Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 09	September 11 >

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. – Joe (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Baughman[edit]

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

Non-notable music producer. The best source I found during WP:BEFORE is this interview: [1]. Mottezen (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet threshold required by GNG. Besides aforementioned interview, which doesn't really count, I similarly couldn't find much. WP:NMUSIC doesn't seem like it really fits; if someone has worked on notable albums but all they have is a credit, I don't really think that's enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am on the fence with this one. In the absence of an NMUSIC guide for producers, WP:CREATIVE seems to be the most logical policy guideline. Given the long list of notable artists and albums he has worked on (several of which either won or were nominated for a Grammy Award), I could see a valid argument that he "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" under criteria 3 of that guideline. However, in order to assert that I think we would need to look more closely at what his actual contributions to all those listed albums were. This should probably be relisted for others to comment.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Airways[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON for this potential future airline that does not own any planes yet. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Pretty much the same pov as MrsSnoozyTurtle. I believe this is indeed TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curbon7, I take your point, however there are countless examples of other start-up airlines without AOCs which have Wikipedia profiles for example Norse Atlantic Airways, as well as Odyssey Airlines in the UK - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_Airlines. I feel that its important to start telling the story of these airlines while they are in their formative months. Surely Wikipedia is not just for those airlines that tried to launch flights and succeeded, but also those that tried to start-up operations and will possibly never make it to fruition. Surely these people are worth documenting too? Thanks again for your consideration. MW1011 (talk)

MW1011, You didn't ping the right person, I'm just the sorter. Curbon7 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrsSnoozyTurtle, I take your point, however there are countless examples of other start-up airlines without AOCs which have Wikipedia profiles for example Norse Atlantic Airways, as well as Odyssey Airlines in the UK - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_Airlines. I feel that its important to start telling the story of these airlines while they are in their formative months. Surely Wikipedia is not just for those airlines that tried to launch flights and succeeded, but also those that tried to start-up operations and will possibly never make it to fruition. Surely these people are worth documenting too? Thanks again for your consideration. MW1011 (talk) Hi Curbon7, Oops sorry!! I have now pinged MrsSnoozyTurtle. Thanks for your help. MW1011 (talk)

Hello MW1011. In special cases, a future airline could demonstrate that WP:NCORP is met. However I don't think this is the case in this situation. Regarding Norse and other future airlines, please note that as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that does not mean that the topics are necessarily notable. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrsSnoozyTurtl WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NCORP in this case as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrsSnoozyTurtl. Clear case of TOOSOON and not likely to meet NCORP anytime soon.4meter4 (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi MrsSnoozyTurtle, I have only just noticed that my page on Hans Airways has been taken down which is very disappointing considering the effort I put into it. That said and taking your points on board, is it not possible to keep the page as a draft until the airline hopefully gets closer to launch? Thanks again for your consideration. MW1011 (talk)

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. ✗plicit 23:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Librarian characters[edit]

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

List of characters of a relatively obscure television show/tv movie spinoff. To the best of my knowledge there is no independent coverage of the grouping, and this is reflect in the list itself which reads as WP:FANCRUFT. BilledMammal (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Four-season television show on a major cable network with a franchise article hardly suggests "obscure". A common and fine split-off of a sci-fi adventure series; could use sources, but deletion is not a solution here. Nate • (chatter) 04:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Librarian (franchise)#Characters. List article is made up of plot only and has no in-depth sources available to demonstrate real-world notability. – DarkGlow • 07:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This show is not "obscure". One of the three TV movies won a Saturn Award, and those TV movies were nominated for Emmys and a Writers Guild Award, this was followed by a four-season television show, with books and comics as well. I know it was a "family friendly" show which may not be to the taste of the proposer, but it was by no means obscure, and it a big show internationally, including getting Golden Maple nominations. Needs a few more sources, that's all Damiantgordon (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As always, as in every single character list at AFD since the very beginning, it is a valid spin-off article. Dream Focus 15:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Four season show AND a three movie trilogy with some major actors, so definitely not an obscure show.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I used that phrase in error, but I should be clear that this is nominating the deletion of a list of characters, rather than the article on the subject itself. This list is a group that hasn't been discussed collectively by reliable sources, was at the time of nomination entirely unsourced fancruft, and the article itself is not so long that a more concise list of characters, based on reliable secondary sources rather than fancruft, would not be appropriate there (the parent article is less than a thousand words long, well below our size limit). I brought it here rather than proposed a merger, because there was no content in the list that would be suitable for merger. BilledMammal (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid spinoff.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This book has some character analysis of the female characters from the franchise. In addition to the films and movies, there are also books featuring the characters, (such as this graphic novel) I get the sense that a WP:BEFORE search was not properly done with this nomination. I'm not convinced that there aren't sources out there in reviews of the various films, tv series, books, etc. on the characters to not build a valid spin off article.4meter4 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100 Best Companies to Work For[edit]

