Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 March 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 28	March 02 >

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) 03:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone Queen of Pop Index[edit]

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

Fails WP:N as no coverage in third-party sources. There have been many other lists and polls of 'Queen of Pop' throughout the years.[1][2][3][4][5], there's no really significance for this Rolling Stone article to warrant a standalone article. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Irrelevant list that fails among other policies, the notability. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability per WP:GNG. HĐ (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there is third-party recognition of this ranking outside of Rolling Stone's own pages--and none is in evidence---this has no business being on wikipedia. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Alcremie (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shovelhead (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Can't find any significant coverage. No major labels, no hits, nada. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, non-notable band.-KH-1 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. COI also applies, as the article was written by the bassist of the band (Alexander Rakic under the username "Alexrakic777") back in 2014. (That also explains why the name is written in all capitals in the text...) And just copying "Billboard Magazine ....." is not going to cut it, in my opinion. Of course it's reliable, but still, it's just one good source, we need more (and I don't like it when a book/magazine is just copied in the sources section, and that's it, because I cannot determine how much is the coverage in said book/magazine, although this time it says "p. 58" so if one page is about them, that is very good for a start but still, this is just one good source). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is weak and reliable sources not found.TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Alcremie (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources don't seem to exist, and even their press kit claims next to nothing, success-wise. --- Possibly (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly written promotionally, the Billboard mention is not substantial ("Glen Robinson recorded a project for Shovelhead at Studio Morin Heights (formerly Le Studio) in Quebec" is the entirety of material on the band). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Advertising[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Searching for source WP:BEFORE, I only found sources talking about a co-founder and winning a non-notable award. [6] Mottezen (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is also clearly a promotional article. Mottezen (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most recent significant edit was made by someone with a name that indicates a connection to the company so clearly a COI here. Aside from this, no semblance of notability. ser! (chat to me). 23:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly promotional, but more importantly does not meet WP:NCORP. Searching finds directory listings but no in-depth sig coverage in independent sources. MB 23:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable coverage found, mostly local sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, Sources fails WP:NORG. Cuoxo (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE, sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above.-- Alcremie (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arastoo Khoshrazm[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sources cited are not WP:RS Jenyire2 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Refbombed autobiography that author is determined to push, non-notable actor - this article has also appeared today as Arastoo-khoshrazm (CSD'd), Creaters User page (CSD'd) and User Talk (reverted) JW 1961 Talk 23:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bare citations are horrible and I have no idea what he does or why he's notable. Six or seven citations in a row don't help. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article creator had a busy day, also creating Arasstokhoshrazm and Arastookhoshrazm. Mccapra (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of passing WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG; Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable Iranian actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:GNG and also fails to meet the guidelines as per WP:NACTOR. Abishe (talk) 03:18, 3 March 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 Girl in Red. Daniel (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I Could Make It Go Quiet[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No good sources cited yet Jenyire2 22:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 22:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUM; WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON apply. HĐ (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. There is available coverage from a number of music publications, however it does not go further than what is already provided in the social media post and is also likely sponsered by the record label. Wait until the record gathers hype and reviews. HeyitsBen ^talk 15:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Girl in Red: Definitely WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Girl in Red. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but it's too soon to tell. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Girl in Red. WP:TOOSOON. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 00:58, 8 March 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) 03:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Masked Singer (Arabic TV Series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILMS Jenyire2 22:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wp:before showers tons of coverage. I have updated the article from English worded Arabic sites, but tons more in Arabic.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources found in a search. Plus, this is a TV show and doesn't need to meet WP:NFILMS. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above; plenty of coverage. I have also re-titled it to The Masked Singer (Arabic TV series) to meet MOS. Nate • (chatter) 02:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mrschimpf Should it not be The Masked Singer - Inta Min, the Arabic name?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did not see the subtitle there; for simplicity's sake to match it with other international editions, the main title should likely remain as-is, while that subtitle should be noted in the article only (though I will create a redirect with the full title). Nate • (chatter) 07:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool with that. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seems to be ample coverage regarding the show to warrant an article, satisfying WP:NTV. Obviously WP:NFILMS does not apply here. TheRedDomitor (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage. Though the article could need some updated list of performers ad songs.BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 6 March 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. Daniel (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. It's notability cannot be inherited from working with some notable artists and having a notable parent company. Only mentioned in passing in local newspaper [7]. Mottezen (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Sharoni[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG from my search. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A trainer at a racquetball club and a small list of television reports? NO, NO, NO. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Dexxtrall (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable TV anchor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet our inclusion criteria for a television personality. Alibilbao (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- She holds podcasts is what could be found after a Google search but lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject wasn't notable at the time this article was created in 2013 but had a chance to improve its notability but failed woefully and there's not much possibility of improved notability. Luciapop (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sawmill Flat, California[edit]

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

This is another case where another spot masks this one in searching. The topos show nothing but "(site)", and when I put Fresno County in the mix, I still mostly get hits for the other spot. Maybe someone else can do better, but the paucity of info speaks for the lack of notability of this probably-wasn't-a-settlement-anyway. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm finding quite a few hits on this site, in relation to 19th C. history and also an older indigenous settlement. Will see if these lead to enough to substantiate notability of this site. Netherzone (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Everything I'm finding is for the other Sawmill Flat in Tuolumne County. This one does not meet notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is a camp ground ([8]). I suggest Sawmill Flat (Tuolumne County, California) needs moving to this title and Sawmill Flat needs deleting.----Pontificalibus 12:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is delete by strength of arguments. The Delete arguments are soundly based in policy and give specific reasons as to why the sources included in the article and otherwise available are insufficient to demonstrate notability. The Keep arguments are vague claims of "proper" and "reliable" without giving any demonstration of how they meet the claimed properties. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arvin Joaquin[edit]

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- the notability test is properly sourced analysis of the significance of their work, not just technical verification that the work exists -- but the strongest notability claim here is that he's won minor awards that aren't instant free passes over WP:ANYBIO in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of media coverage. The question of whether any award counts as a notability-maker or not depends on the extent to which said award does or doesn't get media coverage about its award presentations to establish the significance of said awards, but the awards here are all sourced to their own self-published press releases rather than any evidence of media coverage.
And other than that, seven of the other ten footnotes here are his own Instagram, a press release from his own employer, three alumni profiles on the self-published websites of his own alma maters, a blog and a podcast, none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources at all, and of the three that are from real media two just glancingly namecheck his existence in comprehensive lists of all the new staff that his employer hired last year, which means they're not substantively about him.
There's only one footnote here (#5, Ryerson Review of Journalism) that's both reliable and contains enough content about him to count for something -- but it takes a lot more than just one of those to get a person over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(keep) this article is properly sourced as opposed to the previous edit that mentioned it cited Joaquin's personal instagram account. As per the edit that the awards this writer received doesn't meet the WP:ANYBIO guidelines, this is false. In Canadian journalism, the National Magazine Awards is one of the most prestigious award-giving body. Further, Joaquin is an ethnic journalist whose work is known and noted by the Filipino community in Canada. 216.180.66.31 (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Duplicate vote by IP, see new one below Pahunkat (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order for any award to make its winners Wikipedia-notable for winning it, that award has to be one that gets media coverage about the award presentations, in order to establish the notability of the award. It doesn't matter how internally significant the award may be within its own contexts (even being valedictorian of a high school graduating class is an internally significant honour within that school, without being a reason why the person would necessarily earn inclusion in an international encyclopedia): if you have to rely on the awarding organization's own self-published press releases about itself to support the claim, because journalistic coverage about the award presentation in real media is nonexistent, then it is not an award that secures the permanent encyclopedic notability of its winners all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(keep) article is short but properly cited. Sources listed are reliably sourced. Queercan (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC) — — Queercan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, it isn't properly cited. Reliable sourcing, for Wikipedia, means journalism about him in real media outlets — it does not mean Instagram, or press releases from his own employer, or alumni profiles on the self-published websites of schools, or blogs, or podcasts. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, Queercan has since been blocked for sockpuppetry on this AfD. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(mild keep) I updated the article to include reliable source. I say keep this page. Joaquin seems like a new and emerging name in Canadian journalism. A google search shows his work, which some were awarded in Canadian media. He may not be a famous established journalist yet but he seems to made his mark in the communities his reporting on. I say mild keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.180.66.31 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC) — — 216.180.66.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:CRYSTAL; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We should not create articles on people who may well go on to great things in the future, nothing is guaranteed. He may never amount to anything more than what he is at the moment, for all we know. We should wait until notability is established before creating articles on living people. Also, please don't vote more than once. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(mild keep) Based on the initial criticism, this page seems updated to be reliably sourced. With that, I saw mild keep. I searched this journalist on google and his work and opinions appeared on various conferences and articles in Canada. Some of them are the following: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]. 72.142.52.205 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC) — — 72.142.52.205 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You do not make a person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia by showing that he's been soundbited or tweet-quoted in an article about something else, or by showing that he has "speakers bureau" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, or by referencing anything to an organizational blog like "Local Love". The only kind of sourcing that helps to establish his notability is journalism, in real media, in which he is the subject being written about. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(keep) based on the reasons provided by 72.142.52.205 2605:8D80:442:946F:6D14:C68:EF74:3F58 (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC) — — 2605:8D80:442:946F:6D14:C68:EF74:3F58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(keep) This is a page about a working Filipino-Canadian journalist. The original post was poorly sourced. I added links to fix this. Additional mentions I found for this person. ^[5]^[6] DevonS32 (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC) — — DevonS32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DevonS32 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Queercan (talk · contribs). Striking per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

See what I said above about how people don't get articles just because they gave soundbite in articles about other topics: the notability test is being the subject that's being written about, not just giving a few words of reaction-quote in an article about something else, so neither of these hits are doing anything to help establish his notability. And Capital Current is also the internal j-school publication of his own alma mater, which means it isn't even fully independent of him. WP:GNG is not just a matter of counting up the footnotes and keeping anybody who happens to surpass an arbitrary number — it's a matter of testing the sources for their depth, their quality, their type, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, and not all possible footnotes are necessarily always notability-building footnotes. Blogs and podcasts do not help to establish notability; press releases or "staff" profiles published by his own employers do not help to establish notability; j-school newsletters do not help to establish notability; his own social networking profiles do not help to establish notability; sources which briefly quote him as a giver of soundbite, but are not about him, do not help to establish notability. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion has major issues with sockpuppetry and non-policy based !votes. That said, it's obviously a contested discussion without, yet, any specifically enumerated additional support for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per excellent reasoning of the nominator and per below Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep The sources are legitimate and this page is cited properly. It’s also comparable to citations of some existing pages of people of same category as Joaquin. There’s precedence, so I say mild keep. 70.79.40.153 (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You only get one vote. Please stop voting. Instead write comment. Please show me WP:THREE sources showing significant coverage of him because I haven't seen even one yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://broadcastdialogue.com/omni-launches-filipino-arabic-news-editions-supported-by-25-new-staff/	?	?	Discussed briefly along with 7 other members of his team	✘ No
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/health-care-workers-canada_ca_5e9ec850c5b63c5b58744d05			This is written by him not about him	✘ No
https://usa.inquirer.net/58235/canadas-omni-news-launches-filipino-edition			Passing mentions in press releases do not establish notability	✘ No
https://locallove.ca/life/5-gta-journalists-on-2018s-feel-good-stories/#.YD1jAWj7SUl			Joaquin is asked to comment here but there is no actual coverage that is about him.	✘ No
https://j-source.ca/article/broadlys-stock-image-project-fills-gaps-in-media-representation-of-gender-diverse-communities/			Again, this is another article that just has a brief quote from him.	✘ No
https://rrj.ca/and-hot-pink-all-over/			Slightly more coverage than the previous sources but still essentially just a quote from him with little further depth.	✘ No
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2020-06-13/winners-announced-for-the-2020-national-magazine-awards			As per nominator's comment, winning this award is not sufficient when GNG is failed.	✘ No
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/announcing-the-winners-of-the-2020-digital-publishing-awards-807253403.html			No coverage	✘ No
https://canadianonlinepublishingawards.com/2020/winners				✘ No
https://frequencypodcastnetwork.com/2020/11/02/a-journalists-journey/	?		As has been discussed already above, this podcast doesn't support GNG	✘ No
https://www.worldcat.org/title/sociology-and-anthropology-student-union-undergraduate-journal/oclc/1083702824	?	?	A student union journal is not the source we should be using to establish encyclopaedic notability.	✘ No
https://summit.sfu.ca/item/15203		?	Written by him	✘ No
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/yee-journalism-has-a-racism-problem			Passing mention	✘ No
https://carleton.ca/sjc/profile/arvin-joaquin-2/		?	Profile page, not significant coverage	✘ No
https://www.canadianfilipino.net/news/omni-tv-program-presents-filipino-voice-on-canadian-news/		?	Barely more than a name check	✘ 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 nom and the source table. The TV show that Joaquin hosts is new and appears obscure; the coverage of the show is largely press releases. None of the sources are substantial coverage of Joaquin. It's possible that this journalist will become more prominent in the future, but current sourcing can't support an article. (the page creator being a promotion-only account blocked for sockpuppetry doesn't help, either) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The way to improve an article is to write prose against different sources, balanced appropriately, not to jam in as many references to Huffington Post pieces as you can muster. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://j-source.ca/article/how-canadian-journalists-take-care-of-themselves/
^ https://j-source.ca/article/broadlys-stock-image-project-fills-gaps-in-media-representation-of-gender-diverse-communities/
^ https://nash83.ca/speaker-list/arvin-joaquin
^ https://locallove.ca/life/5-gta-journalists-on-2018s-feel-good-stories/
^ https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/yee-journalism-has-a-racism-problem
^ https://capitalcurrent.ca/petition-led-by-students-alumni-exposes-systemic-racism-at-carletons-journalism-school-and-calls-for-change/

