternatives are appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thryduulf, If you think a discussion at a WikiProject should be a prerequisite to an AfD, please suggest it at WP:BEFORE. IMHO, since a WikiProject is automatically notified through DELSORT/Article Alerts about AfD in their area of interest, I think this best practice is fulfilled anyway, why do we need two discussions about the article? Plus most WikiProjects are not very active anyway, sadly, so the odds are many of such discussions would be wasted (not resulting in anything since people will not see it or ignore it since there is no immediate "threat"). As for boldly redirecting it, I already explained I consider it a very bad practice (also from the perspective of it being challenged, just like next to nobody would see the stealth deletion, the same problem applies to a stealth recreation via redirecting reversal). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A wikiproject discussion is not a pre-requisite to all AfDs. It's just one option if you don't think a talk page discussion will be spotted. If you think redirecting is best but don't want to discuss redirecting and don't want to boldy redirect then you should just leave the article alone. AfD is only for articles you think should be deleted not articles you think should be redirected. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to List of bus routes in London is common for these discussions. There isn't anything of value to merge as route 278 already appears in the table and doesn't need anything additional to what is there now. Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it doesn't need any more info? We have essentially infinite space here. I have yet to conduct a search for additional sources for this article, it may be that more are available. NemesisAT (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We also have notability standards. Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article passes WP:GNG. That's the notability standard, and it has been met. NemesisAT (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say it does, I say it doesn't and none of the keep votes other than yours have explicitly claimed this either. This is exactly why we have AfD's. Ajf773 (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you say it doesn't? Note the additional sources added since your vote. NemesisAT (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajf773 already linked one argument you should read, I'll add Wikipedia:ITSHARMLESS . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yet another drive-by violation of WP:NOTCLEANUP. Hold on tight please, ting, ting! Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTCLEANUP indeed, there is nothing useful here, just a catalog-entry for an insignificant entity. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that then you should be recommending redirecting it to the "catalogue" (List of bus routes in London) rather than deleting it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the additional sources provided mean this now passes WP:GNG. Also, how exactly do you define "useful"? WP:ITSUSEFUL NemesisAT (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Thryduulf - not notable in itself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My opinion: this is yet one more attempt by a small cabal of editors to rid Wikipedia of bus-related articles simply because they WP:IDL them. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- AlgaeGraphix, Who is in that cabal? I'd like to meet them, as I don't recall ever commenting on a similar article, but now you tell me there are kindred spirits out there I should network with. By all means, please introduce us. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  There is no "cabal" as (at least in my mind) that implies organisation but I don't see any evidence of that. What I have observed over many years though is a small number of editors with an apparent desire to eliminate all bus content from Wikipedia (this might not be the desire of any one editor, but it is the impact of their collective desires). Individual bus routes get trimmed down to bare bones and then deleted, merged or redirected. The same then happens to the merged articles, then the lists get nominated for deletion on NOTDIRECTORY grounds. The lack of improvement to articles is nearly always cited, but improvements don't stick because "trivia" and "routine" even when the editors interested have not been driven away from the project by seeing their work repeatedly nominated for deletion and referred to as "trivia", "rubbish" and similar. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was the impression I got from some responses at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 123 and other places. Folk use "route changes are routine" (they are anything but routine!) to suggest bus routes shouldn't be listed despite there being adequate sources in the article. Bear in mind though that London Buses route 167 survived a deletion discussion, so there certainly isn't a community consensus to delete all bus articles. NemesisAT (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly see that some bus lines (routes, whatever) are notable, having received significant coverage due to their economic or tourist importance or whatever. Not all do, however (likely 0.1% of existing bus lines in the world are notable, if not fewer), and this one IMHO doesn't make the cut. That something exists doesn't always make it encyclopedic (notable). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When some members of a set are notable then all members of the set are plausible search terms and so should be, at minimum, redirects to the appropriate article about the set or list of members of the set. Any articles created about members of the set that are not notable should be merged and redirected to the most appropriate broader article. Deletion is not appropriate and so neither are AfD nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you feel buses must have coverage on their economic impact, or tourist importance, for inclusion in Wikipedia. Simply passing WP:GNG ought to be enough, which this article now does with multiple newspaper sources and a book source. NemesisAT (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being one of the newest bus routes in London, there is practically nothing notable about this route whatsoeover. Article is plagued with references to londonbusroutes.net and londonbusroutes.co.uk, which are deprecated self-published fansites and not considered reliable. Rest of the sources are run-of-the-mill mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why deletion rather than redirection? Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Either way if it gets deleted, a redirect will follow. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the article and its additional sources added since your comment, and reconsider. I have also reduced reliance on londonbusroutes.net/.co.uk and will see if I can remove it alltogether. Thanks NemesisAT (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surprisingly, there is some significant coverage of the old 278 bus:

Brazier, Hugh; McCann, Jan (2014-11-13). The Book of 365: All the Numbers, None of the Maths. Random House. p. 278. ISBN 978-1-4481-9256-4.

It is plausible that additional coverage could be cobbled together to meet GNG, but I am currently still leaning the redirect route like for the rest of the bus articles. Jumpytoo Talk 19:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestng find, but is the source reliable? It seems like a novel/essay, or rather, a book of trivia, where the author has one page for each number up to 365, and under 278 summarizes few facts about this bus. I am not convinced such a source can establish notability.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's published by an reputable publisher, so I would argue it is reliable. Though, I still believe redirection is the best route, as the notability is tied to the old 278, and the current iteration doesn't have much in terms of coverage. Jumpytoo Talk 02:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Can we combine two routes (the old 278 and the current one) under the one header to create an article, if either route on its own wouldn't qualify for one? As losing information on both would be a shame. NemesisAT (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some bus articles have survived AfD, like London Buses route 167. At the moment, some remain as articles while others have been redirected to the list. NemesisAT (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons given by others. Toviemaix (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been improved significantly since the nomination, so I think it now passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been shortened ([28] vs [29]). I am not sure how this improves notability. Can you elaborate? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several sources. I'm not sure why it has been shortened though, I need to take a closer look. NemesisAT (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sea–Caspian Steppe[edit]