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

Annual list produced by Forbes. Seven of the sources are to Forbes, making them not independent, while the eighth is a passing mention that uses the list to study the performance of companies with better cultures to the market as a whole - in other words, not significant coverage.

A WP:BEFORE search turns up very little; the vast majority is press releases by the companies who receive the awards, while the infrequent independent coverage focuses on individual companies who are placed on this list, rather than the award in general. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Filbeck, Greg; Preece, Dianna (June–July 2003). "Fortune's Best 100 Companies to Work for in America: Do They Work for Shareholders?". Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 30 (5–6). Wiley: 771–797. doi:10.1111/1468-5957.05362. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "In this paper we examine the market reaction to the announcement by Fortune of the ‘Best 100 Companies to Work for in America.’ Employees rate firms based on several criteria including trust in management, pride in work/company and camaraderie. To examine long-term performance, we calculate raw and risk-adjusted returns and then compare them to the returns of a matched sample of firms. In addition, we calculate the return on a buy and hold investment in the sample firm less the return on a buy-and-hold investment in a matched sample firm (BHARs). We find a statistically significant positive response to the announcement of the ‘100 best companies to work for’ by Fortune. Also, based on all measures of risk-adjusted return, we find these firms generally outperform the matched sample of companies. The BHAR results, although not exhibiting the level of statistical significance, are consistent with the raw and risk-adjusted return results."
2. Bernardi, Richard A.; Bosco, Susan M.; Vassill, Katie M. (2006-06-01). "Does Female Representation on Boards of Directors Associate With Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work For" List?". Business & Society. 45 (2). SAGE Publishing: 235–248. doi:10.1177/0007650305283332. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "This study examines the influence of women in business using a sample of firms on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and is an extension of Bernardi et al.'s work. We use the data from Bernardi et al. to determine whether a higher representation of women on a board signals an increased commitment of a firm to a quality environment and employment characteristics necessary to establish the firm on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list. Our findings include a significant increase in the number of female directors on Fortune 500 companies between 1977 and 2001. The initial analysis of the 27 firms appearing on both Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and the Fortune 500 in 2001 indicates a positive correlation between the number of female directors and a company's appearance on the “100 Best Companies to Work For” list."
3. Dominick, Peter G.; Iordanoglou, Dimitra; Prastacos, Gregory; Reilly, Richard R. (2020-07-02). "Espoused Values of the "Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For": Essential Themes and Implementation Practices". Journal of Business Ethics. 173. Springer Science+Business Media: 69–88. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04564-8. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "This study identifes and describes the values espoused by the 62 companies that have consistently (2014–2018) appeared on the “Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For” (FBCWF) list. We identify 24 separate values and ofer an analysis of the keywords and phrases used to promote them. We confirm that these values fall within the categories of four well-accepted theoretical frameworks of corporate values and culture."
4. Simon, Daniel H.; DeVaro, Jed (December 2006). "Do the best companies to work for provide better customer satisfaction?". Managerial and Decision Economics. 27 (8). Wiley: 667–683. doi:10.1002/mde.1303. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Using data from both the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and Fortune Magazine's lists of Best Companies, we examine the relationship between making the ‘100 Best’ list and customer satisfaction. Based on a subset of the 100 Best in each year from 1994 to 2002, we find strong evidence that firms on the list earn higher customer satisfaction ratings than firms not on the list."
5. Goenner, Cullen F. (2008). "Investing in Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work for in America". Journal of Economic Insight. 34 (1). Missouri Valley Economic Associatio: 1–19. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Each year, since 1998, Fortune magazine has published a list of firms deemed the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America” based on their superior employer-employee relations. This relationship represents an intangible asset that may significantly influence future firm performance. We investigate whether investment strategies that invest in the 100 Best are able to outperform the market. The results indicate that portfolios, consisting of firms on the list, offer higher risk adjusted returns than the S&P 500 over the period 1998-2005."