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sta. Lucia High School[edit]

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

Same as the others, the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV. The single source in the article is a one line entry from a government database. This is a normal school, looks like a nice one, but not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 20:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is nothing there, per GNG. GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG and NSCHOOL. --Kemalcan (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Knicky[edit]

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

Never played professionally (fails WP:NGRIDIRON), unable to find any significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, and fails WP:NCOLLATH as a run-of-the-mill college football player. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the rationale offered by Eagles247. All that is out there is routine coverage of his signings and releases and his high school coaching. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My searches also failed to turn up WP:SIGCOV of the type required to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yannick Nomede[edit]

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

Article scrapes past WP:NFOOTBALL by skin of its teeth, but WP:GNG is failed massively in my opinion, I can't find anything about him apart from a few footballer profiles. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one (or two) appearances is insufficient when GNG was failed comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A check of WP:BEFORE gave me no results for this plaayer so fails WP:GNG on that front. HawkAussie (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like he played 18 mins in Ligue 1 and 6 mins in Ligue 2 but has no other recorded appearances at professional level. Nomède is now 37 years old and has been languishing in the 6th tier of France and below for more than a decade. Since there is no coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG either, I see no reason to keep the article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 2 March 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. Daniel (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Orchard[edit]

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

I cannot see sufficient coverage of this radio presenter, journalist and actor. I have found and added a reference for the production of Under Milk Wood in Malta. Of the other three references, I cannot find Robert Orchard's name mentioned on the Everyman Festival site; his listing on the BBC as a presenter now just leads to the page for Today in Parliament; and his blog post on the BBC site is a deadlink. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if anyone has an account with The Times there may be a ref here https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/major-mess-by-the-bbc-f8dkjkp8k. There is also his theatre work https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/from-one-island-to-another.741711. And this https://cyprus-mail.com/2014/10/30/state-needs-to-communicate-better-with-the-press/. Also this might be useful 17. Robert Orchard, ‘Going ten rounds with Tony’, The House Magazine, 30 April 2007, p. 23. If it can be found. Might be enough out there to meet WP:Basic#2. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have added further references/info (some on Archive.org now) and believe that there is now enough to demonstrate notability. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see no reason as to why this article does not demonstrate notability. Rillington (talk) 15:33, 2 March 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. There is a clear consensus of Wikipedia editors below that the article does not meet the specific notability guideline, WP:NFILM. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12 O'Clock Boyz[edit]

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

Sourced only to an official website and the U.S. Copyright Office (WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, and irrelevant for notability purposes) since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up some social media sites (LinkedIn - (I'm not signed up, so no link), Twitter - 1) and another official site, apparently dedicated to listing the progress of copyright infringement lawsuits (not notable per se per WP:CASES). The only thing I found about the film itself was this passing mention - "Pee Wee and Moe-Town produced a video in 2001 that captures many of the 12 O’Clock Boyz performing stunts and cutting up for the camera", i.e. not a documentary film as claimed in the article. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP BLACK HISTORY #1 -- Thanks for inviting me. This article meets the general notability guidelines. The coverage on the 12 O’Clock Boyz film and its related legal issues come from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.^[1]

Additionally, the 12 O’Clock Boyz intellectual property news is ranked Number 8 on the intellectual property news from all over the globe by IPpetite.^[2]

This original 12 O’Clock Boyz film and its related legal issues are covered on Yahoo News, Film related sites, Intellectual Property News sites, Legal News sites and Court websites.^[3] ^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

In addition, Judges have written legal opinions related to the original 12 O’Clock Boyz film that is read by both law students and practicing attorneys. ^[8] The 12 O'Clock Boyz Film is the subject of a reasoned opinion of the highest court in a legal jurisdiction. Thus making the original 12 O'Clock Boyz article notable. ^[9]. Also read WP:CASES

Narky Blert, if you look carefully with an "objective eye" you too will see all this information. This is a notable article that needs to have the additional references mentioned above added. We are here to improve the article. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), films are considered notable if:
- "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The article contains no information on distribution and no reviews.
- "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following":
  - "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." The currently includes no information on impact.
  - "The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release." The article includes no such survey.
- "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." The article includes no information on such screenings.
- "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema." No such information in the article.
- "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." No information on awards of any kind.
- "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." No such information.
- "The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." No such information.
  - - In my view this article fails all the criteria. Dimadick (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This "film" fails all the criteria of WP:NFILM. Also, the creator of the article was blocked, but seems to have recreated their account under a new name to argue for keeping (see above). Donaldd23 (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable film per our criteria. Note, though, about the block of the original creator and their new name, Donaldd23, that is not a problem. They were softblocked, purely for the username, and invited to create a new name that complies with our rules, which "Matt at InvestigativeNews" does. They get to discuss here. Bishonen | tålk 22:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP BLACK HISTORY #2-- The original 12 O’Clock Boyz film from 2001 is now in the ARCHIVES of the city of baltimore paper. ARCHIVES

According to Wikipedia:Notability_General Principles, the general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

Here we have listed TEN coverage from reliable sources on the subject. Plus the ARCHIVES^[10] information. The film meets the general notability. The film is historical film in the urban dirt-bike culture. I say do not delete black history. And this is why the United States has black history month so that Americans can celebrate black history. If you do not understand black history say so but don’t use ignorance to delete a historical black film’s page. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFILM. This one is something I know plenty about (I mean, look at the user name). The 12 O'Clock Boyz are well known in the Baltimore area. However, the FILM itself is not. The links all listed above are copyright info, NOT about the film. I also do not appreciate the idea that this is "erasing black history", especially when there is a notable film: 12 O'Clock Boys already on this group. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP BLACK HISTORY #3 --- From my username, it is clear that we perform investigative research work. The original 2001 film is WELL-KNOWN. It’s twenty years later since the original 2001 film was made and people are still talking about the original 2001 film today. ^[11]

As stated before, according to Wikipedia:Notability_General Principles, the general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

Here we have listed over TEN coverage from reliable sources on the original 2001 film. Plus the ARCHIVES information. The original 2001 film clearly meets the general notability. Keep black history. Do not delete black history. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom as it fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable film. I took a look at all the references provided by User:Matt at InvestigativeNews and none are significant coverage of the film or of the associated lawsuit.
- 1 is a routine entry in a "database of movie lawsuits".
- 2 is a single paragraph in a blog which similarly lists movie-related lawsuits.
- 3 is an article about an alleged defamation of the group, unrelated to the film, and mentions the film lawsuit in the final paragraph.
- 4 is a three sentence paragraph describing the lawsuit on a legal website.
- 5 is a somewhat lengthier description of the lawsuit from a press release, in a website related to trademark issues.
- 6 is another description of the lawsuit in a legal website, apparently taken from the same press release as #5, as much of the wording is identical.
- 7 is a short note on the lawsuit, taken from a press release.
- 8 is simply a copy of a legal filing related to the case.
- 9 is a link to WP:CASES.
- 10 is an article about the group, which contains one sentence about the film.
- 11 is an article about the group, which contains two sentences about the film.

None of these references do anything to establish the notability of the film. CodeTalker (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the creator’s loquacious defence of the article, they have not provided any sources showing significant coverage that goes towards meeting WP:NFILM. For what it’s worth I also find a bad taste being left in the mouth by their assertions that by deleting this article we would be ‘deleting Black history’ or do not understand Black history. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP BLACK HISTORY #4 ---- FYI, if Black Lives Matter or even Antifa_(United_States) knew that you were out here trying to delete a historical Black Film's page that clearly meets the Wikipedia:Notability_General Principles, they would report you and your friends to the authorities for the violations. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to highly suggest you to strike, or remove this comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass any part of Wikipedia:Notability (films). The actually-notable 12 O'Clock Boys makes a passing mention of the earlier work, that is sufficient. ValarianB (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and suggest page block for the article creator as he has sufficiently weighed in. StarM 17:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP BLACK HISTORY #5 -- Wikipedia this 2001 film is a legendary film. ^[12]Legendary The article needs improvement. And the historians are here to do so. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every link you have posted is a court case or a trademark. There is NOTHING in a reliable source to indicate any sort of notability. Repatedly posting your comments here may result in a block from the page for bludgeoning this conversation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark sure to read the second paragraph carefully in Legendary. It talks about the film being legendary. It's not talking about any lawsuit. By the way according to our research, there was no lawsuit in 2014 which is when this Reference No. 12 is dated. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The document in question is regarding a lawsuit from a lawyer's office. And it says "legendary", so what? It's not a reliable source, it's a letter from a lawyer. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response: No law firm will put their professional law license and reputation on the line just to say the film is "legendary". The Baltimore law firm performed their research and due diligence and found that this 2001 film is a legendary black film. And they seem to mention this fact in their communication letter. This Wikipedia page is to a legendary film as the Baltimore law firm found. This Wikipedia page must not be deleted. The article needs to be improved. FYI, Reference No 12 is dated in 2014, and our research does not show any lawsuit in 2014. So the 2014 letter is not about no lawsuit. Matt at InvestigativeNews (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have blocked Matt from this page. He has weighed in. If another admin feels we need further input, feel free to unblock him. StarM 01:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is nothing but PR tripe. WP:NOTADVOCACY applies. 174.254.199.133 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://filmsuits.com/12-oclock-boys/
^ "Copyright Infringement Notice Issued to HBO Max and Warner Media". IPpetite.
^ https://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/12-oclock-boyz-sports-no-142400853.html
^ https://www.lawyered.in/legal-news/copyright-infringement-notice-issued-to-hbo-max-warner-media-5147/
^ https://www.trademarkclick.com/education-blog/copyright-infringement-notice-issued-to-hbo-max-and-warner-media
^ https://www.latestlaws.com/intellectual-property-news/copyright-infringement-notice-issued-to-hbo-max-and-warner-media/
^ https://www.prweb.com/releases/_12_o_clock_boyz_creator_announces_voluntary_dismissal_of_lawsuit_by_oscilloscope_pictures/prweb16413449.htm
^ https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.411048/gov.uscourts.nyed.411048.51.0.pdf
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(law)#Cases
^ "Archives". Citypaper Archives.
^ It's 12 O'Clock Somewhere - When a Social Problem is Begging for a Business Solution. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
^ "Legendary Motion Picture" (PDF). Retrieved October 20, 2014.