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

This huge article is tagged as unreferenced since May 2020. I looked into its history to see if vandals deleted references and noticed that in an early version the page creator wrote "There appears to be no book in English about this region. Sources can be found in the linked articles.", i.e., basically admitted WP:SYNTH. Russian Wikipedia lede says "Понтийско-Каспийская степь (Причёрноморско-Каспийская степь) — огромная степь..." (The Pontic–Caspian steppe (Black Sea- Caspian Steppe) is a huge steppe...) I.e., the "owners" of the most of the steppe use these terms interchangeably. Google search gives a miserable number of85 unique hits for the term, mostly its usage, with no in-depth coverage of such a huge and allegedly important area. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Southern Federal District: This seems to be the mother article. Integration into Southern Federal District seems to be a better idea if we can find references for a lot of the historical and geographic statements made in this one. Curbon7 (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]
- - bad idea on 3 counts (A) merging a geographical subject into an administrative subdivision that can change (b) merge unreferenced text (3) redrecting a vague geographical area for which definition there are no sources into an administrative subdivision. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral Unless someone provides a stronger reason for deletion. When I look at this I see a huge amount of excellent material about a geographic area. I'm familiar with the editor that started it. Usually they do an immense amount of scholarly article development but are weak on the wiki-specific stuff. So weakness in that latter area is not very indicative of anything. I don't have the expertise in this area or related article to know how this should be covered, but what I see is a huge amount of good material about a geographic area which is probably slam-dunk wp:notable. Doubly so with the extra emphasis of Wikipedia's gazetteer function set out in the 5 pillars policy. And paucity of coverage by the exact title of the article is not an indicator otherwise. What this is needs is experts/ editors from this area deciding, not an AFD with the above-described lack of substantiated reasons to delete. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That the term does not have coverage in sources (only occasionally mentioned in an unknown meaning) is not enough reason? Yes, the user did an immense job... of original research. Just the same I can spend an immense amount of work to describe the Liverpool-Manchester Lowlands , with all real rivers and boroughs, but will it mean that wikipedia must have it? Lembit Staan (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "must have it" is a higher bar than the standard. I do agree that your point about Liverpool-Manchester Lowlands points out a valid concern..... if an editor invents an subdivision and finds sources relevant to it, that that alone isn't enough. But the other extreme would be to require sources that use the exact name of the article. I think that the best question/answer would be whether the sources treat the topic of the article as a distinct subdivision. That would address the wp:notability questions which is the main criteria regarding a guideline-based deletion here. My own opinion would be to see if someone familiar with the Wikipedia articles for that area feels that this topic should have a separate article. North8000 (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my position from "keep" to "neutral". The change is because of offsetting concerns that I see no realistic prospect of this material getting sourced, whether it be in a separate article or via moving into another article. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Does not seem to be recognized as a distinct geographical entity, as opposed to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Searching for the name in Russian returned a whopping 7 results, all of which were Wikipedia mirrors. There could always be print sources out there that specifically discuss this area as a discrete concept, but given the term's utter absence on the internet I'm doubtful they exist. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, is it real, or is it OR?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in absence of sufficient sources that treat this as a recognized unit. The Liverpool-Manchester Lowlands comparison above is useful to illustrate the problem. I remember we had a very detailed article at AfD some time ago about a putative concatenated watershed running the entire range of western Europe; the arguments that led to deletion were the same - synthesizing lots of details does not make up for absence of real-world treatment of the topic per se. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The user who created this article seems to be a hoax account. Their user page starts with the Italian saying "Se non è vero, è Ben Trovato", which translates to "Even if it is not true, it is a good story". Not a good start. The username is Benjamin Trovato, clearly a reference to the saying. This is not the only big article without sources that the user created, apparently this is all they do, and in their talk page there are several users complaining about this behaviour. See for example History of the western steppe, History of the central steppe, and History of the eastern steppe. Now the topics are all obscure and I can't verify whether the user is just making shit up, but I'm not impressed with the quality of the prose and the content of the articles. Tercer (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on only on the hoax account concern, as I noted at the beginning, I'm familiar with the editor that started it. Usually they do an immense amount of scholarly article development but are weak on the wiki-specific stuff. Several years back I worked with them quite a bit in a certain topic area and they did an immense amount of research and contributed an immense amount of material which I know to be correct. And most without providing references/ cites, even though we were discussing the specific books that they were taking the material from. Also I think that them having 21,000 edits spanning 13 years further reinforces that it is not a hoax account. Again, this is only to address that one concern, not to argue for keeping the article. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll take your word for it that it is not a hoax account, merely lazy with sourcing. I won't change my !vote, though, as we still don't have any sources for this particular article, despite the best efforts of the other editors. My guess is that we're dealing with WP:SYNTH here. Tercer (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like time to close Open for 12 days, 4 or 5 "deletes" and one "neutral" and zero "keeps". North8000 (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramcharan Bharali[edit]

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

Fail WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 17:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:BIO. He is one of the leading artists of popular art form Nagara Naam. Nalbarian (talk) 03:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't any evidence that the award is notable, and two central reference don't seem to be about him. He is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more before no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Levon Pogosian[edit]

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

BLP with only references to his own stuff. Is he notable? Rathfelder (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and the many well-cited publications on his Google Scholar profile [30]. He has also attracted a little popular-media attention for his work [31]. Faulty nomination does not appear to have even considered our specialized guidelines for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The rules for living people require external references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The rules for avoiding BLPPROD are weak enough that they are already satisfied by the extlinks present in the article. The notability guidelines do not distinguish between living people and others, and in general do not require references. (GNG requires the existence of certain types of source, but does not require them to be present as references in the article, and is in any case the wrong notability guideline for this article.) The rules for sourcing claims in BLPs allow self-published sources such as the faculty home page already linked in cases where the claims are factual rather than evaluative and are not contentious. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 with 17 papers > 100 citations, h-index of 43 this is clearly a keep. The person is clearly notable and passes the criteria without much question. --hroest 01:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised by this one since I also thought it would be an easy C1 pass. But this is an extremely high-citation field, as evidenced by the Scopus metrics for Pogosian and his 77 coauthors (with >20 papers, and excluding those who only collaborated with him on many-author "yearly report on Planck data"-type papers, which are more likely to boost their citations considerably):

Total citations: avg: 14258, median: 7641, Pogosian: 3999.

Total papers: avg: 143, med: 90, P: 86.

h-index: avg: 44, med: 37, P: 34.

Top citations: 1st: avg: 1433, med: 1093, P: 269. 2nd: avg: 905, med: 717, P: 263. 3rd: avg: 756, med: 542, P: 246. 4th: avg: 628, med: 369, P: 224. 5th: avg: 523, med: 336, P: 182.