6. Fulmer, Ingrid Smithey; Gerhart, Barry; Scott, Kimberly S. (2006-12-07). "Are the 100 best better? An empirical investigation of the relationship between being a "great place to work" and firm performance". Personnel Psychology. 56 (4). Wiley: 965–993. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00246.x. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "We then empirically investigate whether positive employee relations is related to firm performance, focusing on publicly traded firms included in the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” The relative performance of these “Best Companies” is examined via comparisons to both companies in the broad market and a group of matched firms. Our analyses suggest that companies on the 100 Best list enjoy not only stable and highly positive workforce attitudes, but also performance advantages over the broad market, and in some cases, over the matched group."
7. Romero, Eric J. (2004-05-01). "Are the Great Places to Work Also Great Performers?". Academy of Management Perspectives. 18 (2). Academy of Management. doi:10.5465/ame.2004.13835923. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "The article discusses research pertaining to the actual performance of the 1998 “100 Best Companies to Work for in America,” as listed by the periodical “Fortune.” The researchers used both stock market data and accounting data to assess firm performance. The study revealed that positive employee relations were beneficial for companies and may be related to overall improved performance. The research indicates that the time and money spent to create and support positive employee relations are a worthwhile investment."
8. Bhaskaran, Rajesh Kumar; Ting, Irene Wei Kiong; Azizan, Noor Azlinna; Yelubolu, Kranthi Vidhatha (2020-11-28). "Determinants and market performance of Fortune 100 best companies: evidence from Islamic perspective". Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research. 12 (1). Emerald Group Publishing: 44–59. doi:10.1108/JIABR-12-2019-0248. ISSN 1759-0817. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Islam is valid for every place and time, and it promotes fair and equitable employees’ relations as an essential corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy for successful organisations such as Fortune 100 companies. Whence, this study aims to explore Fortune 100 best companies exhibit better market performance and capitalisation relative to other companies in relation to their employees’ satisfaction as a significant contributor to better performance."
9. Joyce, Kevin E. (March–April 2003). "Lessons for employers from Fortune's "100 best"". Business Horizons. 46 (2): 77–84. doi:10.1016/S0007-6813(03)00013-2. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Fortune's '100 Best Companies to Work For,' which are both superlative workplaces and superior performers, have some important lessons to teach. A content analysis of the websites of these firms and a comparison group suggests 3 lessons: 1. The 100 Best are distinguished by employee development programs, diversity initiatives, and a fun work environment. 2. They use their websites to tell the world about themselves. 3. They take advantage of the BRS cycle: Behavior creates the desirable workplace, which leads to public recognition, which leads to a company's public signaling about its work environment - which in turn leads back to behavior which creates the desirable workplace."
10. Swanson, Douglas J. (2004). "Narratives of Job Satisfaction on the World Wide Web: Interpretations of Value and Reward Within the "100 Best Companies to Work for in America"". Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Retrieved 2021-09-12 – via Bepress. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  The abstract notes: "This research analyzed employee job satisfaction narratives on World Wide Web sites of companies named among Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” Fewer than one-third of WWW sites included narratives. Narratives were most likely to express job satisfaction in personal, emotional terms and least likely to identify job security, benefits, or compensation as important rewards of work. Narratives often appeared targeted toward new college graduates. Clichés were used excessively in Web sites and narratives."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Best Companies to Work For to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a few of those, and there was a similar one used as a source. What I found though was that the list is effectively being used as a data source, and is not itself the subject of coverage. For instance, Dominick et al. 2020 is an analysis of organizational values, and to help them generate their data source they use the discussed list, with the list receiving no significant coverage. Indeed, the list itself is only mentioned three times in the entire paper; once in the title, once in the abstract and once in the introduction.