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digital probabilistic physics[edit]

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

3/5 sources are primary from Tom Stonier; fails WP:GNG and WP:NEO. Don't know if the concept is called something else in RS. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incoherent presentation of an idea that has no detectable presence in mainstream physics. The provided sources are either primary or don't mention Stonier. No reliable sources appear to use the term digital probabilistic physics itself. Reliable secondary sources on the concept don't appear to exist, and if they did, it would be hard to argue that this topic deserves a stand-alone article rather than a mention in some other page about vague, fringey "let's talk about the universe like it's a computer" speculations. (I shudder at the thought of trying to build a decent article on that. Many of the ideas thrown together into the "digital ontology" bucket contradict one another. For example, Wheeler's "it from bit" was explicitly nondeterministic in a strong way, a vision of a universe built up by its participants like players in a Twenty Questions game where there is no actual answer beforehand, only the goal of eventual agreement. That's pretty much the diametric opposite of the "everything is a deterministic cellular automaton" world view. The same goes for von Weizsäcker's notion of ur-alternatives; von Weizsäcker was a Copenhagener in the Niels Bohr tradition, but because he said "binary" somewhere, people trying to fluff their own "digital physics" claim him as a predecessor.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero relevance in the wider literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-Stonier sources don't show significance of the topic. XOR'easter gives good reasoning. — Bilorv (talk) 17:48, 5 March 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 that WP:ENTERTAINER is met. The key argument for deletion seemed to be a lack of biographical prose, but that's a problem that can be solved by editing (e.g. 20XX - Work - Role => In 20XX, she played Role in Work, and Role2 in Work2) if desired. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asami Seto[edit]

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

Voice actress. The article does not indicate why she is notable (WP:BIO). It lists her roles, but that's just a person doing her job. It doesn't indicate that any of these appearances were particularly prominent or influential. I can't read Japanese, but based on a sample of the references they don't seem to cover her as a person, but merely establish that she had this or that role. Sandstein 18:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She has plenty of articles written about works she is involved in available at media outlets such as Oricon (link) and Anime News Network (link). This article states she starred in Rascal Does Not Dream of Bunny Girl Senpai. lullabying (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentTo(Lullabying) <> you even forgot Famous Crunchyrol she has role on [here]. Sakura emad (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sakura emad: I do not keep track of this actress so I acknowledge I may be missing some of her starring roles. If there is additional information, please add it in your own comment. lullabying (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENT > [S:1], [S:2], [S:3], [S:4], [S:5] the article meets notability. Sakura emad (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENT Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Link20XX (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the article lists her roles, there's nothing biographical about the page. In fact, seeing how people had to go to other websites to gather anything remotely close to biographical information, this page serves no purpose and should be deleted. —ÐW^(T·C) 03:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTUSEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion. Dream Focus 01:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the page could be improved, Seto is clearly signifcant enough for the page to not be deleted. LindaSaunders (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first two things she is mentioned for being known for at the start of the article, are major characters in notable anime, so she passes the subject specific notability guidelin for voice actors. WP:ENTERTAINER Dream Focus 01:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha RX 115[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT: "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion."

We don't create articles on every model of motor vehicle just because they exist, same as any other product. It's only barely possible to find passing mention of the Yamaha RX-115 in a few news articles, such as this one that's actually about a funeral. Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yamaha RX 100 was most popular model and this is updated version of that but it was not much recognized and popular model compare to Yamaha RX 100. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My review of sources confirms this is not a hoax, but I am not seeing anything remotely close to WP:SIGCOV of this vehicle. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Herts Football League[edit]

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

Similar case to the related leagues North & Mid-Herts League and North Herts League, both of which were deleted as non-notable. I found a recent passing mention in the Herts Advertiser. This was also effectively the only paper covering the league according to this newspaper search. In most instances, they just printed the results but there are a few cases where there is a small amount of analysis. I still don't think that it's enough for WP:GNG. The Beds and Herts Pictorial and Luton News very rarely covered and the coverage was always minimal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sub-county level, local interest only. Nigej (talk) 16:07, 2 March 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. Editors concur that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N don't seem to be met. However, given the decent state of at least a couple of the articles, I am more than happy to userfy if that would be helpful to build up existing content. Just drop me a line on my talk page. Go Phightins! 01:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Go Phightins! 01:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple pages about Egyptian movements ‎[edit]

I am nominating the following related pages:

Per WP:SUSTAINED, these articles about movements established during (Egyptian Crisis (2011–2014)) and take some propaganda then disappeared after few months, just a news story covered in many newspapers (WP:NEWSBRIEF), no notable works or effects, and nobody remember them, it obviously are (Subjects notable only for one event). Ibrahim.ID ✪ 16:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 16:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 16:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Azuredivay (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Masmou3 - largely sourced to their own Twitter, doesn't really make any claim of notability. Only one source even claims to be reliable (a CNN video from 2013) but based on the article it's not likely to be very substantial, [9] is a trivial mention of the group in an interview with the person in that video that suggests the group is not notable. The other pages are weak for notability, but may be able to be merged rather than deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 8 March 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. Article improvement during the AFD seemingly addressed the concerns of the delete !voters. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa VanFleet[edit]

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

Is she notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubtful of the notability of this young lady. ~~She seems cute and all, but unfortunately,~~ I think she is not notable for Wikipedia as of yet. I am not satisfied with the sourcing - the majority of them are youtube, concert sites and PR pieces, and in most of them she gets relatively little notice (the bigger part in some of the text of the cited sources is not even about her). During a Google search I only found the usual suspects: youtube, databases, streaming links, blank Allmusic page, retail sites, concert sites, blogs (with either interviews or most likely copy-pasted PR text, and all of these blogs are relatively short in content), and download links. While the article creator had more edits, the majority of them revolve around Ms. Melissa (for example, including her on the list of notable people named Melissa, linking her name in a festival page, linking her name in the articles of Lacuna Coil and WASP, etc.) so I suspect there is some COI involved as well (also, the name of the user, "VMetalMedia" does not fill me up with confidence either). I also think this is a classic case of refbombing: citing a ton of sites to make the subject appear notable, but the vast majority are puff/PR pieces and social media. Prove me wrong, but I am not sure she is notable for WP as of yet. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SOAP, appears to be the product of music PR, cites are poor quality, dead-links, non-WP:RS links, editorial commentary resting on Youtube links, if you pulled all that stuff out, there's not much left to support notability. Acousmana (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above, mostly passing or brief mentions or and it's almost refbombing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the nominator and previous voters are being a little harsh, as Ms. VanFleet does have some media notice for unconventional covers of, and collaborations with, more notable musicians. However, there is not yet enough evidence of her own independent notability. Outside of the article's attempted ref-bombing with YouTube videos and the like, there are some music journalism sources that mention her, but they are mostly friendly interviews that were probably set up by management, or brief mentions in articles that are about other people. If she moves into more original music of her own, and if it gets noticed in its own right, she might have a chance at notability in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:BASIC, and because I have been working on this article, and have added a source that notes her music career began when she was a child, as well as sources confirming that after she became an adult, she has been noticed by her peers in the music industry as well as a variety of reviews and in-depth interviews, particularly for her more recent music. Per WP:NMUSICOTHER, it also looks like she is "frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture." Also, this article was accepted out of AfC, and concerns about the style of writing or how references are organized can be addressed through editing, and dead links may be able to be found through archive.org. Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:HEY, 7&6=thirteen and I have made substantial revisions to the article, including the rescue of many dead links, and trimming of references and information, which should make the frequency that VanFleet is covered by publications devoted to the sub-culture more clear. Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material," and the sources are far more often reviewing, interviewing, and reporting on her as the primary subject. The coverage is also WP:SUSTAINED over time, from her 2013 EP through her more recent work in 2019. Beccaynr (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some coverage and some fans, being going for almost a decade but still not broken through. Her one song with plenty of plays on YouTube is a cover version. Her own stuff isn't really been seen. Nothing on Spotify, Soundcloud, Napster, Amazon Music. No fans, no plays. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see how she meets either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:GhostDestroyer100: "She seems cute and all" has been used in two AfD nominations (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hamilton (voice actress)). At best it comes across as patronizing, particularly paired with "young lady". I seriously doubt anyone's opinion of "cuteness" has anything to do with why articles should be deleted and should be left out of AfD discussions. -- GreenC 20:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: Okay, I got it. I was just trying to be nice. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the genre in which she works, she has received a lot of coverage. WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. It is not the article it was when nominated for deletion. I respectfully suggest it is now a well developed and worthwhile article. Sourcing has improved, and so has the text. WP:HEY. See WP:GNG#Why we have these requirements. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know. Some of the new sources look okay (the length of the text is great, and they are actually about her), but my problem is, I don't know how reliable they are (said sites do not appear on the list of reliable and unreliable sources about music). Others are interviews, which are generally considered unreliable, I think. But this is just my view, someone who knows better will probably correct me, which I gladly accept. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The interviews of VanFleet often include commentary, information, and/or reviews from the interviewer, so they are not simply primary sources per WP:BASIC, i.e. "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." There are also quotes from three musicians, including Scott Rockenfield of Queensrÿche and Cristina Scabbia of Lacuna Coil, discussing VanFleet's talent, which is secondary source commentary that contributes to her notability. Ultimate Guitar appears to be a large and well-known website (and appears on WP:RSMUSIC), and seems to have focused on a theme that is now more apparent and developed in the article, with their 2016 interview, "Meet Melissa VanFleet Who Progressed From Making Metal Covers on YouTube to Working With Big Names." Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, due to the addition of sources and revisions to the article, there also appears to be WP:ENT notability due to VanFleet's "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Beccaynr (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't help on the reliability of these music sources. I only occasionally work on music-related articles, e.g., Neil Peart and Dr. John, which weren't good enough to get into WP:ITN, despite their import and how actually good the articles and sources were at the time. That is a different process with its own peculiar standards. In particular, they are perverse, in that when you have a very prolific artist, with tons of oeuvre, they want every one of the works cited; and they want the works to be listed, too. The citations need to be done in short order, or than it is deemed to be stale. So it is a geographic miracle, where the destination is out of reach no matter the route.

And I have even less to say about the reliability of Italian language music magazines.

Given the breadth, depth and scope of the many sources from around the world, she surpasses WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: I have seen the Ultimate Guitar one, and a Spanish language one. I also think those are reliable. I have also seen the one with Scott and Cristina, I wasn't sure about that, but if you say it's good, it's acceptable, then it's okay. Like I said, there are editors who knows this stuff better than me. Thank you. I think the article can be kept now, but if anyone else still has an opinion, they can post it here. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the HEY work done by Beccaynr and 7&6 has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Or very least another round to account for major renovations mid-term. -- GreenC 17:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved since nomination with content referenced to multiple reliable sources such as print magazines and Ultimate Guitar so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recent work has added numerous sources which demonstrate general notability. Thriley (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found and added to the article confirm this person is a notable entertainer. Dream Focus 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems well referenced and a notable performer. I believe her page can remain. LindaSaunders (talk) 00:50, 9 March 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. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shawnnle[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. Qualifies for proposed deletion and probably for A7. No references. Article does not mention any of the musical notability criteria or anything that would satisfy general notability. Naïve Google search on both forms of name shows only that they use social media; we knew that. Rejected in AFC and moved to article space anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being signed to major record labels like Interscope, UMG and SM would make him notable but I can find zero evidence of this in searches. This fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN on evidence available and appears to be an autobiography/vanity article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above; no references does not indicate that WP:NMUSIC can be met, no returns from 'searches'. Eagleash (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and I'm not convinced that this isn't a hoax – there is no mention of this person on the "Artists" page of SM Entertainment's website, so even his apparent record label haven't heard of him either. Richard3120 (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 violation. No sources or any available search references that indicate notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, with no refs. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not credible vanity or hoax effort, variously edited by: Shawnnlechaeyoung (whose previous vanity article Shawnnlechaeyoung was speedily deleted per A7 in April 2020), and by: Shawnnle. Clearly CoI. Not needed on WP.
Speedy Delete completely fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG, with zero sources to back-up the credible claim of the article. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per all of the above Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Unwanted[edit]

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

PROD contested by creator, who is also the director of this film. According to my searches, this is falling short on WP:NFF and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. fails WP:GNG. DMySon 14:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:NFF Donaldd23 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only not notable but also overwhelming COI in authorship. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NFF. Kolma8 (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage not found and fails notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Can't really disagree with PROD if deletion is our ultimate goal here. Shrikanthv (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:40, 6 March 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. I'm going to close this as keep as the nominator has stated their wish to keep the article and there are no outstanding votes for any other outcome. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Othniel Dossevi[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because the player does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. The question is whether consensus can be achieved on whether this meets WP:GNG or not. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there's enough coverage out there, including a long piece in Le Parisien, to justify GNG being met. Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a few more sources, and he appears to meet WP:GNG based on those. Considering that he played in the pre-internet era for French teams, I expect more coverage could be found about him in offline sources. But the sources here are not just passing mentions of him, they are non-trivial coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in my own opinion it's a keep, but I nominated because I wasn't sure about GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:26, 1 March 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. JBW (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SSH-MITM[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Looks like advertising. Another editor makes a claim of possible COI. The Banner talk 09:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Extended content

SSH-MITM is an open source project and not a commercial product. Please explain, why you are thinking it is advertising and it is not worth to be mentioned on Wikipedia. It uses the same license (LGPL-3.0) like Python Paramiko, which is the ssh implementtion. So the license can not be the problem.

According to the Github Stars (https://github.com/ssh-mitm/ssh-mitm/stargazers), there are a lot of people already interested in this project and the project has over 4.000 downloads per month on Pypi. I think, this project does not need advertising.

If you have suggestions how to improve the artice according to Wikipedias standards, please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolfstrauss (talk • contribs) 10:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent (not in any way related to the subject, not the own website), reliable (no social media), prior published sources that discuss the subject in depth. The Banner talk 10:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it is not the amount of sources which is important, when there are reliable sources from known twitter uses in this topic or upvoted redit posts. The ssh topic is, even in the security community, very small. so there are not much sources.

the project is young, but in the last weeks, SSH-MITM (in my opinion) becomes important. This tool is new and, compared to other ssh mitm tools, the most advanced.