He is well below the median in all these parameters, which already skew low since 20 papers is apparently super poor for this field (the median out of all 238 coauthors, including those with just 1 publication, is 72 papers!). JoelleJay (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have now added in all the coauthors who have attained positions beyond post-doc in physics (so, all 163 professors, staff scientists, senior researchers, etc). As expected with adding in all the people who only coauthored with Pogosian on giant cosmology collaborations, the average (and median) metrics increased across the board.

Citation metrics, 163 coauthors

Caption text
Current position	Total citations (avg, med)	Total papers (avg, med)	h-index (avg, med)	1st (avg, med)	2nd (avg, med)	3rd (avg, med)	4th (avg, med)	5th (avg, med)	N
L. Pogosian	3999	86	34	269	263	246	224	182
Profs/lecturers/readers only	18428, 11215	222, 150	53, 49	2012, 1159	1261, 722	1005, 565	789, 449	607, 383	121
Other post-postdocs (e.g. staff scientist, research engineer, senior researcher, etc.)(>20 papers) (avg, med)	7417, 4547	98, 72	32, 28	1292, 625	782, 408	605, 333	377, 256	311, 219	42
All post-postdocs	16746, 10436	217, 111	52, 43	1728, 1093	1101, 738	838, 549	687, 424	540, 377	163
Postdocs	2711, 1217	55, 43	20, 18	464, 239	335, 134	266, 101	196, 99	157, 79	23

JoelleJay (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering Joelle's information and analysis, I am in agreement this is too weak and doesn't meet WP:PROF standards. High citation fields are a thing and that can factor into decisions. Tautomers_{(T C)} 03:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with David Eppstein and hroest assesment. It qualifies WP:PROF#C1 and can see reliable sources too like [[32] which supports notability even more. Jaysonsands (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete BLP rules clearly mandate independent sources, which we clearly lack. Also JoelleJay's analysis clearly shows that Pogosian does not actually meet any inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. BLP rules do not mandate independent sources. They mandate reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelleJay's analysis. PROF#C1 explicitly states that "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." With relatively low publication and citation rates for his field, this person should not pass PROF#C1 and without independent coverage should not pass GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a couple of independent references to the article. ~~Also given his academic output and h-index of 43, his research is significant in the field.~~ Uhooep (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhooep, how is he "significant in the field" if the average citation metrics in that field are so much higher than his? NPROF asks for academics who go beyond the "average professor" in one's subdiscipline. JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong keep. An h-index of 43 and 6900+ citations in cosmology is well beyond the "average professor" in cosmology. Every delete !vote has been based on JoelleJay's faulty analysis which compares the person to his co-authors, not to the "average professor in his subdiscipline". Try to do that analysis on the subdiscipline of cosmology, or even the sub-subdiscipline of dark energy, instead of comparing this person to only his extremely good co-authors. Furthermore, one does not have to be "beyond the average professor in one's subdiscipline", it just has to be in their "discipline" which is in this case physics. It's true that the subdiscipline of cosmology might get cited more on average than some other subdisciplines of physics, but that also makes it more competitive to land a faculty position in that area, and the fact that he reached full professor at a U15 university while working in that "highly cited" subdiscipline, means that he has gone well beyond the average physics professor. Keep in mind that unlike USA, "named" professors are not really a thing in Canada, but this article's subject would very likely be "named" if they were in the US. I agree with David Eppstein, and hroest, and Jaysonsands and Uhooep, that this was a faulty nomination. The citation criteria that were used to attempt an argument against notability, were flawed. Dr. Universe (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you can claim I'm comparing him "only to his extremely good co-authors". The cutoff of 20 papers is over 3x lower than the median number of papers of all 238 of his coauthors. 20 is around the number brand-new PhDs in that field have, so if we actually wanted to evaluate him in relation to other professors the cutoff would be much, much higher. And per NPROF For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). limiting analysis to just cosmology is perfectly reasonable. I specifically excluded people who only were only coauthors with him on massive collaborations since they were less likely to be directly comparable (that is, within his sub-subdiscipline) and because they were more likely to substantially increase the average/median citations. But since as you suggest we should be evaluating with a broader scope (cosmology), I will go back through and update the metrics after adding in those authors.