I will admit that the shear quantity you foundgives me pause, but there are a lot of datasets out there that are used in multiple published works and we don't consider them notable as the use of a data set is not significant coverage of said dataset. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the list "is not itself the subject of coverage". Here are quotes from the first three sources I listed showing the "list is itself the subject of coverage":
1. Filbeck, Greg; Preece, Dianna (June–July 2003). "Fortune's Best 100 Companies to Work for in America: Do They Work for Shareholders?". Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 30 (5–6). Wiley: 771–797. doi:10.1111/1468-5957.05362. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "Fortune first started ranking businesses in 1983 with their ‘Most Admired Companies’ list. They ranked both the ‘most admired’ firms and the ‘least admired’ firms in an annual survey. In 1997 they created the first ever list of the ‘World’s Most Admired Companies.’ Finally, with the increasing interest in worker satisfaction in the face of a tight US labor market in the late 1990s, Fortune created the annual ‘100 Best Companies to Work For in America’ award in the January 12, 1998 issue (Levering and Moskowitz, 1998, pp. 84–95).
  The article notes: "We first describe in more detail the Fortune award followed by a discussion of the relevant literature."
  The article further notes: "The ‘100 Best Companies to Work For In America’ list is significantly different from other awards in that the authors, Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz, survey employees rather than ‘experts’ and company executives. For example, Fortune surveys a traditional group of analysts, fund managers and executives in compiling their ‘Most Admired Firms’ list. [Discussion about another award from the Working Mother magazine] ... In surveying employees directly, Levering and Moskowitz avoid problems of misreporting and exaggeration by firms."
  The article further notes: "In the initial survey of the ‘100 Best Companies to Work For in America,’ Levering and Moskowitz selected 238 companies from a database of more than 1,000 firms that they considered most viable for the award. Companies must be at least ten years old and have a minimum of 500 employees. One hundred and sixty one firms agreed to participate out of the 238 identified companies. The 161 candidate companies were asked to randomly select 225 employees to receive the Great Place to Work Trust Index. [121 more words about the methodology.]"
2. Filbeck, Greg; Preece, Dianna (June–July 2003). "Fortune's Best 100 Companies to Work for in America: Do They Work for Shareholders?". Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 30 (5–6). Wiley: 771–797. doi:10.1111/1468-5957.05362. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "The research examines whether Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” have a higher percentage of women on their boards of directors. Fortune and the Great Place to Work Institute have been tracking great employers since 1981. To be eligible, a company must be a least 10 years old and have a minimum of 500 employees. Each candidate company is given 225 Great Place to Work Trust Index surveys to distribute to randomly selected employees that evaluate trust in management, pride in work and company, and camaraderie. The companies were rated on a 175-point scale, using the measurements such as the overall score on the employee survey and an evaluation of the additional handwritten comments from the employees."
3. Dominick, Peter G.; Iordanoglou, Dimitra; Prastacos, Gregory; Reilly, Richard R. (2020-07-02). "Espoused Values of the "Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For": Essential Themes and Implementation Practices". Journal of Business Ethics. 173. Springer Science+Business Media: 69–88. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04564-8. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  "FBCWF" stands for "Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For". The article notes: "The FBCWF list is based on the framework used by the Great Place to Work® Institute to characterize what they consider a best workplace. Factors deemed important include high levels of trust, credible and respectful leadership, pride in the work, and camaraderie. For the United States, the Institute establishes a list of the “100 Best Companies to Work For®”. Since January 1998, the list has been featured in Fortune magazine, but the publication is not involved in the evaluation process. To be considered for the list, a company has to register with the Great Place to Work® Institute, have more than 1,000 employees and have operated in the US for longer than 7 years. They must also meet an initial certifcation standard, defned as an average employee agreement rate of 65% or more across all of the items on the Trust Index© Employee Survey (TIES), one of the two measures used to determine who makes the list each year (Great Place to Work® n.d.). The other measure is the Culture Audit assessment. Approximately 400 companies complete the full application process every year (Giuso et al. 2013). [several more paragraphs]"
Cunard (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard.4meter4 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP2Always.Win[edit]

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

The sources used in this article are primarily discussing individuals who happen to use this platform, rather than giving much detail about the platform itself. I've tried to find WP:SIGCOV about the actual site, and am coming up pretty empty. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notable coverage on the platform itself, other than a few social media sites. Rlink2 (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:WEB.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Jaipur Dialogues[edit]