If people does not discuss about a tool, this does not mean, that the tool is not interesting. This could also mean, that the tool works and there is no need to discuss about the tool.

A quick search with google, about 5 minutes:

Project Website is in the top results (ok this does not count):

https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu&q=ssh+mitm

Twitter:

https://twitter.com/ReneRobichaud/status/1350179958296113157
https://twitter.com/hackers_toolbox?lang=de

Redit has also posts:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SecurityBlueTeam/comments/kzvfrq/sshmitm_server_for_security_audits_supporting/
https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/ha4tpj/sshproxyserver_intercepting_mitm_proxy_for_ssh/

Web:

https://securityonline.info/ssh-mitm-intercepting-proxy-server-for-security-audits/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolfstrauss (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources even come close to establishing notability. Please read WP:NSOFT. We can't use posts on Reddits nor tweets as an encyclopaedic reference. Please read WP:RS to see the type of sources that we need. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to other ssh server articles, SSH-MITM has more information about the project and the article is just a few hours old.

For example WolfSSH is only a list of supported platforms and algorithms and has only 2 sources, which links to the website of wolfssh and the license. (Sorry for bashing on wolfssh)

Writing "Independent (not in any way related to the subject, not the own website), reliable (no social media), prior published sources that discuss the subject in depth." does not help.

Sorry, this is my first article on Wikipedia. :-(

If you have done some research related to ssh-mitm, please add this information to wikipedia. This article should be a community project! Articles about ssh-mitm:

https://www.kitploit.com/2021/01/ssh-mitm-ssh-mitm-server-for-security.html
https://securityonline.info/ssh-mitm-intercepting-proxy-server-for-security-audits/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolfstrauss (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind to use your own signature, instead of hijacking mine? You can sign your edits on talk pages with 4 tiles (~~~~) and the software will automagically replace this by your user name, time and date of your edit. The Banner talk 12:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero independent, reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ DELETE Manfred.ruzicka (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC) — Manfred.ruzicka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Extended content

NIST and MITRE added SSH-MITM as a reference for CVE-2020-14145. This is a vulnerability in OpenSSH up to Version 8.4.

https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2020-14145
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-14145

I think this are reliable sources and due to the fact, that the latest Version of OpenSSH is affected by CVE-2020-14145, it is an important topic.

Added a news article from Linuxnews.de to external links.

URL: https://linuxnews.de/2021/02/ssh-mitm-proxy-server-fuer-security-audits-einsetzen/

Manfred.ruzicka (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You come with a lot links, but not with reliable sources discussing the program in-depth. It is still an advertisement. Sorry. The Banner talk 09:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is a vulnerability, which affects all versions of OpenSSH (even the latest) and information how to mitigate it not a public interest?

SSH-MITM is, according to nist and mitre, the only public tool (and open source), which is able to check, if a ssh client is affected by CVE-2020-14145.

Perhaps the creation of the page was not neccesary, but the intention was to provide more information and not advertisement. Is it better to move the information to OpenSSH or do you want, that this information should be completely deleted?

You are always talking about reliable sources, social media and discussions.

When it comes to vulnerabilities, the most reliable sources are mitre and nist. They are managing information about vulnerabilities and tools to audit them, but they don't discuss them. They only provide information, where you can find more information. Why do you think, that this two organisations are not reliable?

There are links from social media like Twitter and reddit and then you are saying, they are not reliable. A lot of vulnerabilities are only mentioned on twitter and twitter,because the community relies on those tweets or reddit posts.

Please explain, why the mentioned sources like nist and mitre are not reliable, what makes a source reliable.

Manfred.ruzicka (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said two days ago about what the article needed: Independent (not in any way related to the subject, not the own website), reliable (no social media), prior published sources that discuss the subject in depth. The Banner talk 12:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are always writing, that reliable sources are needed, but did not explain, why nist and mitre are not reliable. Please explain,why this both organisation are not reliable sources.

There are other resources referenced on the nist Article. Can we add those as reference? Are this references reliable? They are also describing CVE-2020-14145 and tthe mechanism, which is implemented in SSH-MITM to check against the vulnerability.

For example this report (pdf document): https://www.fzi.de/en/news/news/detail-en/artikel/fsa-2020-2-ausnutzung-eines-informationslecks-fuer-gezielte-mitm-angriffe-auf-ssh-clients/

When this is not a reliable source, what is a reliable source?

Manfred.ruzicka (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred.ruzicka, CVE reports do not discuss the subject in depth, MrOllie (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One Question to you: Is the content interesting to be merged in another page or do you want, that the content will be removed?

I understand, that you think, SSH-MITM does not need it's own page, and this is ok for me.

If merging is an alternative, in which article, do you recommend?

Please, help to improve the content. You are all writing, that the content has no reliable sources or is not notable for its own page.

You are all experienced wikipedia authors, so help us to learn how to write content. Please do not always say, that what we are doing is wrong without providing alternatives.

A usefull suggestion could be: Perhaps the topic is not notable for its own page, but you can write about this topic on PAGENAME

A bad suggestion is: The content is not notable - delete the content

So please explain, what we can do with the content.

Manfred.ruzicka (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First step is always to start looking for sources conform Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. And be strict about that. If you can not find enough sources that comply to Independent (not in any way related to the subject, not the own website), reliable (no social media), prior published sources that discuss the subject in depth., sorry, you can just give up. I have made that mistake too. I wrote a nice article about a folklore institution in Ireland. But when finished, I realized that 90% of the sources were related to the subject and the rest were poor sources (X organising A, X taking part in B etc.). After using some non-priest-approved language I deleted it, accepting that the institution would fail at the first challenge.

And I agree, it is extremely difficult to judge sources and information on its value, when you have a close relationship with the subject.

To be true, I can give you no hope. The Banner talk 21:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The signatures here are slightly confusing. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 07:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - very difficult to follow the discussion. I have boldly opted to reorganise into collapsible sections so that it's easier to differentiate the chat from actual votes. None of the written content has been changed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DELETE because this is the most advanced audit tool for ssh to inspect the traffic. Other tools like https://github.com/jtesta/ssh-mitm can be used, but lacks most features like public key authentication or file manipulation, which are needed for advanced security audits. Jump Hosts like Teleport SSH (https://goteleport.com/teleport/docs/) or StringDM (https://www.strongdm.com/) are not designed for security audits. While they can be used to create audit logs, those logs are for security compliance, which is another use case. They also lacks feature which are useful for advanced penetration tests. Rudolfstrauss (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC) — Rudolfstrauss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Rudolfstrauss (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Manfred.ruzicka (talk • contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I start to get the felling that more friends/staff are drafted in to work on the article. The Banner talk 12:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I'm the author of ssh-mitm. Please verify my signature in my wikipedia profile.

It is nice to have a page on wikiepdia and i feel honored, but the "considered for deletion" message is not positive for me, my motivation and my project :-(

Side note: this is only a hobby project, because I'm interested in ssh.

To "The Banner": perhaps you are right and some colleagues or persons who know me have created the page. Before this discussion ends in a "mud fight", please delete the page

~~Ruzima (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)~~ — Ruzima (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Manfred.ruzicka (talk • contribs). [reply]

DELETE Just don't seem to be the reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and there seems to be a fairly obvious COI from two major contributors Dexxtrall (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by blocked socks

I think it is time to stop the discussions, because the discussions are going to personal (not only on wikipedia) and are not good for the project. If you want to help, please be fair and do not delete comments on this page. SSH-MITM is an open source project for the community. If you want to help, than contribute to the project and let it earn a wikipedia page, when it is the right time.

Ruzima (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be fair, when discussing SSH-MITM. I have also created a statement in my project: https://github.com/ssh-mitm/ssh-mitm/issues/42

Ruzima (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, if someone got upset, but the only reason was to contribute to ssh mitm. I'm not a programmer, so this was one option to help the project.

Note. I'm not connected to the mentioned user in the github issue. I changed my opionion and I also recommends to delete the page.

Manfred.ruzicka (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP because its like dniff sshmitm and its the only tool available. This tool is more than notable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolfstrauss (talk • contribs) 12:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC) — Rudolfstrauss (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Manfred.ruzicka (talk • contribs). [reply]

DELETE Rudolfstrauss made a COI and wrote in the reverted comment (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SSH-MITM&oldid=1009816717), that he was the person who created the redit posts. Rudolfstrauss (Wikipedia) and hugo_leitsnik (Reddit) seems to be the same person.

~~Rudolfstrauss wrote on reddit, the purpose of this page is not to create a page about ssh-mitm. His intention was to promote himself as a wikipedia contributor.~~

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/lvv28h/help_to_save_sshmitms_wikipedia_page/

https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/lvzmtl/i_made_sshmitm_project_greate_because_i_wrote/

I'm sorry for the author of ssh-mitm :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herozero4 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Herozero4 (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)~~ — Herozero4 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Manfred.ruzicka (talk • contribs). [reply]

Sorry, I had a bad day yesterday. Is it possible to remove my wikipedia account and all contributions? I don't want to see my name in a discussion like this, because I can get problems, when other people reading this. I'm sorry for the problems. The reddit user and all reddit posts are deleted. Rudolfstrauss (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete + Comment - Oh dear, what a mess this discussion has become. From the start, this article clearly does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, seeing that there's no secondary sources to check for me but GitHub (WP:UGC), an offical website for "Paramiko", a link to NIST.gov listing a vulnerability, and then another GitHub linking to the license of the software. Not to mention the conflict-of-interest problem, admitted off-site canvassing on Reddit and GitHub (!!!), and the revealed socking by a CheckUser (+endorsed by Yamla). I've already added {{Not a ballot}} notice, and have also tidied this mess up (incl. striking sock votes), while still being readable to another uninvolved user. theinstantmatrix (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC) edited 17:54, 3 March 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. The current state of an article is not necessarily dispositive as to its status in an AFD nomination. A consensus seems to have formed here that the article may need to go in a different direction, but that can be resolved through the editing process. After a relist and sufficient discussion, I am closing this as a "keep" and encourage interested editors to continue to work on improvements as necessary. Go Phightins! 01:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Go Phightins! 01:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of ninja television programs[edit]

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

this seems completely trivial and pointless and WP:NOT. Should we also have List of television programs with blondes list of television programs where an accountant appears at least once? CUPIDICAE💕 15:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list page is not pointless. As with List of vampire television series there have been numerous Ninja television programs, and the list of these is getting too long for the main article Ninjas in popular culture. Similarly, for that reason, list pages were previously created for List of ninja video games and List of ninja films.Chanbara (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more relevant if this was a list of shows about ninjas, not an indiscriminate list of everytime a ninja has ever appeared on television. This list is nothing more than fancruft. CUPIDICAE💕 16:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is first and foremost a list of shows about ninjas. All of the series are ninja series. Non-ninja series featuring ninja episodes being included does not diminish the value of the list. Just as is the case with List of vampire television series.Chanbara (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that we can support a list of ninja tv shows, but the framing as The following is a list of television series, episodes, and commercials where at least one ninja character appears as a significant plot element. is too indiscriminate. Likewise including a bunch of poorly sourced, non-notable examples. If the list were pruned, would it be better to keep on its own or merge back into ninjas in popular culture? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The framing could be changed to The following is a list of ninja television series, episodes, and commercials., as this is what it is. The list of ninja commercials could be moved back to the main article as a separate category. As far as individual ninja episodes, I believe it has significance just like a one-shot TV movie does (and also in terms of popular culture), but I suppose those could be separate, which I guess would leave this as a List of ninja television series. Sourcing can always be improved upon as new information is found (along with linking to new Wikipedia pages). Most Japanese series have Japanese Wikipedia pages which could be linked to as well when an English page doesn't exist.Chanbara (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to see sources covering episodes as a group and commercials (?!) as a group. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "group", but pretty much all of the ninja commercials are sourced to YouTube videos of them. These were included in the ninja Television list but they could certainly be moved back to the main article as a separate category of Ninja in popular culture.Chanbara (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't cover things just because they exist. We shouldn't have any lists based just on a common theme identified by a wikipedia contributor, sources only to the things themselves. I think it's highly likely that independent reliable sources have discussed ninjas in movies and probably ninjas on tv (perhaps both together), but I would be surprised to see individual tv episodes covered as a group, and shocked by sourcing about ninja commercials. Further reading: WP:SALAT, WP:CSC, WP:NLIST... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a number of articles in martial arts magazines in the 1980s covered the history of ninja in movies and on TV and they did include individual TV episodes such as Kung Fu - "The Assassin" and others... As far as commercials go, these were examples already listed on the main Ninja in popular culture article, which is why I included them when creating the list page, but, as I already stated, these don't need to be included here. Side note: this may or may not be relevant to the discussion, but recently FROM PARTS BEYOND publisher included these and more on his "How Ninja Conquered the World" timeline: https://vintageninja.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/VintageNinjaTimeline-%C2%A9KeithRainville-V1.3opt.pdf Chanbara (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found one of the numerous magazine articles where films, TV series, and yes, individual TV episodes are discussed together. The article was entitled "THE NINJA: AMERICA'S SINISTER NEW HERO by Lucille Tajiri". It was first published in the August 1981 issue of MARTIAL ARTS MOVIES magazine, and later re-published in the September 1984 issue of INSIDE KUNG FU Presents THE MASTER NINJA: WARRIOR OF THE NIGHT magazine. It's a pretty lengthy article but here are some of the more noteworthy passages from it:

"For those of you who aren't familiar with the ninja or falsely believe that he exists only in Japanese chanbara movies, you skeptics who doubt that the ninja is alive and well and living in America, just consider The Octagon, Shogun, Shogun Assassin, Enter the Ninja, The Ninja, Revenge of the Ninja and Shinobi. These are films that Western audiences have either already seen or soon will see in their neighborhood theaters in the months to come. All of these movies have scenes of, or are entirely based on, the ninja and ninjutsu, "the art of invisibility", "the art of stealth"."