Also, I am going off of what objective information we have available, which is primarily his citation record; claims of how difficult it is to get a cosmology faculty position and assertions that he would have a named professorship if he was in the US are SYNTH/OR and cannot contribute to notability considerations. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way SYNTH/OR are okay for AfD discussions (the WP article about SYNTH/OR explicitly says that). The concern is when it's used for the actual content of an article. Technically speaking, your whole citation analysis is SYNTH/OR. I'll also say that even if his h-index of 43 and 6900+ citations were not considered above average for a cosmology researcher, that alone doesn't mean the article should be deleted. All eligibility criteria have to fail, in order for the subject to be ineligible (not just one of them). Also, sorry that we have missed each other on connecting with my part about "comparing him to only his extremely good co-authors", I did not mean that you're only comparing him to his best co-authors (e.g. high-profile professors rather than postdocs), what I meant was that his co-authors in general (even the grad students) have been extremely successful citation-wise, compared to other people (including grad students) in cosmology. Dr. Universe (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, but it's one thing to say "this field is ultra-competitive and unlike notability assessments for every other discipline a professorship in it should be an automatic NPROF pass, here are the references to support that claim" and quite another to just assert this is the case without providing any valid, sourceable reasoning. And of course if someone demonstrates Pogosian clearly meets another criterion I will update my !vote. I'll also reevaluate if you prove his coauthors are like 2 or 3x more successful than those of most other cosmology professors' coauthors. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to figure out the average citation metrics for a cosmologist, but that would be a research project of its own. It seems that academic notability discussions on AfD have spiraled into something far from the original spirit of Wikipedia. The reason Wikipedia became so successful was because the ease of doing things led it to becoming far more useful to people than other encyclopedias where editing is not so accessible. However to keep this one article online, it seems we're being asked to carry out a full fledged research project as if it were a full-time job. I admire your efforts here, but the amount of effort you put into figuring out which of his 100+ citations are post-docs, which are staff scientists, which are professors, etc., and then figuring out each of their citation metrics, is quite extreme compared to what is done in other regions of Wikipedia. "If the basketball player is getting paid money to play, they're notable". "If the song landed on the Billboard 100 chart, it's notable". My !vote was to keep because I know that the average cosmologist has an h-index lower than 43 and fewer than 6900 citations. hroest's !vote was to keep because he knows/believes that 17 papers with 100+ citations is enough to be considered notable in this field. Your !vote was to delete because you know/believe that an academic can't be notable if their citations are too much lower than their co-authors' based on your metrics. In the end, our !votes are based on what we know, and hopefully there will be enough people !voting that we don't have to carry out a full-fledged research project to figure out whether or not an h-index of 43 and 6900+ citations is 2-3x more than the average cosmologist. Dr. Universe (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of NPROF is to provide wiki coverage of researchers who are exceptional, whose impact goes beyond that of the average professor in their area of scholarship. Almost all editors !voting in academic AfDs will be unfamiliar with the publishing standards of any given field, and many will be approaching AfDs with preconceived notions of how many citations is "a lot" based on their personal experience in whatever field they're in. But if we use such static, naïve bases for what constitutes a "notable" number of citations or h-index, we will inevitably end up over-covering academics in subfields where citations are much higher on average and under-covering those where it is lower. I saw Pogosian's Scopus h-index of 34 and assumed this would be an easy keep, and was surprised to discover his citation count was so far below the median (and 4 times lower than the average!) of 160+ cosmologists. I don't claim to know the average cosmologist has a higher h-index than 34; my belief is that these metrics demonstrate cosmology overall has such high publication/citation rates that most !voters' internal metrics would perhaps benefit from this additional context. I don't know whether hroest or any of the prior !voters would be swayed by these analyses or put any stock in them at all; but several subsequent participants have considered them relevant enough to inform their choice so it is not like I am the only one who finds this methodology reasonable. JoelleJay (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinion about the article subject, but would point out that raw citation numbers, which contribute to h-index, are meaningless in experimental and observational sciences where papers tend to have the names on them of everyone who took part in the experiment or observation, whether they had a major or very minor role. This is the opposite of the effect that we see in the humanities or pure mathematics (maybe pure mathematics is a humanity, but I will leave that discussion to other places) where someone may have their name on very few papers but still be a leader in their field. We really need to differentiate subjects even more than we do already. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, yep, I absolutely agree (and have brought this up before on wikiproject physics). This is part of why I first looked at the coauthors of Pogosian who weren't on the handful of massive collaborations he was on (but still counted those citations for him). It's also why I look at coauthors in the first place -- to contextualize citation metrics within a particular discipline. C1 values always look super impressive in the ultra-high-publication subfields and are therefore always brought up in AfDs, so if we're going to have those numbers thrown around anyway it's much more informative to show how they compare to those of other people in that subfield than for us to base our !votes on our internal subjective perceptions of what a "typical citation record" looks like (which will of course vary wildly by how familiar we are with a particular topic). JoelleJay (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelleJay's excellent analysis. NPROF explicity cautions against using h-index or other citation metrics, and it's not clear that he has made a significant impact in his field any more than other typical professors, so that would need to be shown with other types of sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PROF means that researchers are ntoable for their work, as judged by the impact of their work. The usual way of judging this is by the extent of citations to their most important papers. There is a difficulty with the citation patten in fields that JoelleJay calls attention to, but this shouldn't interfere with the usual analysis--otherwise it would be almost impossible to show that anyone in thigh energy physics or cosmology would be notable, unless they were famous enough for National Academy of Sciences. But the difficulty can be avoided in his case. We just need to remove the ambiguity by looking att he citations to the work other than the many-multi-author papers.

Pattern of growth in viable f (R) cosmologies by L Pogosian, A Silvestri in Physical review D, 2008 has 386 citations

Dynamics of linear perturbations in f (R) gravity by R Bean, D Bernat, L Pogosian, A Silvestri, M Trodden - Physical Review D, 2007 has 358

Searching for modified growth patterns with tomographic surveys GB Zhao, L Pogosian, A Silvestri, J Zylberberg - Physical Review D, 2009 has 267

Testing gravity with CAMB and CosmoMC A Hojjati, L Pogosian, GB Zhao - Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011 has 223

Bounds on cosmic strings from WMAP and SDSS. M Wyman, L Pogosian, I Wasserman - Physical Review D, 2005 has 208

This amounts to at least 5 papers with refs over 200. The consensus of how many depends on field--recent decisions have been that in biomed science, the most heavily cited field, 2 papers with over 200 citations is is certainly enough (it used to be 1 with over 100, but citation density has increased) ... He has several times that.

JoelleJay is quite correct that judging by h factor alone is meaningless. Eugene Garfield, the inventor of the technique, thought so also,. h =34 could mean 500 400 399....34 or 40, 39....34. Only the first is a record that shows notability. Scientists are not judged by their routine work, but their best work. Using just h factor would be akin to judging an author by their average little known work, rather than having written 2 or 3 best-sellers. That's what the WP warning on just using h factor means. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to remove the ambiguity by looking att he citations to the work other than the many-multi-author papers. That's a reasonable take, although from what I've seen of other cosmologists I'm inclined to believe average citations are high even outside of mega-collaboration papers (which is reflected by my initial analysis, which excluded those coauthors who only worked with the subject on mega-collab papers). I'm always interested in evolving my methods, so I'm going to tweak my scripts to give me the top ten regular-author-number papers for each coauthor. JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps citations are high in this field because of the general scientific interest in the work? that would be scientific impact, which is what WP:PROF notability is about. The necessary analysis here is which journals cite them. There is also the possibility that the quality of work in this field is exceptionally high, because of the extremely elite people it attracts (coi note: For some years I had supervisory responsibility for the astronomy library at one of the 3 or 4 leading centers for the subject.)