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

WP:NCORP is not met. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. References seem adequate, but perhaps some references that oppose the conference and its organizers could be added. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not worth replying to you but we need non-conflicted (cc:Tayi Arajakate) reliable sources providing significant coverage. DNA is owned by a politician of the right-wing party, this conference aims to promote. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been pinged here I'll avoid !voting but this one clearly lacks in depth coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP even if the Daily News & Analysis coverage was included. DNA itself hardly qualifies as a reliable source along with much of the other outlets of its parent group, due to their track record of both disinformation and undisclosed paid news. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think this falls under canvassing — you were pinged due to your participation in the linked threads on Wion News. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so either but AfDs can be a contentious place and some people construe even appropriate notifications as canvassing, so rather I'd avoid that headache. I can't see this one having much chance of surviving anyways regardless of my participation, looking at the dearth of coverage. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 22:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article from Scroll is about a similar event in Goa (with some short references to the Jaipur event). I am withdrawing my earlier Keep because I am having difficulty evaluating the independence of the media outlets reporting on the event. The company's proposed translation of an important Indian Muslim text suggests that the Jaipur Dialogues is more than just an event organizer. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails to have the independent, in-depth significant coverage required by WP:NCORP. --Bejnar (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's quite a few passing mentions, and a couple of detailed sources, but as with Eastmain, I'm very sceptical of their intellectual independence; they read like press releases. The Scroll piece is the best of the lot, but it's only a single source. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Efe Ukala[edit]

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

Bio of businessperson, fails WP:BASIC because coverage relies on sources that are affiliated with the university that she attended, or news sources that appear to be sponsored by or associated with the company's marketing. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am of the opinion that Wikipedia should keep this article as I respectfully oppose and disagree with the deletion reasons. This article does not fail WP:BASIC because of the following:

1. The Article and the subject pass the following criteria:

a) they pass the WP:BASIC and WP: VERIFYOR policies as the person has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject.

b) The sources used in the work are reliable and verifiable, they substantially pass the WP:SOURCEF. The sources are directly support the information as presented in the article. And a proper contextual is made in this article WP:RSCONTEXT, a review of these sources check would show that the reliance on the published sources as per [WP:PUBLISHED] are appropriate.

c) In consideration of the sources of the reference, the article referenced notable and reputable news organizations in compliance with the WP:NEWSORG policy such as the guardian, the nation, Independent Newspaper, Forbes, BBC news, … and the article substantially sticks to the sources to describe its subject/person as per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Additionally, the above sources and some other references sufficiently referenced secondary sources as per WP:SECONDARY policy. They are news and publications from magazines and mainstream newspapers. See WP:SOURCES

d) In consideration of sources that might have experienced link rot or may later experience link rot, I am of the opinion that, their reliability should not be rejected merely on that basis or the absence of verification. As per WP:SOURCEACCESS, waybackmachine can be used to view these sources and authors can be contacted as per WP:RX and WP:REX. See also WP:NEXIST the WP:POSSIBLE

e) The person has also received significant awards or honors and has been nominated for others. This is specifically important as these awards appear to be in diaspora which is therefore worthy of note to younger generation of Africans looking forward to doing exploit both home and abroad. See WP:ANYBIO

2. Based on the above reasons among others, I believe that the article and the subject/person should not be deleted because they meet the General Notability Guideline as per WP:GNG. I hold this view because, apparently, the person subject of the article has received significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV and as argued earlier, these sources which currently include BBC news and the United Nation Sources as well as African Development Bank Group sources and other notable media are independent and reliable sources which are very much reliable and verifiable as per the WP:NRV and WP:NRVE policies. I shall proceed to add some of these sources to the article in other to comply with the WP:NOTTEMPORARY policy.

3. Considering the extensive coverage of the person subject of the article, and also subjects the matter that brought her to limelight, Philanthropy and women empowerment in Africa, it is doubtful that the sources are all promotional in that regard. I firmly contend that the article and the sources satisfy the not promotion policy as per WP:NOTPROMOTION.

4. Further scrutiny would show that, the sources from relating to her school are in respect of the awards she got in school and black positions she held. There are other relevant sources apart from these.

On the basis of the forgoing, I respectfully disagree with the deletion reasons and recommend that Wikipedia should keep the article. Ogele (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nonprofit organization ImpactHER has some coverage in reliable sources, e.g. UNWomen Africa July 2020, UNWomen Africa July 2020, The Guardian Nigeria 2018 (per WP:AFSL), The Guardian Nigeria (2018 interview), BBC (2020 interview with WP:SECONDARY framing), (after excluding WP:FORBESCON, press releases, independent blogs, and the WP:MEDIUM source in the article). A closer review of WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH could help determine whether sources are available to support an article about the organization. I mention this due to my attempts to find support for WP:BASIC notability and because I have been exploring an alternative to simply !voting delete as WP:TOOSOON. Beccaynr (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per Edge3 and the rationale by Beccaynr. Unfortunately, i categorize articles such as this into “above BARE” but “below BASIC” I also do not see this article as one that has a real encyclopedic value as of now probably that may change at some point in time but currently it’s WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Additional research and referencing have been done since my last response and as per Beccaynr concerns. I disagree with the recommendation in respect of WP:TOOSOON and BARE as there are sufficient reliable and independent sources, both locally and internationally. Also, in view of the synch in the identified values of the subject of the article, a thorough overview and fact-checking on the references would debunk the initial assumption that necessitated the nomination for deletion.Ogele (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Edge3 and Beccaynr. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Bortolozzo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and other guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The head count is close (still a majority in favour of deletion), but the keep arguments largely fail to respond to the nomination. WP:TNT is not universally agreed-upon, but it is at least a valid reason to consider deletion. – Joe (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Dvoskin[edit]