"There can be no doubt that American Cinema's The Octagon, with it's formidable ninja training fortress, and NBC-TV's Shogun, which incorporated several ninja incidents, also paved the way for heartland America's acceptance of an art which, with its cloak of mysticism and aura of the occult, goes one step beyond most people's concept of the martial arts. But even predating this exposure, the art of ninjutsu was featured in the early 1970s on the once-popular Kung Fu television series, when Robert Ito (Sam in Quincy) played a crippled servant throughout three-quarters of the episode, only to surprise audiences by suddenly dropping his disguise and transforming into a dangerous, shuriken-throwing death machine doing battle against the inscrutable Caine. Delving back even further into the dusty archives, ninja first appeared on the international large screen in the 1967 James Bond thriller You Only Live Twice when 007 joined forces with a band of Japanese ninja agents to overthrow a villain of super-evil magnitude. Incidentally, Sho Kosugi (the black ninja in Enter the Ninja) says that the ninja scenes in the Bond escapade were especially memorable to residents of Osaka, Japan. It seems that in their fervor for authenticity, the Bond ninja left behind shuriken holes in the sacred, but wooden walls of Osaka castle."

P.S. I'm sure I can find more of these articles in my old magazines if need be.Chanbara (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revised the lead to better reflect the content and moved the commercials list back to the main article Ninja in popular culture.Chanbara (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as valid, despite what the nominator says, and just edit it to only include things with specific criteria. Must be a show about ninja, or with at least one ninja as a main character. Dream Focus 01:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion rationale seems very much WP:IDONTLIKEIT and doesn't argue why television programs about ninja are not notable, but List of ninja films somehow is. I am inclined to say that it should be cleaned up per WP:SURMOUNTABLE to remove any and all instances where the program is not directly about ninja, such as Naruto, and instead only features a ninja as an enemy or bit part._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though I kind of understand your points, it is definitely notable and valid enough to be an article. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to List of television shows about ninja and purge non-notable entries. No opinion on whether we should list episodes. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ a pure TNT delete; this is a reasonable topic for an article. However, it is indiscriminate (do we need to list an episode of Looney Tunes with a ninja) and over 80 percent of the references are to www.thetvdb.com (which is user-generated content) or www.tvdrama-db.com (which is in Japanese, but I believe is UGC as well). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, there may be enough for an article after dropping the references and individual episodes, as people seem willing to try this Draftify is more appropriate than Delete. I am slightly worried that G.I. Joe is considered a "ninja" series, though, neither the Wikipedia articles nor the TVDB articles support that (though there is an unexplained Category:Ninja in fiction on G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (1983 TV series)). power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 8 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Langa[edit]

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

I find this difficult to assess. Langa appears to have made little impact as an author, while his assassination caused some ripples. Still, the available sources essentially consist of one writeup [10] (by an NGO generally regarded as reliable). The linked collection of documents would mostly be characterized as "passing mentions" by our metrics, I'm afraid. This feels like a suitable subject for an article, but the source situation makes me wonder. Opinions please. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that he has three brothers who each have a linked article is relevant. If his brothers themselves are notable, having a sibling assassinated is an important part of their stories. Of course the content of this article could be embedded in each of those articles, but what's the harm in instead linking each to this one? Michaelgraaf (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2021-01 ✍️ create

Keep: Having a page dedicated to this person on sahistory, the country's premier history site - https://www.sahistory.org.za/people/benjamin-johnson-langa - gives the subject clear notability. I don't have time to look further right now, but this looks useful as well - https://www.sahistory.org.za/collections/80452. Greenman (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The manner of his assassination as part of an apartheid dirty tricks campaign that led to two men being executed, and another to die in ANC custody, the fact that his murder was examined at the TRC and the fact that two South African Presidents saw fit to publicly apologise to his family would combine to indicate notability. When Googling his name I found another article from 2019 in a WP:RS that used his murder to illustrate the dangers of making false political accusations.[11]. There also seems to be a lot of material on Google Books. Park3r (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a bad source; initally looks like a passing mention, but it does focus on Langa. Don't know if we are there yet with these two though. Re deletion being based on notability rather than article content: that's true, but notability is determined by availability of possible sources. I.e., it has to be shown that sufficient solid sources are available to demonstrate notability - if so, it doesn't matter if they are at present actually used in the article. But they need to be shown to exist. The question is whether that's the case here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete Langa seems to have some decent sources on him, but this page is not nearly as developed as it should be. It is a stub. I would not be opposed to keeping this page if someone were to add more; it does not feel ready to be published. Jonathan170 (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn’t WP:CONTN apply? Deletion is based on notability, not on article content. Park3r (talk) 04:55, 7 March 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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 64[edit]

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

No evidence this route meets WP:GNG. Endorse redirect to List of bus routes in London. SK2242 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination does not suggest deletion. The route has been running in Croydon since the 1930s and so is reasonably historic. All such London bus routes are well covered in books – it's just a matter of looking per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Existing for a long time is not a guarantee of notability. You’d need to find such books that supposedly contain significant coverage to prove your point as I could not find any. SK2242 (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would suggest taking a look a it's sister articles in this navbox, noting also that many routes don't have their own articles, to better gauge whether to keep or delete. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 01:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're not interested in other London bus articles for purposes of this discussion. Some are notable, many are not. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Individual bus routes should be limited to only the most notable, and I do not see what makes this one stand out among all those routinely listed in such books. Reywas92^Talk 20:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep - Since the other London bus routes have articles, it would be disruptive to the category. Unless someone wants to transform all of them, I think doing one-off variations would not be better and would be a bit of SURPRISE to find this one missing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Markbassett: There are only few remaining routes with articles. Lots of others have been deleted and redirected to the list page in the past. SK2242 (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SK2242: ??? “only few” is Factually incorrect. I don’t know what you’re looking at but there seems 90+ articles of a bus route in London. That’s hardly all routes so there may have been others deleted - but it seems a significant percentage and lacking a guideline it seems reasonable to respect the efforts plus here a historical aspect, popularity as sightseeing bus, and 24-hour fairly direct route ... and let it be. For what it’s worth, I also see Bus routes in Manhattan, where a overall article links to each route has its own article, so having a bus route article seems not unique. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

90 out of over 500, and more may come to AfD soon. There is no evidence of notability for this route. SK2242 (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 'Bus Routes in London Wiki' which covers 'many or most' buses in the region and which is reasonably active: the relevant page is here. There is a case for coordination. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_bus_routes_in_London. This is an interesting one, as someone who used to live in the area where this route ran I can confirm that it has a long history, but nothing particularly notable in said history to warrant an article. I would say that any such route that doesn't have any particular claim to fame or infamy (e.g. well-publicised and covered opposition to its introduction or a change in its routing, notable events during its run) should likewise be redirected, but that's a discussion for another day. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 18:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in London. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 2 March 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. Ignoring the obvious socking and COI, basically snow delete. I'll salt this too, as suggested. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Cruz Couture[edit]

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

As you can see from this article's history, I have been quietly looking at the references. While they are different enough to those in the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Cruz Couture to avoid outright WP:G4 deletion, it would appear to me the substantial issues have remained the same

repeated additions of purported references from press releases, gossip pages, and passing mentions - not in themselves a reason for deletion, but a reason to be wary of those references
quite simply this article fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and quite possibly other tests for inclusion as a Wikipedia article

As always, I am happy to to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - you are not wrong, this is just a little bit more subtle but still just an advertisement. Nothing here makes for WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is clearly different from the content that was deleted in the past. There is no intent here for advertising I put it as an US Company Stubs because I know it needs a lot of improvement in the future. Boyjords2020 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure why my comment was deleted but as I said before, the company has had an impact and ir peer admired...meeting the crieria. AND I do find some more substantial references that can be added.Deefieldian (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources talk about this brand beyond a mention in passing. Mottezen (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mottezen As I have said it was a company stubs, there are many companies that still here on wikipedia. If you tried to search Sebastian Cruz Couture social media accounts they are verified https://web.facebook.com/ThePocketSquareIndustry/, https://www.pinterest.ph/sebastiancruzcouture/ and there are almost 450k IG followers Boyjords2020 (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible undisclosed paid-for-spam with no significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 11:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of sources available. Story is consistent across all sources. Social media following is stronger compared to similar brands that started around the same time. Brand has dressed big names, which proves notability. I see the brand constantly on The Masked Singer Nick Cannon. Celebrity stylist don't throw random brands on A-listers. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC) — Amano225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See below where Amano255 admits to their COI: "I am one of the founders. My wife Natasha is the other co-founder and creative director."--- Possibly (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mottezen To suggest "Possible & Paid-For-Spam" regarding the sources available suggests you did not read the full features on Sebastian Cruz Couture ; sources in which wikipedia deems reliable. The author of this page stated it was a stub and was planning to work on it. I can see some press coming across as promotion; news is always promoting something... But the content being provided in this stub is not, nor are the citations. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment without COI disclosure by "one of the founders. My wife Natasha is the other co-founder and creative director."--- Possibly (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am in the area of the subject and they are very popular. I am surprised they don't have more press frankly. I agree that to accuse "Possible & Paid-For-Spam" by GSS is innappropriate but if you look at his talk page and contribs he seems to accuse many of this unsubstatiated claim.71.229.114.204 (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boyjords2020. Mottezen (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mottezen I am sorry you feel this way and are now under the assumption I am affiliated with other Wikipedia profiles commenting here. I am truly sorry, but unfortunately its not the case. For me, this further proves my point on your original comment. One cannot assume that because multiple people commented on a similar point, which does not side with your POV doesn't mean they are both affiliated. I am not one to personally bash people or better yet respond emotionally. I tend to stay more factual. In this case, this specific point thread my comments I can all back up. Thank you. No disrespect at all meant, and none taken. I have been following this page for some time now. That is all. Doesn't mean anything else. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment without COI disclosure by "one of the founders. My wife Natasha is the other co-founder and creative director."--- Possibly (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since this AfD is being bludgeoned just like the first AfD, it is appropriate to review the sources against Wikipedia's requirement. These are that there should be multiple, reliable and independent sources with significant coverage that establish notability.