There is as you say, another source of error--determining the responsibility in multi-author (but not mega-author) papers; there is a method I have used--look at the citation record of each of the authors. That will distinguish between the major scientists and the students. It still has the error that the most senior people may have done none of the actual work besides getting the grant that supports it. This can usefully be analyzed further by seeing where in each of the people's trajectory the papers lies, and in what fields they have done additional work. Then, a further way for analyzing citation data, which I have used only a few times, is to compare with similar people who are clearly notable and clearly non-notable . (I'll note that this is essentially similar to one part of the the way faculty analyze the record of prospective candidates for positions or tenure; And this is in essence why I accept that an associate or full professor at any of the really important universities especially their most important departments will be notable, because the faculty has done the work of determining this, and they, not we, are the experts. As a librarian I helped them find data, but they did the analysis. )

There's a relevant paper on the subject of handling citations on authorship in a similar field, high energy physics: Peter Galison, "The Collective Author" pp. 325-356 in Mario Biagoli and Peter Galison, eds. Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science. Routledge, 2003. ISBN 9780415942928 . Based on the conference What is a Scientific Author held at Harvard in March 1997. (also online, but the Google Books preview does not include this paper. There is said to be an authorized available online copy at https://galison.scholar.harvard.edu/files/andrewhsmith/files/galison_collective.pdf but I have not yet been able to successfully download it. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps citations are high in this field because of the general scientific interest in the work? that would be scientific impact, which is what WP:PROF notability is about. The necessary analysis here is which journals cite them. There is also the possibility that the quality of work in this field is exceptionally high, because of the extremely elite people it attracts
How is this consistent with NPROF C1 (emphasis mine) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed and For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed... Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided? If the average number of citations per paper is just scaled up from whatever we think is typical for our fields, that's not an indication that that field is "more important" or that a larger proportion of people in it are notable or more skilled... And I should also note that these papers still have a lot of authors -- I used 20 as a cutoff because otherwise the comparisons would be among a very tiny number of coauthors. So while 300 citations might seem high, it could be perfectly in line with what is expected from 20-author papers, especially if each paper has a high number of references itself. But anyway, we're supposed to be comparing within major subfields, not with professors in general, and within the major subfield of cosmology—even when excluding mega-collab authors—Pogosian comes up below the median for researchers beyond post-doc. And I definitely don't think there's consensus that associate professors are normally notable at major institutions.
The Galison paper (which I could access from your link) is definitely interesting and gives a very good overview of how HEP collab papers were structured in the late 90s, although it is more philosophical than informative on how we should interpret authorship (other than to disregard alphabetized authorship on mega-collab papers altogether from notability analysis, which I would support). JoelleJay (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, he does not give a solution. Faculty committees consider non-quantitative information also, in a way which we can not, tho we can use the decisions they make on such bases. Though there is indeed no consensus at WP that associate professors (which always implies tenure) at the highest quality institutions are notable at WP, can you really imagine the faculty of such a department appointing to tenure someone who would not be? DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that in principle, but foresee, if it is enacted, loads of arguments about what is a "highest quality institution". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We cannot keep continuing the debate the way it's going, especially with comments like "Pogosian comes up below the median for researchers beyond post-doc" which in a permanently visible AfD discussion not only could be very damaging to Pogosian's reputation and career (for example if he's being considered for an APS award and someone that doesn't like Pogosian, uses that quote against him), but also comes with no evidence to back it up (Pogosian has only been compared to the post-docs and researchers that have co-authored with him, not the "average professor in his discipline of cosmology"). While I think this AfD discussion can make for a very illuminating debate, I think it needs to stop. I wonder if an admin can make a decision on the article based on what we have here, or perhaps we have to post this on an admin noticeboard in case the discussion has become too long for an admin to see this comment at the end. By the way @DGG: I agree that medicine is probably the most cited area in all of academia, but do you have evidence that 2 papers with 200 citations in that field is enough to become a definite keep? If so, the 5 examples by Pogosian that you gave, which have 200+ citations and were not even including his mega-collaborations, seems more than enough evidence to make a decision here. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence about biomed is based on recent debates. I've been folllowing the afds in this area for 15 years now. In 2006, the acceptance of WP:PROF was still uncertain: I recall arguing that if we instead used GNG the literal way itt was being interpreted, then anyone whose had 2 papers, each of which had a substantial comment in a paper from a different author, would meet it., and that this was absurd, because essentially all postdocs even would meet that standard. Garfield when he developed citation analysis considered anyone with 1 paper over 100 to be a "Citation classic, and for many years we followed that rule. But the expected number of citations depends upon the publication density in a field, and , especially, the usual number of citation for each paper, and this has gradually been increasing. For about the last 5 years the practice in biomed was 2 or more papers over 100, but in the last 1 or 2 years some afd debates started asking for higher. (I steadily resisted each increase, so what I'm giving is not my standard, but the higher standard of the community). The people who asked for higher have usually suggest 200 as the cutoff, and were usually satisfied with 1 such paper.I am giving the safe level--there are still biomed people being found notable with considerably lower records, but I do not think any with 2 or more over 200 has been found not to be notable, in biomed or any other field, if the citation numbers were given, with a few rare exceptions. . (There are exceptions to this for people in fields sometimes not taken seriously here, such as education or home economics , or for people against whom there is prejudice based on their having, in addition to their important true scientific work, some connection with pseudoscience, usually in their later year). It would be interesting to do an analysis including the ones where individual citation count isn't mentioned.

I'm accustomed to arguments where there is some realistic doubt about the notability or the significance of the count--of course people can disagree about where to draw the line, and I know I'm relatively inclusive in this field. But this really does seem a very clear keep and I don't see the reason for makign a test case out of it. Years ago I did spend much of my time here defending afds on researchers, but now I'm more concerned with keeping out promotionalism . I'm not sure where my priorities would lie between the two. . DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, erring on the side of. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vrbovačko Brdo[edit]

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

Unpopulated location with no citations, fails GEOLAND dudhhr_Contribs 05:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. dudhhr_Contribs 05:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There was indeed a village here, and records can be found in old censuses. It had 141 residents back in 1953 [33] and even a school class in 1963 [34] but it started downhill from there. It is mentioned in the book "Depopulation in Croatia" [35] having only 4 residents in 1991 and it's apparently abandoned by now. No such user (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - formerly populated place so passes WP:GEOLAND, article does need improving, though Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A google search of this toponym shows a page [36] on the Croatian Bureau of Statistics website which sadly doesn't seem to support deep linking, but does allow one to click through and search their database to confirm continuous settlement between around 1900 and around 1981 (happening to peak at 271 inhabitants in the 1953 census), and that in 1981, this place became a hamlet of Blažević Dol [hr] (which still has a comparable population today). A search on https://geoportal.dgu.hr/ which is the map website of the State Geodetic Administration (another Croatian government entity) easily confirms the location. We have gazetteer articles on existing villages with much smaller population, so it stands to reason that there is sufficient potential here to keep this one, too. Worst case it can later be redirected to the existing place's article, when that one in turn gets created. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: For a future reference, the DZS website allows you to save a query ("Spremi pretraživanje") and retrieve it by URL (works in Edge but not FF):
http://www.dzs.hr/App/PXWeb/PXWebHrv/sq/d522b4ea-ad2d-4a2f-bbf3-31100af7850b
As a matter of fact, we have a quite long, unsourced and contextless List of former populated places in Croatia. No such user (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have once been a recognised settlement, so passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Bhattarai[edit]