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

American music business person. He's maybe notable, maybe not, but even if he is, one wouldn't know it from this refbombed piece of puffery that's basically indistinguishable from a CV. This needs a dose of WP:TNT and a rewrite from scratch by somebody who isn't in it for the money. (The article's creator is inactive since 2015 and their editing pattern resembles that of somebody creating promo articles for hire.) Also, there's this odd business at AN (permalink), which fits the pattern. Sandstein 20:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and the apparent bribery attempt linked above. Stuff like this needs to be nipped in the bud, in no uncertain terms. Miniapolis 22:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, not notable, and not to mention the bribery attempt. The article has clearly been refbombed with a large number of unreliable sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not a PR agency. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a paid editor at all, I tend to pay attention to legacy musicians' pages because they are often neglected and I found Larry Dvoskin through noticing that Al Jardine's (founding member of the Beach Boys) page was very out of date. Larry is currently his producer so I updated his page to match and then felt obligated to add things as I found them on google to support that Mr. Jardine is working with a producer that is significant. I was told in the past by a wikipedia editor when I did a page for a very accomplished recording engineer that just the fact he was nominated for a grammy makes him notable- and I think Larry has several nominations. When I started editing for wiki over ten years ago I was told that it was important to have as many sources as possible that mentioned the person, which may be why I did what you referred to as "refbomb". I've done more editing since covid after a hiatus and I realize there is more discussion about how the source describes the person rather than that a source exists. I would be willing to rewrite with your guidance as I do feel it would be a mistake to take the page down. Yes, Larry is working with mostly legacy artists but they are still doing good work and deserve to be represented as properly on wiki as the newer artists, which I would think includes defining their collaborators. As far as the bribery, do you have proof that it was Larry himself and not the work of an internet-savvy assistant? It seems odd that he would have the time or concern. vixhenry (talk)
Can you explain why the article said that he is a professor when he is not? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He did teach songwriting at NYU as I remember a few people saying they took his class when my daughter went there and I considered auditing it myself. Knowing that, if I saw it written somewhere that he was a professor I wouldn't have questioned it or been inclined to check the NYU roster to see if he was listed as an actual tenured professor with that title. If the wiki rules state one must be a current tenured professor (not adjunct or associate) in order to write the title I missed it. Not every institution lists all their teachers past and present. vixhenry (talk)
I did look into the NYU roster link and while Mr. Dvoskin is not now listed he may have been teaching there back when the link was first posted. I found a couple of links that list him as an adjunct professor in the past. I will add/fix and as I volunteered earlier, I will edit the article for tone and double check if the links actually support the statements. I am unfamiliar with this articles for deletion process. Do I re-submit after the edits? I will be able to do them within a few days. vixhenry (talk)
@Vixhenry: You edit during AFD discussion. You are also able to !vote, see: Wikipedia:DISCUSSAFD. If you feel that you have significantly changed article, you can cite Wikipedia:HEY. Djflem (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Wikipedia should not engage in guilty before being proven innocent or personalities when per: Wikipedia:CONRED:

If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.

If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject...[to ensure} readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.