Source 1 - from techbullion - very clearly a puff piece almost certainly based on a press release or a paid advertorial - affiliated and not reliable

Source 2 - own web site - neither reliable nor independent

Source 3 - YouTube - social media not acceptable for demonstrating notability

Source 4 - images with passing mentions - no discussion

Source 5 - images and passing mention

Source 7 - Facebook - Social media not acceptable for establishing notability

Source 8 - Picture spread with passing mention - unreliable source

Source 9 - Twitter - Social media - not an acceptable source no matter how verified

Source 10 - lifestyle piece with a passing mention

The inescapable conclusion is that nothing here establishes notability - not a single source - let alone the multiple, reliable and independent sources with significant coverage that are required. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Velella I really appreciate you finally taking the stance of wanting to aid in the efforts of making this stub better. That said, lets go ahead and share these sources so that the author can build a better page, or maybe others can assist if interested in constructing instead of destructing? Here are a few I have found, and most are full features. To say the sources are promotional would be puff as you mention it. In that case, everything is promotional in this world. That said, if the author is not citing promotional content then it should be fine. Some of the sources below may not be under wikipedia eyes reliable but enough to showcase notability. If this doesn't, I don't know what does in the fashion industry.

https://hauteliving.com/2021/01/sebastian-cruz-couture-luxury-fashion-forerunner-watch-2021/693913/

https://www.laweekly.com/sebastian-cruz-couture-launches-its-valentines-day-campaign/

https://www.jpost.com/special-content/how-sebastian-cruz-couture-became-a-global-luxury-fashion-brand-657515

https://foxinterviewer.com/business/sebastian-cruz-couture-emerges-as-a-luxury-fast-fashion-supernova/

https://fashionweekdaily.com/sebastian-cruz-couture-unveils-spring-summer-2021-collection/

https://techbullion.com/from-pocket-squares-to-luxury-fashion-sebastian-cruz-couture-expands-its-products-range/

https://signalscv.com/2021/01/sebastian-cruz-couture-the-making-of-a-luxury-brand-from-pocket-squares-to-debonair-head-to-toe-suits/

https://vman.com/article/a-glimpse-of-sebastian-cruz-couture-pre-fall-menswear-collection-2021/

https://www.ibtimes.com/look-inside-fashion-industry-2939742

http://www.eurasianvogue.com/latest-stories/-gift-ideas-for-chinese-valentines-day

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6698677/Olivia-Munn-cuts-sleek-figure-wearing-blue-velvet-suit-Starz-TCA-Red-Carpet-event.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us?refurl=%2fen-us%2fnews%2fother%2f2019-pre-grammy-gala-and-salute-to-industry-icons-presented-by-the-recording-academy-and-clive-davis%2fss-BBTofYs

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/life/music/2019/02/10/clive-davis-pre-grammys-gala-2019-see-all-celebrity-attendees/2829547002/

https://www.tmz.com/2019/02/11/julian-edelman-russell-wilson-chris-bosh-grammys/

https://people.com/music/grammys-2019-preparties-photos/#ciara-russell-wilson

https://hollywoodlife.com/2019/02/11/future-bails-clive-davis-grammys-party-performance-ciara-russell-wilson-arrive/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/tvshowbiz/video-1859776/Video-Ciara-Russell-Wilson-Pre-Grammy-Gala-2019.html

https://www.eonline.com/photos/26960/clive-davis-pre-grammy-gala-2019

https://www.essence.com/how-to/style-your-guy-essence-live-video/

https://www.popsugar.com/celebrity/photo-gallery/45769934/image/45769937/Ciara-Russell-Wilson

https://www.esquireme.com/content/20656-best-dressed-2017-mike-hardie Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of SIGCOV here, but most of it is marked as written by the same author, "DN MEDIA NETWORK". What do we make of that? Mottezen (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mottezen I have no choice but to assume in this case this is simply a person that decided to write about the brand. In fashion I see this all the time on many of the publications. Sometimes they use profiles that have a brand name to feature other brands and other times they use an author profile. When its obvious and can be concluded that its a promotional posts is when it says "sponsored" That's really the only time that I can personal be inclined to say that its promotional in the sense that others may suggest. Besides this, when a brand started with creating a product that had a utility aspect to it, in a market that is hard to penetrate, with a solid social media following you will have networks talking about it. Some of the content can come across as promotional because they are promoting whatever the subject is and other content may not. Going back to the point here, as long as the author is taking pieces of the story and trying to design a foundation on Wikipedia that is non promotional using sources that are considered to be credible sites he/she should be given a fair chance. If the page was setup as a stub that is all I personally am suggesting. Given a fair shot just like all of us have been given at one point or another in our lives. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment without COI disclosure by "one of the founders. My wife Natasha is the other co-founder and creative director."--- Possibly (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. The article is likely paid-for spam; many of the sources provided above certainly are, and those that aren't don't constitute significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination. Any recreation of this should be vetted through AfC before going to mainspace. To prevent further bludgeoning by the new users who seem to have magically found their way to this AfD, here's a breakdown of the sources above:

Source analysis

Hauteliving: Written in partnership with DN News Desk – paid-for spam
Laweekly: *Brand Partner Content* – paid-for spam
Jpost: Jpost "special content" is sponsored – paid-for spam
Foxinterviewer: DN News Desk – paid-for spam
Fashionweekdaily: Presented by: DN News Desk – paid-for spam
Techbullion: Contains gems like The brand now educates, inspires, and empowers people. and The label houses all luxury items from their signature pocket squares to detailed designer suits. The customers enjoy the overall brand experience. “We love how their collection improvises and maximizes our wardrobe,” shares a trusted customer. Their look books have received massive applause. The looks are kept in trend with the season and attest fashion trends. The youth particularly enjoys the sensuousness of the outfits. Either paid-for spam or other conflict of interest.
Signalscv: No byline, gems like Sebastian Cruz Couture has been the birthplace of countless trend-setting designs and styles in menswear fashion and regular releases despite challenges such as the recent pandemic. They have maintained a profit margin while giving their clients what they want and have worked tirelessly to ensure that each item is handcrafted to perfection. – paid-for spam.
Vman: No byline, no indication of editorial oversight – unreliable
Ibtimes: No clear byline, IBT does "sponsored content" and is of dubious reliability more generally.
Eurasianvogue: No byline, not coverage.
Dailymail: Deprecated source
MSN: Link not working
USA today: Does not contain the words "Sebastian", "Cruz" or "Couture"
TMZ: Unreliable, does not contain the words "Sebastian", "Cruz" or "Couture"
People: Slideshow, not coverage
Hollywoodlife: Does not contain the words "Sebastian", "Cruz" or "Couture"
Dailymail 2: Deprecated
Eonline: Passing mention
Essence: Passing mention
Popsugar: Does not contain the words "Sebastian", "Cruz" or "Couture"
Esquireme: Passing mention

--Blablubbs|talk 13:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Blablubbs Love the way you broke this down. The only issue I have is mainly on your opening. "likely" & "certainly" Likely cannot be proven and certainly would require proof that one person paid the other to post about a specific topic. That I can certainly guarantee cannot be proven. Those sites with their contributors would get into a big legal mess if that was the case. I revert back to @Boyjords2020 wanting to work on this as a stub. Why not allow someone to opportunity to do so? If the issue was that this Wikipedia page was promotional in its style my arguments would 100% be otherwise. Not the case here. That the only fact we are discussing here. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Amano225, if you can point me to literally anything at all that suggests DN News Desk is anything approaching a reliable publication organ with editorial oversight that does anything else than write Black Hat SEO Spam articles for dodgy "news" sites, I'll reconsider. Until then, I see something that looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck and will treat it as such. --Blablubbs|talk 14:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete paid for spam about a non-notable company (and likely created by a long term UPE farm, see Ross kramerov.) The sources are utterly unconvincing and should be blacklisted since they're all paid for spam (at least the ones that actually discuss SCC in any detail.) CUPIDICAE💕 15:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is WP:NCORP and applies a stricter interpretation of requirements than for other topics. In short, WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @HighKing The company and Co-Founders have full articles coming out on Forbes, Entrepreneur, INC and several other big media channels within the next 4-6 weeks. This is why @Boyjords2020 is requesting to work on this as a stub. Why not allow someone to opportunity to do so? Give it a timeline, and allow people to execute what they intended to. If the dispute was about the tone of the current stub that would be great, but stating that the current sources are promotional is simply an opinion. I personally know for a fact that the history shared is 100% a fact, and therefore credible. In addition, the brand re-engineered a machine to mimic the same hand-crochet movement so they could actually increase their capacity in the early days. That is in fact encyclopedic. Maybe the @Boyjords2020 has not prioritized that yet but a bit of research can confirm this. @Blablubbs In regards to DN News Desk I have no idea who they are. If we take your same "duck analogy" yet make it more factual and less about perception I can say that the sources being used are considered to be credible by wikipedia. If I cannot rely on that then I cannot rely on the waiter when I order duck from the menu... If I cannot trust that, then we may as well dispute the Wikipedia reliable source page as a whole since apparently now everyone is getting paid for spam... We can say everything is... Or we can say otherwise... Bottom line, cant say its a duck until proven. Impossible to prove it in this case; only assume. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amano225, the onus is on you to establish that the sources you are trying to use to establish notability are reliable. It's impossible to prove a negative. We cannot just assume a source is good to use just because we know nothing about it. Blablubbs|talk 02:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do you know that The company and Co-Founders have full articles coming out on Forbes, Entrepreneur, INC and several other big media channels within the next 4-6 weeks.? Blablubbs|talk 03:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Blablubbs Thanks for your reply. I am not the author of the page in question. If I was, trust me I would do anything in my power to prove to you what is needed for you to change your POV in regards to the "account/person" that shared content about the brand. Content that was featured in credible wikipedia sources. I am definitely not disagreeing with you that there are website for sure that have false information shared about a brand, but when the same story is shared and is consistent across all web (in this case)about the brand it has to start becoming the reality. All these articles/features have the brand & brand co-founders tagged in it. They know, we know, we have to approve everything for the most part that is shared about our brand; which is how I stumbled upon this page. I have not touched this article nor influenced it in any way shape or form, just watched it slowly being attacked for the points shared above. I can 100% tell you as the Co-Founder of the brand Cesar R. Cruz the content on these sources is factual and I did not pay for it. We are approached by many channels that want to talk about us. We sometimes reply back and share our story or specifics about certain topics we have experience in (like we did with many of these sources). The interviews that were done by Forbes, Entrepreneur, and INC has content that further backs everything shared here and in the stub. In addition, it has content that will take the page out of stub status. These organic full features take often times years. For us, it all starts with an introduction, and the editor stays in touch/follows the brand and if it becomes notable enough they write about it & aid in telling the story. That's how it has been for us. Sometimes we do not have control of all the features that come out of the ones we are aware of. Many do share the content and share the images without you knowing. From my understanding, and after really looking at everything shared on the page they are all verifiable, and the author of this page (and to clarify I have no affiliation with what so ever) did not make it promotional in any way. I am a huge fan of seeing content shared on sites that are fully targeted to the reader. Wikipedia for me is not a promotional area, instead a place where people can educate themselves on certain topics. On a personal note, I will never forget when we started this brand with the vision of making handmade/hand crochet pocket squares in the U.S.A. That we did, the issue is that it would take us 45 minutes to make each one. We capped out at making 300 pocket squares per week and at that point there was no other way but to innovate. I constantly asked my labor partners if there was a machine that could help us to accelerate the process. I kept on getting knows. Eventually we researched and found a company in Miami, FL that sold vintage machines. This crazy Russian mechanic (my wife & co-founder Natasha is also Russian so connected with him) was working at that shop and was able to modify a machine to mimic the same movement we needed to make the crochet border on our pocket squares even better. It did not make the process fully automated, as all corners have to be finished by hand but it allowed us to make 25 pocket squares per hour instead of 1 every 45 min. Now we have several machines and continue to make them all in Miami :) That my friend is not promotional material. That is Educational, Inspirational, and simply Entrepreneurship. I know I have diverted a bit from what was in question, but even what was originally in question took another turn. I ask to everyone reading this to allow the author of this page a fair shot. I believe he has done a good job at creating the stub, and had not shared anything that is not true. I encourage others to share content as long as it is factual and non promotional. We do not see Wikipedia as promotional page in any way what so ever. I am sure you can verify my IP address as the co-founder of the brand based on location :) I thank you all for your time. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? - "we have to approve everything for the most part that is shared about our brand...... We are approached by many channels that want to talk about us.....For us, it all starts with an .....I will never forget when we started this brand ......" and several more. You have an absolute conflict of interest. You should not, must not contribute here in any way about this topic or this AFD. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella How so? Trust me, I looked everywhere before I started commenting here. It says I can comment here (talk page) but can never make any edits, nor be affiliated with the author/contributors working on the page unless notified on the talk page of the wiki page. The Author of the page would have to disclose if I paid them. In this case none of the above. Please see this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy You will also stumble upon the fact that you should have never nominated the page for speedy deletion. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a talk page. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Note to Closer Whoa, hang on, so Amano225 is one of the founders and is working with Boyjords2020 to prepare this article in advance of articles that will appear in the media in 4-6 weeks? Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, nor a secondary platform for a promotional campaign. You should both step back from this AfD. Also stop bludgeoning the process. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @HighKing Wait, did you not read what I stated? Truly don't understand. Its the deletion discussion talk page a platform where editors opinions/assumptions are considered facts until proven otherwise? You are right that I am one of the founders. My wife Natasha is the other co-founder and creative director. She is not in this chat nor is the person that wrote this stub affiliated with anyone in the business (including myself). Like mentioned, as a business owner I am always on top of anyone mentioning our brand. This is how I found out about this page. During this time I have done extensive research on the things that can and cannot be done during a deletion talk. I noticed that you cannot get external help to promote an article deletion. I found an interesting link on reddit where someone created it to get this page deleted last time. That technically is a violation of the deletion process. I also read that I can come into this page specifically and comment; but never edit etc... I have followed the rules and I am simply communicating here with you all in hopes of accomplishing a positive outcome. No where did I say that Boyjords2020 is helping us prepare anything. Where did you read that? If this is the way people are drawing conclusions clearly no one is reading. I would love not to have to reply to every comment. Unfortunately, the comment you just made required a reply, as spam. As some describe it here "paid-to-spam" Before drawing conclusion please do your research and when replying to my comment please read what I wrote before replying with a bunch of lies unless you can prove it. Thank you! Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said The company and Co-Founders have full articles coming out on Forbes, Entrepreneur, INC and several other big media channels within the next 4-6 weeks. This is why @Boyjords2020 is requesting to work on this as a stub. Now, how would Boyjords2020 possibly know that there are articles about to appear in the next 4,6 weeks and how would you know that this is his reason for requesting to work on the article? Especially if he's not "helping" you? You're losing credibility, my advice is step away. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at this point I think it would make a lot of sense to pBlock the company owner Amano225 from this discussion, as a) they are bludgeoning it and b) they close to the least neutral editor I have seen yet. The numerous (paid) comments they have added above, prior to disclosing their conflict, have had an impact on this AFD. --- Possibly (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources I found in an independent search reeked of paid promotion. Some were tagged "DN MEDIA NETWORK" or "DN News Desk" (1, 2, 3, 4) and others "Accesswire"(5, 6) Muzique Magazine looked good until I saw this at the end of the article: "To have your story, brand or products featured on Muzique Magazine, please submit directly here." I can't add that link because it is on our blacklist. The coverage contains a lot of obvious paid promotion, which taints the whole thing for me. --- Possibly (talk)