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

Among 23 references provided, only 4 refers to actual biographical content. Among those 4, none have in depth coverage. Citation index shows too low number to consider for WP:NPROF. Being a chair person for Nepal Astronomical Society (NASO) does not qualify for notability automatically. nirmal (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's WP:TOOSOON, at best, for WP:NPROF for this 2011 MSc. No indication of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst they seem to do lots of things, none seem overly notable, and no evidence of meeting WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete His notability seems fairly close to the relevant border to me. He was appointed as an international outreach coordinator by the International Astronomical Union while also retaining chair at the nepal astronomical socieity. Considering this is a country-wide appointment that strikes me as pretty significant, but by itself it doesn't satisfy C3, nor C7. However, he seems likely to saitsfy C7 in the future if he makes an impact with this position. If someone can speak Nepalese I would love it if they could search media from the country to see if he's done something noteworthy there. I feel this is likely a WP:TOOSOON case. In my opinion, if he has won a series of moderate-level awards, or had an average but not-quite h-index and publications (his is actually really bad), or some other modestly impactful factor this would tip it to a weak keep to me. I wasn't able to find evidence of either of these though and thus feel weak delete. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 03:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Nepali name is "सुरेश भट्टराई". I added it to the article. Again, when I checked with nepali name, there are only mentions in astronomical events. Which is obvious because he is the event organizer in most of the cases. eg. 1. I also found some interview in youtube 2. But i am still not convinced of notability. nirmal (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as seems like WP:TOOSOON] to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NPROF, clearly WP:TOOSOON with 2 papers, lack of awards except student awards and no real other indication of notability. --hroest 21:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Bajoria[edit]

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

A non notable businesswomen without any coverage. Any of the sources are not sufficient to meet our GNG criteria at the least level. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 04:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 04:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see SIGCOV. I don't think that being the Honorary Counsul General of Denmark in Kolkata (and as a result receiving the Order of the Dannebrog, which is handed out like candy to diplomats is significant.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Her husband is just about notable, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Anything of any significance can be added to his article. Edwardx (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Regional Science High School for Region 1#Publications as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Tagatuklas[edit]

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

Student publication with no sources and weak notability claim, except for winning as one of the Best School Papers in the Philippines in 1998 (unsourced) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Will Wikipedia ever be free from these nonsense? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need extremely good sources to show a secondary school publication is notable, and even then we would normally just merge the article to the school in question. We lack any such sources here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Philippine K-12 school papers aren't that notable unless they were covered by larger mainstream media outlets for achieving something. HiwilmsTalk 18:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Regional Science High School for Region 1#Publications. Fails WP:STUDENTMEDIA per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University as an WP:ATD. Anyone is free to add any content about the student paper to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dolphin (student publication)[edit]

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

Article largely unsourced and inline citations that do exist are primary sources. There is no indication of external notability, independent from the John B Lacson Foundation Maritime University. (such as relevance to the wider history of the Philippines, or at least to the immediate community - Iloilo City) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The university itself is borderline non-notable. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article even uses the publication, itself, as the references. It is a reflection of its non-notability. HiwilmsTalk 18:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University. Fails WP:STUDENTMEDIA per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Somers[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a management consultant, "referenced" entirely to his own books metaverifying themselves on an online bookstore rather than any evidence of third party reliable source coverage or analysis about him or his writing. As always, however, notability hinges on the ability to demonstrate the latter, not the former. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Entirely unsourced BLP, the only sources are really just links to the subject's books. Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taaooma[edit]

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

I do not see notability here, and the professional roles are ones where it's very difficult to provide reliable evidence--and very difficult to write a non=promotional article.

The awards are mere PR, like all ...under... awards, and they pretty much rely of each other for who gets listed. the Gage awards judging from their web page are a concsiously designed PR device,

The refs other than the awards are promotional interviews, and therefore unreliable, no matter where published. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several RS: Guardian Nigeria (not an interview), Christian Science monitor (includes some quotes, but not an interview). Lots of coverage in BellaNaija and Legit.ng beyond that cited in this article. The image is an obvious copyvio, however, and should be deleted immediately. Furius (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Furius, I enjoy an intellectual exchange with you and Vaticidalprophet on policy so I’m happy you came here. I don’t disagree with you on the Guardian source (although they are losing credibility really fast) the CSN is a good one as well, but Bellanaija is a self published blog without a reputation for fact checking, their reputation for fact checking is non-existent. Having said, there are indeed a plethora of reliable sources used but i can’t say that all the pieces used are reliable, infact when dealing with Nigerian media it’s the piece that matters and not the source, I mean no disrespect, I’m a Nigerian citizen as well. I’m hesitant to cast a !vote because it was I who nominated the article the first time that ended in a no consensus I think the major problem here is the promotional nature of the article, DGG mentioned that the Gage award they won was a non notable one and I agree with him 100% it is a paid for award. I could get one if I wanted that’s how bad the award show is. I probably should have draftified the article rather than nominate it for deletion(the first time) and ensured they past the article via WP:AFC. I’m leaning on delete but I am afraid I may be subconsciously biased, so for now I’d allow “non involved” editors to input their rationales and see how this plays out. Celestina007 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per DGG. Promotionalism at its finest not necessarily indicative of a problem with the creator but the sourcing itself is problematic. Celestina007 (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would this CNN source be considered a promotional one? source — Preceding unsigned comment added by PantheonRadiance (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears there may be three reliable sources. Further discussion regarding depth of coverage and analysis of independence and reliability should commence. Three independent, in-depth, reliable sources meet most editor's definition of GNG, but I see no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Furius as the subject duly satisfy WP:BASIC and #1 & #2WP:ANYBIO as they have continuously been used to define Instagram online comedy in Nigeria as their mention on CNN here weighed on that. Also the multiple RS like Pulse, Dailytrust, The Nation and many others makes them deserve inclusion. Maybe few cleanup but subject is indeed notable. Kaizenify (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bell Media Radio. Even if we were to take into consideration the comments from the block-evading IP-sockpuppeteer, they would carry little weight, for the reasons given by Bearcat, and the fact that they were made while evading a block makes carry no weight at all. Apart from those comments, there is clearly a consensus against keeping the article, and the commonest opinion is redirecting to Bell Media Radio. JBW (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce Radio[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP- this internal grouping of brands is not independently notable of both the parent company Bell Media Radio and the individual stations. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bell Media Radio. Strictly speaking, a networked brand identity doesn't have to clear WP:NCORP independently of whether its parent company clears NCORP, because it isn't a separate company in its own right — but it does need to pass WP:GNG on some evidence of coverage about the cultural and commercial impact of the brand, and just finding two same-day reprints of Bell's own self-published press release announcing the branding change isn't enough in and of itself. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if more independent analytical coverage can be found, but this isn't enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have recently found another source regarding this topic and added more information to the article with references to that sources to back up the info. Hence, there is just enough evidence to support this topic and the article should be notable enough to meet WP:NCORP and not be deleted or redirected. 199.119.235.145 (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC) - block-evading editor's comment struck out - JBW [reply]