@Possibly All the sources you mentioned that you are assuming were paid for the author that created the stub did not use. We are not discussing here other links tied to the brand. We are discussing the current stub and current sources that are being used to validate it. This topic has gone so far from the facts. The absolute only reason why I responded in this deletion page was because I saw the author that created the page being attacked. First the page was incorrectly nominated for speedy deletion, by a person who was part of the first deletion process. When looking back at the first deletion the page was written horribly. I have no idea who even wrote it and can agree it should have been deleted. This second time from an unbiased standpoint it should not. Why? Simply because it is absolutely written in a non promotional manner, credible sources, and the author requested to keep it as a stub. Give people a chance to succeed (not talking about me because I absolutely never quit; in case you haven't noticed yet) but in this case the Author. He/she stuck to the facts, while this whole page have been assumptions and discussing other sources that are not even pointing to the Wikipedia page. Amano225 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop bludgeoning this AfD. We have heard more than enough from the company owner about why you think your company is important. We get it. --- Possibly (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding any indication that the subject of this article meets our criteria for notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a look at the first 10 references in the list above. The daily mail is non-rs. There is lots and lots of press-releases. They are clearly press-releases that fail WP:SIRS. Other stuff fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Some of it is plain advertising. Some are so over the top promo that are beyong belief. scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This is a promotional and orphaned article about a non-notable subject. The article seeks to inherit notability from the notable people who have worn its products. Notability is not inherited in this way. So that's the delete, but why the salt? The behaviour here has been utterly appalling. Abusing Wikipedia to further one's businesses or other financial interests is completely unacceptable. Indefinite blocks are entirely appropriate for those who seek leech off the resources of a charitable foundation for gain. Sometimes people mistakenly try to use Wikipedia as a business directory for their businesses without realising that this is not permitted. This is not such an innocent misunderstanding. The article has already been deleted before and there is no sign of any learning or understanding from those who seek to promote the company. I consider it likely that they, or their colleagues, will try again if the article title is not salted this time. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent reference analysis. Fiddle Faddle 21:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as argued for both the first time around and above. Salt, because the publicizers of this company are clearly energetic and are likely to waste more of our time. (If the company ever became noteworthy then the salting would be only the most trivial impediment to creating a solid, non-promotional article about it.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the article creator Boyjords2020 for undisclosed paid editing. Fences&Windows 23:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pankajbhai Patel[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails NPOLITICIAN as never elected to office. I can't see GNG on this one either. JW 1961 Talk 10:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable unelected politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fail notability guideline and non elected politician of Gujarat state in India. Lot of candidates trying to compete in election however he was runner up in 2017 election and still not win any election for his region. TheDreamBoat (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win, but this doesn't even try to suggest any other basis for notability on other grounds and isn't referenced to any reliably sourced indication that his candidacy should somehow be seen as markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable politician. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yoyo Ovi[edit]

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

Non notable singer and model who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER nor WP:ENT. They seem to have been nominated for a non notable award which in no way proves notability, a WP:BEFORE search shows hits in unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 Hello Celestina007, kindly delete the article if it doesn't meet notability. I personally created the article because the singer had performed on important TV programs. What i disagree is the Paid article you included. I'm not a blogger or paid writer. I keep on learning daily. If you wish to delete the article i will appreciate also, i was't paid for it or expecting direct or indirect gifts from the singer. as regards to Influence Akaba his music charted https://www.top-charts.com/songs/world/germany/itunes/2020-W12 on Itunes also published by MyTuner Radio (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t unilaterally delete the article & no one can until the AFD discussion is over. The problem is the subject of your article doesn’t meet any criterion from SINGER and lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence making it a GNG fail also. Celestina007 (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If no notability found.NOTICE501 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adan Santiago[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, reads more like a Hoax. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete someone's funnin'... With a hoax. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 10:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:G3. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - A7, G3 & G5 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete definitely a hoax. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Binny Rinky Benajmin[edit]

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

The subject is a non notable Malyali actress who doesn't meet the notability requirements for actors as she has only had small roles. References quoted in the article are routine announcement and lack sufficient depth to meet the criteria. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete or draftify: this is wp:toosoon, she may be notable in future, looks like early stage of her career.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
commemt is it Benjamin or Benajmin? Article has it both ways. Looks like the article title is misspelled. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is not notable now. "She may be notable in the future" is true of lots of people, but we do not create articles just because the person might be notable, we create articles because the subject can be currently shown to be notable based on reliable sources, which is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Alibilbao (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhtar Sagir Dambatta[edit]

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

Current sources don't establish WP:GNG Hulatam (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of the 360dopes.com article which was created the day before the Wikipedia article. (The xycinews.com article has identical content but is conceivably a mirror, although there's no attribution). In any event, delete as fails WP:GNG. Coverage is syndicated stories based on what he's written. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was reviewing this one earlier yesterday and ended up getting lost in this user's page creation history. This is an oft-repeating pattern for this user. The two sites (360dopes and xycinews, see here and here) appear to offer SEO services, leading me to believe there may be a for-pay arrangement somewhere in this. Either way - not suitable for Wikipedia. A S U K I T E 14:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not at all a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:44, 6 March 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 Post Human: Survival Horror. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1x1 (song)[edit]

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

I had doubts about this song's notability in lights of its current DYK nomination. (To note--this nomination is not to propose outright deletion) No independent coverage from album reviews. WP:NSONGS states that coverage within album reviews does not establish notability. Charting alone does not mean the song is inherently notable. HĐ (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t seem notable outside of charts and album reviews. Redirect to Post Human: Survival Horror. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Post Human: Survival Horror per nom. Does not pass WP:NSONG per coverage from only album reviews. --Ashley yoursmile! 14:01, 5 March 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. WP:SNOW, WP:HOAX. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arekh[edit]

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

I haven't been able to confirm a single thing on this page. I haven't been able to find any indication that the sources or even their authors are real. Several key phrases in this article appear only in this Wikipedia page, including Arekh Thulay, Dulmat, Persihaib, Albhub-Hamni, Khalep, and "neutral Bible". I think this page is a hoax. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, WP:HOAX. Nsk92 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oh dear, another hoax that is old enough to attend high school. I likewise could not find any indication that the sources, or many of the terms used in the article are even real. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 17:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 17:56, 3 March 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. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Animal Baby Explorers[edit]

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

Article about a children's television series, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV shows are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist(ed) -- the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about the show in real media to establish its significance, but the only reference shown here at all is a short review on the self-published website of an advocacy organization that isn't a neutral or notability-making source.
There's also been some editwarring going on here about whether this was an American show as claimed by IMDb, or a multinational American-British-Canadian copro as claimed by random IP numbers who aren't showing any sources to demonstrate that IMDb is incorrect about its production nationality -- and it's also flipped back and forth several times between a redirect to PBS Kids and a standalone article, but throughout that entire history of editwarring, it has never, ever been properly sourced for the purposes of earning a standalone article.
No prejudice against the recreation of a (protected) redirect to PBS Kids from the redlink if desired, but this should be deleted first as there's no value in retaining this poorly sourced content in the edit history. If people really want this to be recreated as a standalone article again, they're going to have to put much, much more effort into it than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Goudarzi[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Non-notable actor. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hulatam (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor, fails GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 11:38, 7 March 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. This is close, but I see an emerging consensus that the sourcing and content are sufficient for a standalone article, in spite of the amount of coverage coming from album reviews. — The Earwig (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

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

I am not entirely sure if this song was really released as a promotional single or not, given that Discogs is generally unreliable (WP:RSP). As the article is made up of mostly album reviews (especially the "critical reception" section), and it has not charted on any singles chart, I am afraid this article fails WP:NSONGS. HĐ (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The GA status would suggest it meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Why exactly? HĐ (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well via the GA process. It would have been reviewed by several editors, and I highly doubt an article that does not meet WP:GNG would become a GA. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also dropped a note on the GA project's talkpage too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: As a GA can be reassessed, so can notability. Just to notice that there have been quite a few AfDs for Songs GAs. I don't think a GA status can automatically indicate that the song is notable per-se. HĐ (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In one of my sandboxes, I have recently started editing and expanding the article's content to comply with the recommendations of WP:NSONGS. This article has not seen a lot of editing activity in nearly 5 years, which I understand bears zero significance in the case of an AfD, but I would like to make it known that this content is being actively worked on to meet guidelines. Carbrera (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Feel free to expand the article. Once the article is expanded, ping me so that I could see the progress. Keep in mind, though, please don't include Discogs as a source. HĐ (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ – I have recently published an edit that greatly expanded the article. The expansion added several sources where "The Real Thing" was the article's main subject (see this Idolator review, this Billboard track-by-track revisit with Stefani, this NME article about the song's development, and this Into the Pop Void anecdote). Other recently added sources discuss Vitamin String Quartet's cover of the song, and the song's early development with several other high profile musicians. Carbrera (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Is there a link that verifies this release as a promotional single? I feel like it's pretty much a copy-paste ID from Discogs. Idolator may be okay, but Pop Void is an unreliable source. I'm also seeing sources used from "Gay City News" and "PopCrush" which are not reliable (WP:RSMUSIC). The NME and Billboard sources fall short of what is required to be "independent, non-trivial coverage": only one sentence skimming through is in NME (Undeterred, Stefani went away and wrote the track ‘The Real Thing’ in the style of New Order, which the band then came and played on.) and the Billboard article is a revisit of the album and not the song. If things are cherry-picked from scattered sources like this, I don't think it is fair to say the song has received coverage outside album reviews. HĐ (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is fair to say that I have cherry-picked information from "scattered sources". Despite not being the main contributor to this article in the past, I knew that it was in need of help when you first alerted me of its AfD, and it has long been on my mental list of articles to revisit. I disagree with your stance, and I believe I expanded the article to an appropriate manner that would meet the requirements of NSONGS. In regards to the concerns you raised above, why is the media citation of the CD itself not sufficient? WP:RSMUSIC and WP:ALBUMAVOID both list this format as a generally reliable source. The only information I have obtained from the media is the track listing and length, release year, and label. The NME source is completely about Stefani's attempt to work with New Order on "The Real Thing"; yes, the actual title is only mentioned once but the entirety of the article is about the song's development. I was unaware of the unreliability of PopCrush, so I have removed it, but Gay City News is not listed at RSMUSIC. Into the Pop Void seems to employ several editors with professional experience, so I do not believe that it is unreliable per se. I think the content introduced in these particular sources is beneficial to the reader and includes information that would be out of place on the suggested L.A.M.B. redirect, only adding unnecessary weight. I am fully aware that a non-radio single from 2005 is not going to have a hundred references about it, but it does have some. Isn't that why NSONGS notes that "the number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras"? I stand my ground when I say that the article should not be deleted or redirected. Carbrera (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

~~I will accept the CD liner notes on good faith~~ (to note, I ~~still~~ am very skeptical of the liner notes, as the source claims the single had a promo release in the Philippines, while most editors of the article, including you, are from presumably the U.S.). The RSMUSIC is just a guide, and "Gay City News" not being included in it does not mean it is notable per-se unless there is evidence of editorial oversight. I do not understand how incorporating the NME information into L.A.M.B. would add "unnecessary weight", given that Album background/production sections often incorporate the conception of each and every song, which is a perfectly normal thing. Otherwise, the Idolator and the Void sources are weak for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, the Billboard retrospective article is great material to expand a "Production" section of L.A.M.B. HĐ (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)`[reply]