Notability is not a question of finding evidence that the topic exists — it's a question of finding evidence that the topic has been the subject of journalism in real media outlets that analyzes and contextualizes its significance. So no, the one new source you added isn't a magic bullet. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added to the article more information and sources from reliable outlets so this should be enough to show that the topic is significant in and of itself. 208.98.223.84 (talk) - block-evading editor's comment struck out - JBW

No, you haven't. You've added (a) another press release from Bell Media itself which is not support for notability, (b) an unreliable and non-notable blog which is not support for notability, and (c) a short and unsubstantive blurb in a community pennysaver about the rebranding of the local outlets in its own local coverage area, offering nothing in the way of coverage or analysis of the actual overall national brand. Again, we're not looking for mere verification that this exists, we're looking for substantive third-party analysis of its significance in sources independent of itself, so self-published press releases from its own corporate parent and mid-market community hyperlocals and blogs do not cut it. Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that majority of edits from the two IP editors above are relating to radio stations belonging to the Bell Media Radio company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article now has enough information and sources to show that it is independently notable and significant, so this article should not be deleted. 172.103.227.244 (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC) - block-evading editor's comment struck out - JBW [reply]

No, it doesn't have even one solid or notability-building source in it, but is depending entirely on press releases and blogs and one blurb in a community news website. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bell Media Radio: Barely found anything about the brand name aside news regarding from various stations rebranding to the said name. Brand names do not fall under WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because a radio brand is not independently notable of its media company and its stations does not mean that it should be redirected or deleted. Take a look at Move Radio and Pure Country for example. Those brands have some sources that are basically from the same website and practically have the same issue as this brand, and yet they are still being kept. In fact, as said above, radio brands do not fall under WP:NCORP, so this should not even be considered as such an issue and the article should be left as it should be. BS^{(chat • contribs)} 00:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS usually carries little weight in AfD discussions. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Harris[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Aisha Harris has worked for Slate, NPR, and the NYT so the sources from those websites are not independent. The Hartford Courant article is written by her father making it not independent. The Talking Biz News article has very little prose dedicated to the subject and according to the website it is a self-described WP:BLOG by someone who has previously worked at Slate, which would make me question whether even that source is independent or reliable. I can't find multiple sources that clearly demonstrate significant coverage. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article now has enough information and reliable sources to show that it is independently notable and significant. It passes WP:GNG, as such it should not be deleted. Rayopk1 (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if her sourceability improves. Nine of the eleven footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all — staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, content where she or her father is the bylined author of coverage about other things, etc. — and another just briefly namechecks her existence as the compiler of a listicle without being about her to any non-trivial degree, and still comes from her employer anyway. And the one source that actually is both about her and relatively independent of her comes from a blog rather than a real media outlet, which means it's not a magic key to passing WP:GNG either. As always, the notability test does not hinge on the ability to verify facts in primary sources, it hinges on the ability to show that she's been the subject of coverage in reliable sources (media outlets she isn't directly employed by, books, etc.) about said facts. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added several additional non-primary references on Harris, including interviews with The Root and coverage of her moves in journalism. Article should now meet the minimum for WP:THREESOURCES. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Irregulargalaxies: from what I can tell you mostly added sources from companies she has worked at, which are not independent. The remaining sources would be considered trivial mentions (especially the adweek article that republished her tweet). The only source you've added of any note is the InsideRadio article. I'm still unconvinced that this meets WP:THREESOURCES. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, not policy. Mlb96 (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlb96: yes it is an essay, but WP:GNG is a policy that states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." and if you want a reason why WP:100WORDS is worth suggesting as minimum WP:GNG also states that " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." Just because these are essays doesn't mean they don't have grounding in policy or that they have absolutely no use when assessing notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: I've added another paragraph covering Harris' 2013 story on Santa Claus and the subsequent issues around Megyn Kelly's response. I'll submit the following for WP:THREESOURCES: 1) Harris' move to the nationally-syndicated PCHH podcast (three sources cited in article, none of which are from current or past employers); 2) Harris' article on Santa Claus and the coverage of Megyn Kelly's statements (seven independent sources cited in article, including LA Times, Politico, and a published book); 3) interview in The Root on Harris' writing and approach to coverage of culture journalism (one source). Irregulargalaxies (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Irregulargalaxies: As far as I can tell these sources talk more about Santa and Megyn Kelly than Aisha Harris. are there three independent and reliable secondary sources that contain more than a trivial mention of the subject? For instance, do the articles have at least 100 words of nonreptitive content providing useful information about Aisha Harris. Do you mind linking to them here in the discussion so it's easier for myself and other reviewers to assess? TipsyElephant (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be surprised if she is notable, but it's not currently demonstrated by the sources in the article. The best source may be the book discussing her role in the Santa Claus controversy. Everything else has issues, including the Root (just an interview) and the podcast (NPR isn't independent, the other two - inside radio might be okay but the other source is PR "churnalism." SportingFlyer T·C 13:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's very good review of the sources. We do not have enough indepdent sources to justify an article, outside of what amounts to one event coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A good example of how journalists and broadcasters are so difficult to source despite being notable by any definition other than Wikipedia's. If the New York Times, NPR, and Slate all think you're a good enough journalist to write about, we say you're notable; if the New York Times, NPR, and Slate all think you're a good enough journalist to hire, that doesn't help your case at all -- in fact, it removes some of the most popular sources from eligibility. I haven't been able to find sigcov about Harris, either.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notion argued above that we should consider all staff of NPR, Slate and the New York Times as notable is indefensible. We have resisted any efforts to define any particular organizations whole staff of journalist as notable, and we should not end that now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I don't think all staff at the New York Times are notable, but as an opinion editor surely she would be. I gently remind folks/fen that we need to consider and to counter systemic or inherent bias. Black women get less coverage for the same or greater accomplishments than certain other people, perhaps due to misogynoir. I'm not saying that our editors have such bias; rather, the larger media does. We Wikipedians can make the world whole. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly systemic biases in media and society, but Wikipedia is not the best place to fix them (see Wikipedia:Advocacy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). If we make exceptions for subjects that have traditionally been underrepresented by media, then the result will be lots of lower quality articles which do little more than state existence, become indistinguishable from official "about the author" blurbs, invite WP:OR, or are built on ephemeral trivial WP:RECENTISM (the Santa Claus incident fails the WP:10YT to me: why does it take up 1/2 of her career section?). Not the best way to improve representation of women or minorities, let alone make a better encyclopedia. Reliable sources need to improve their coverage first, which will allow Wikipedia to make better articles with better representation. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When looking from a similar perspective of WP:NMEDIA there are difficulties finding comprehensive coverage from the competition. However, it seems clear that she meets WP:NJOURNALIST Criteria 1, in that she is widely cited by her peers in competing outlets. If you change the GNews search above into "Aisha Harris wrote" you will get a wide range of outlets and authors that cite her pieces. Some examples in addition to the Santa Claus piece already covered in the article and discussed here: [37] from theGrio, [38] from Thrillist, [39] from The Independent, [40] from Inverse, [41] from Decider, etc. -2pou (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO per above argument. The sources in the article, including the ones presented by 2pou, are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stopping deleting women, especially women of color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b063:d6cb:c64:78e7:10a5:d5a6 (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summary before closure:
- (1) No opposition to SBKSPP's keep argument (per meeting WP:BIO).
- (2) No opposition to 2pou's keep argument (per meeting WP:NJOURNALIST).
- (3) No opposition to Bearian's keep argument (per WP:HEY) except for Animalparty saying without !voting that WP is not the place to fix systemic racism, but the keep argument was per WP:HEY and the WP:BIAS part was just extra anyways).
- (4) No delete !votes after being relisted 14 days ago (Johnpacklambert had already delete !voted before)
- (5) One opposition to irregulargalaxies' keep argument (per WP:THREESOURCES) was limited to just nom suggesting that WP:100WORDS was not met.