Keep – Due to the article's recent expansion and addition of multiple published sources outside of album reviews, I vote to keep this article per my understanding that it meets WP:NSONGS. Carbrera (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I appreciate your efforts in expanding the article, but I still have some concerns regarding notability. HĐ (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. Only real notability evidence is some album reviews. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – An Interscope citation is being used to back up this promotional CD release not Discogs, which is fully reliable. Also, the song has a good number of live performances and other versions mentioned; these definitely show notability. --K. Peake 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will accept the Interscope liner notes on good faith.~~ I do not think NSONGS mention anything about live performances or remixes unless they themselves also attract coverage. Being performed once or thrice does not make a song inherently notable. HĐ (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. A limited release promo single that doesn’t meet WP:NSONGS is certainly not fit for an article, GA or not. D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 03:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. - Drastically overwritten like most Stefani Wikipedia articles. However, a quick scan through the references confirms nearly all coverage is dependent on album reviews, no charting information either.--N Ø 04:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A song does not need to chart in order to be notable. Carbrera (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Of course not, but it can be an indication that a song might be notable, something this song really doesn’t have. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. I don't think Discogs is useless but even it only has cover art. Not a CD, or liner notes, or anything... just cover art. For all we know it's fan-made. It even says "draft" on the right side. Nevertheless, 2005 isn't ancient—there would be more sources if it was notable (maybe it wasn't 2005? who knows... I don't even think this was an official release). Heartfox (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I noticed from the Discogs release, it says "Draft" which I think is by no means an indication of an official release. The "GSPRCD" release ID is also fishy (I may be conducting original research here, but it is quite an abbreviation of "Gwen Stefani Promo CD"), given that label release IDs often contain number-only strings, or a mix of letters and numbers (i.e. "Poker Face", another single from the same label). HĐ (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to state that I have this promotional copy of "The Real Thing" in my personal CD collection, and I would have never added it as a citation in the first place if I doubted its legitimacy. The Discogs source being discussed was added over 5 years ago and has since been removed – I am fully aware that is the site should not be used outside of external links on Wikipedia. Anyway, I am having difficulty accepting why this combination of independent sourcing, cover versions (including one by a major group), a promotional release, and album reviews is not enough to meets the guidelines of NSONGS. Yes, a lot of the coverage comes from these reviews of L.A.M.B., but a rather sizable amount of the article's content is also derived from the sources I've mentioned. It seems like everyone interprets NSONGS differently. Carbrera (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

If you happen to have the promo CD of it, then I'll accept it on good faith. I don't know which "major group" you are referring to, but perhaps you'll find WP:SONGTRIVIA helpful. Aside from album reviews, I am seeing two sources (Idolator and Pop Void), which I am afraid insufficient, to put it plainly (if you count Billboard, then each and every track deserves an article?). Just to note, a single release does not grant notability. HĐ (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the Vitamin Strings Quartet cover and the accompanying AllMusic review by Johnny Loftus. I realize that not all singles are notable. What's wrong with this NME article? The entirety of the article is about Stefani's attempts in creating the song. I dislike repeating myself, but I feel as if the legitimacy of several sources is not even being considered. In regards to your Billboard comment, I do not think and have never thought that one source equates to notability. I'm saying that Idolator + Into the Pop Void + NME + Billboard + VSQ's cover + everything else should be enough to meet any notability concerns. Carbrera (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Aoba47 – I hope you don't mind that I pinged you, but as the original GAN reviewer of this article, perhaps you'd care to weigh in? Carbrera (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I missed the NME source, but then incorporating that, it will add up to three (NME, Idolator, Pop Void -- the last of which is dubious). Why do you have to repeat yourself, when I specifically said that those three sources are not sufficient for a standalone article? If most sources incl. Billboard discuss this song as part of the same artistic project (in this case, the L.A.M.B. album), then why a standalone article should be created in the first place? HĐ (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the String Quartet review is on the tribute album and not this song per-se. Stop justifying a song's notability in the concept of album reviews. HĐ (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, is there any way you could upload the promotional copy of the single onto platforms like Flickr or Imgur? That may or may not determine notability (as I said, single release does not grant notability), but to make sure the information at other Gwen Stefani articles is correct i.e. Gwen Stefani discography. HĐ (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done no such thing. My argument has never been that – I simply believe that a combination of album reviews and independent sourcing, on the song (in this case), should suffice and is still in compliance with notability guidelines. It is as if there is some imaginary number of sources I need to reach on this article, and I don't think that is reasonable. Carbrera (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
HĐ – I can upload it, but I think you are asking a lot of me. Carbrera (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry for being doubtful. I just want to make sure the information is correct, as there is little information on this promo release outside Discogs, which is rather skeptical. I believe this is for the best of this site. HĐ (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still say my ground that sources on this article are insufficient for a standalone article, and some sections can be trimmed tremendously. I would however leave it to other editors to discuss towards a consensus. HĐ (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - firstly the whole of the background and release section is about the album and not relevant except for the last two sentences. Additionally the critical reception is all from album reviews, The "Other versions" section is not notable. The track listing and "release" is dubious - it was sourced from Discogs and then replaced with an offline references. Releases like this are for promo purposes and media - not the general public. A release needs coverage in its own right separate from the parent album, otherwise the information could and should be included on the parent album page. GA status is nothing to do with notability - there are lots of examples in the past of well written non-notable topics. With less than 500 views since its creation in 2016 - that's also an indication of its lack of notability. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lil-unique1 – This article has received over 23,000 views, not 500. Carbrera (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Keep following improvements by Carbrera. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of the expansion is from album reviews, to note. (I am not dismissing the three sources above though) HĐ (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I honestly do not know about this one. I can understand the argument to redirect this article as it is encouraged to show significant coverage outside of album reviews, and it does look like a majority of the coverage is about the album reviews. I would prefer to leave this decision up to other editors. I just wanted to comment as I have been pinged. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to Carbrera's demonstration of notability. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. - fails WP:NSONG, coverage mostly from album reviews, the song has neither charted nor received accolades. --Ashley yoursmile! 10:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Comment uDiscover Music is an unreliable source since it belongs to UMG. Billboard does a track-by-track review which in the end is an album review, NME source just states she was inspired by New Order? and they say how their collaboration never came to fruition? The Idolator source is a good one. The Idolator and NME info can be added to the album page. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the best idea. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was being neutral because of the multiple redirects here, but I think that WP:NMUSIC is clear here: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion." And as everyone knows: "Rule of thumb: a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation". The article is built upon album reviews and should be merged into the parent album? Yes, per WP:NSONGS, but NSONGS also says: "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", which is the case here, and nothing here is trivial. Due to the multiple contradictions found at NSONGS, I wouldn't take it seriously beyond an advice page, and I'll stick with WP:GNG, the parent of NSONGS, the non-contradictory guideline that is being satisfied. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing up WP:NSONGS as a rule of thumb rather than carved-in-the-stone policy. I do admit NSONGS is sometimes frustrating. Alas, I am waiting for the promo release confirmation to make sure information is correctly represented. HĐ (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To note, I am still inclined towards redirect--the better alternative is to expand L.A.M.B.'s article (which is currently lacking a "Production" section, and whose "Composition" section is awaiting a much needed update to keep it up-to-par with current Music FAs). I would not however canvass others into taking my side--though I do have quite strong feelings about this one. HĐ (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here are the images that were requested. Unfortunately, the more and more I read some of the comments above, the more I feel my credibility as an editor has been questioned. I've written dozens of GA-quality pages that contain the AV media notes template for promotional CDs and have never been asked to upload photos of the release in question before. I have an extensive music collection and should not need to justify how or why I own an international CD. I understand the request, but considering what led up to it, I am insulted that my use of offline sources has been fine up until this AfD. Yes, I am admittedly a fan of Stefani, but I do not let it interfere with my pledge to adhere to Wikipedia's policies concerning notability and reliability. I want to fight for this article but I am no longer willing to go out of my way to prove myself to others. Carbrera (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

My intentions were not at all malicious--though I do understand you may have a rough time dealing with my behavior. Probably the Discogs site shouldn't have been listed in the first place, as that site is fishy and has raised quite a lot questions about its reliability, especially since the information site for this song has a "Draft" tag. HĐ (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. There's still no clear consensus on whether the article should either be kept or redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough to say about it that a stand-alone article is not out of line, and the only reasonable merge target (Love. Angel. Music. Baby.) is already longish. Album reviews are an entirely reasonable place to look for information about a song, I'd say, bearing mind that a source doesn't have to be devoted to a subject in order to have meaningful content on it. Charting is one reason why a song could be worth documenting, but it's hardly the only reason, just like a book can be worth writing about even if (gasp) it isn't a best-seller. XOR'easter (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR. And because the NSONGS guidance about excluding album reviews becomes silly when there is this much specific content about the song; I would point to GNG in such cases where the album reviews would be included as long as they are reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is to make sure the articles do not stray into excessive details. I have nothing against it, but I have seen quite a few articles that are dramatically overwritten with no substance (note--I am not referring to this article specifically). HĐ (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per how arguments have been made above. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WiseCampus.com[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been blocked as a spammer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the website. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, defunct website. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely on non-notability (claimed or shown) basis: there are no sources cited, and a search finds nothing either (possibly because this seems to have gone bust almost ten years ago, although that in itself isn't of course grounds for deletion), therefore fails notability and even basic verifiability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can’t find anything that suggests notability. --Devoke water 19:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. SoyokoAnis 01:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surchur[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN with no enduring coverage--most of the edits to the article in the last 8-9 years have been cleanup bots. It never received major press coverage, and apparently has been dead for ~9 years. Having said that, it could arguable merged into a bigger article on a larger topic of search engines that failed. Jclemens (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the company aside from a segment in a book. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:30, 5 March 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. Daniel (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfiltered Records[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. DJFace1 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nom. Mazurkevin (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 11:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has been blocked as a spam sockpuppeteer, however I am leaving this nomination open so that it can be evaluated on its merits. MER-C 11:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:35, 1 March 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) HawkAussie (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atarfe Industrial CF[edit]

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

The article was contested due to playing in a national division despite the team never going passing the fourth tier of Spanish football which isn't a national division. The club also fails WP:FOOTYN as they haven't competed in the Copa del Rey which is the national cup competition for Spain. HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Spanish fourth division isn't a national division, but Spain limits the number of Copa del Rey participants and the club passes WP:GNG since the third (fourth, soon to be fifth) division is really the cut-off for Spanish media coverage: [12] [13] [14]. SportingFlyer T·C 01:12, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 10:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. Giant Snowman 11:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:14, 2 March 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. Daniel (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Cakuli[edit]

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

Article fails both WP:MUSICBIO andWP:GNG as there is no deep coverage by independent reliable sources about the singer. Lorik17 (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 2 March 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) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lejla Agolli[edit]

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

Article fails both WP:MUSICBIO andWP:GNG as there is no deep coverage by independent reliable sources about the composer. Lorik17 (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has a Grove entry, significant coverage here and a bit here. Also, searching her name in Google books comes up with a lot of encyclopaedia entries. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources as identified above including encyclopaedias that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://j-source.ca/article/how-canadian-journalists-take-care-of-themselves/

[2] ttps://j-source.ca/article/broadlys-stock-image-project-fills-gaps-in-media-representation-of-gender-diverse-communities/

[3] ttps://nash83.ca/speaker-list/arvin-joaquin

[4] ttps://locallove.ca/life/5-gta-journalists-on-2018s-feel-good-stories/

[5] ttps://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/yee-journalism-has-a-racism-problem

[6] ttps://capitalcurrent.ca/petition-led-by-students-alumni-exposes-systemic-racism-at-carletons-journalism-school-and-calls-for-change/

[7] ttps://filmsuits.com/12-oclock-boys/

[8] "Copyright Infringement Notice Issued to HBO Max and Warner Media". IPpetite.

[9] ttps://finance.yahoo.com/finance/news/12-oclock-boyz-sports-no-142400853.html

[10] ttps://www.lawyered.in/legal-news/copyright-infringement-notice-issued-to-hbo-max-warner-media-5147/

[11] ttps://www.trademarkclick.com/education-blog/copyright-infringement-notice-issued-to-hbo-max-and-warner-media

[12] ttps://www.latestlaws.com/intellectual-property-news/copyright-infringement-notice-issued-to-hbo-max-and-warner-media/

[13] ttps://www.prweb.com/releases/_12_o_clock_boyz_creator_announces_voluntary_dismissal_of_lawsuit_by_oscilloscope_pictures/prweb16413449.htm

[14] ttps://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nyed.411048/gov.uscourts.nyed.411048.51.0.pdf

[15] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(law)#Cases

[16] "Archives". Citypaper Archives.

[17] It's 12 O'Clock Somewhere - When a Social Problem is Begging for a Business Solution. Retrieved May 17, 2016.

[18] "Legendary Motion Picture" (PDF). Retrieved October 20, 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]