While there is no consensus for (5) specifically, there is no opposition to (1),(2),(3), or (4) which is more than enough for a keep result after 3x the usual lifetime of an AfD discussion. As someone completely unconnected to the subject, I'm closing because I didn't !vote, the discussion seems to have been neglected by admins (no relisting on 13 July or 20 July), and the consensus based on others' arguments was to keep. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Isserman[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are all news releases of the fellowship. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hopelessly promotional. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N--Steamboat2020 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey folks, this is my first article and I'm still getting my bearings so appreciate your patience and suggestions too :-) Update: cut several of my fluffy sentences. Hopefully less promotional and more encyclopedic in this draft. Also added two extra sources from The Daily Illini (University of Illinois' paper of record "Noah Isserman encourages iVenture involvement") and Philanthropy Impact Magazine (a leading industry publication) to better establish WP:N and WP:SIGCOV beyond the Cambridge University and Amherst College publications. Any other ideas to improve? Thanks! Dash12Crash (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For analysis of the newly made revisions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eddie891: How goes it? That first ref is an interview and is not independent, so can't be used to prove notability. The Philanthropy Impact Magazine may be a leading publication, but it is his article he has written and presented, so can't be used to prove he is notable. If they're was reviews of it, and series of articles going back, say a couple of decades and they're was reviews of them, proving he was author, then perhaps he would be notable, but currently he is notable. The references are a mess with no WP:SECONDARY sources to veryify he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be notable under either WP:NBIO or WP:NACADEMIC (citation counts are quite low). The references are, almost without exception, routine notices or from sources affiliated with his school, so not independent. I mean, we do have an article from the local news stating that "In 2003, University Laboratory High School senior Noah Isserman was named the 2003 Illinois High School Journalist of the Year" but that's sort of scraping the bottom of the barrel, isn't it? Spicy (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Hi guys! I didn't realize that articles from Cambridge and Amherst weren't considered reliable sources. Spent the afternoon adding additional citations for Isserman's work and research to better establish WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. Appreciate if y'all can take a look and offer any other suggestions for me to improve. Thank you and Happy 4th! Dash12Crash (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The additional citations, consisting of a few one-sentence mentions, articles that he wrote (WP:PRIMARY), and a short blurb on a blog, are similarly useless. You are not allowed to vote "keep" twice. Spicy (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Phrasing feels promotional and most sources are primary.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, I can't see any good coverage. Sanketio31 (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Chege (nutritionist)[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I found about 40 results in a Google search, mostly social media and things that she has written. As noted on the article, it's basically a copy and paste of her LinkedIn page. Also a conflict of interest issue arises since she wrote an article about another entrepreneur and he wrote this article about her. ... discospinster _talk 14:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any part of this article that has been copy-pasted from anywhere online. Kindly help prove the copy-pasting bit. Also I find it not wrong for people to write and publish your knowledge on certain topics of your expertise on their websites/blogs. I propose the article should not be deleted. Thank you! DanielMaithya (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The content was copied from Lucy Chege's LinkedIn profile, however the profile content has now been erased (by her, presumably). Your comment does not address the notability and conflict-of-interest issues that are brought up in the nomination. ... discospinster _talk 18:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The copy-paste issue has been resolved. Shatimpya (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In what way has the copy-paste issue been resolved? @Shatimpya:, you appear to have started editing WP on 18th June 2021 by removing the AfD tag on this article, which was reverted, which reversion you again reverted. Almost all of your edits appear to be on this article or that of the other entrepreneur. Are you sure you don't have a conflict of interest? If you do, you should declare it. Elemimele (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG.--Bettydaisies (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above, fails GNG. Sanketio31 (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even an iota of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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