It appears there is a volunteer willing to work on article to address concerns of nomination NOT based on notability concerns or other Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. It would be unwise to TNT the basis of article and start from scratch since there are clearly usable references. Djflem (talk) 07:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and thank you @Djflem:. I changed the NYU link to one that supports the text and modified the text to match. I noticed that some links I had put up under TV as well as Tech no longer supported the text (news of Mr. Dvoskin's involvement had been on the linked pages originally and now I couldn't find anything). I removed these statements and links. I did not change the page significantly because it seems like the rest of the text was supported by the links. vixhenry (talk)
My problem, even after the removal of some puffery, is still that the article is structured like a CV (a chronological list of professional accomplishments) and not like an encyclopedia article that neutrally describes this person's impact on the music business. That's why I'm still in favor of deletion. Sandstein 07:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the chronological format is the problem we will have to rewrite such influential record producers las Rik Rubin, Dr. Dre, Rob Fraboni, and Martin GLover (Youth) because their pages are also written chronologically. I might possibly not understand what you mean because in my observation the chronological order, like a CV, is very common on music pages. vixhenry (talk)
Chronological format is not a Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and format is Wikipedia:SURMOUNTABLE. Djflem (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But writing a CV and pretending it is an encyclopedia article is a reason for deletion, see WP:PROMO. A notable person will have things written about them, including unflattering things, that are not a bullet list of career accomplishments. Sandstein 20:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there evidence that the original writer intended to write a CV and pretend its an article? Perhaps the original writer was like me (the most recent updater), trying to find the right neutral tone but maybe keeping it too dry. To many people, just reading facts of whom Mr. Dvoskin worked with and what projects he worked on that are in the public domain would make his impact on the music industry self-explanatory. Anything else could be considered an opinion, which is why I personally refrained from making the article sound like a review of his work. Is it a new requirement for notability that a person have unflattering things written about them? vixhenry (talk)
Keep and clarify. I am no expert but it seems to me that there is more than enough information to work with here. I would allow users to clean up the language and simplify the many sources here until it is up to snuff. I see no reason to go right to deletion. Thanks. Iochone (talk)
Keep satisfies GNG.Djflem (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would have to happen next for the deletion process to be resolved and possibly the tag removed from the page? vixhenry (talk)
@Vixhenry: Wikipedia:CLOSEAFD.Djflem (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks greatly improved. If there is anything that needs to happen for the tag removed from the page, perhaps list them so others could address/clean it up? Thanks. Iochone (talk)
That discussion is better had @ Talk:Larry Dvoskin, which is the place to hash out article improvements. Djflem (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. No prejudice against recreation by a different editor willing to tackle the subject anew following policies. The bribery/coi issues here in this case take precedence over an article rescue. Best to delete the history entirely and start over.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sarah Brightman discography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Voce (album)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. ATD is redirect to Sarah Brightman. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sarah Brightman. Mccapra (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sarah Brightman discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that’s a better target. Mccapra (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abiola Abrams[edit]

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

Promotional article full or refs like imdb or primary sources. Last AfD was closed as no consensus due to no participation. Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ignore the primary sources and consider whether notability is established by the rest. I think it is. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. The article does not meet the standards of WP:AUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO, and while there are quite a few secondary mentions floating around, I don't feel that it's enough to pass WP:BASIC /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources proving notability. In fact, I'm stunned this was even brought up for a new AfD.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are issues with coi editing and the over use of primary sources in this article, the subject clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR. I found several independent reviews of her play Goddess City and interviews in a variety of publications; including several peer reviewed academic journals. See below.4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alick, Claudia. "Identity and the Word." American Theatre vol. 29, no. 10 (2012): 54-55. (article about 2008 play Goddess City) (peer reviewed)
Luckett, Sharrell D. "Say Word! Voices from Hip Hop Theater: An Anthology (review)." Theatre Topics 22, no. 1 (2012): 105-06. (reviews her play Goddess City) (peer reviewed)
The Cambridge Companion to Hip-Hop. Cambridge University Press. 2015. p. Page 90. includes a brief discussion of Goddess City
Toni Schlesinger. "Shelter." The Village Voice November 30, 2005 volume 50 issue 48 interview on Goddess Factory movement
Charli Penn. "How Can I Manifest More Love Into My Life?" Essence 50, no. 5 (2019): 130-31. interview
Barnes, Sherri L. "Black Women Misbehavin': A New Politics of Sexuality" Feminist collections (Madison, Wis.), 2015-06-22, Vol.36 (3-4), p.1 Feminist analysis of her work along with other black women writers (peer reviewed)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Kushida[edit]

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

Virtually unsourced article about an actress, making no claim of notability except commercials and a bit part in a sketch comedy series. As always, every actress is not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because IMDb technically verifies that acting roles happened -- the notability test requires evidence of the significance of her roles, such as notable acting awards and/or the reception of reliable source coverage about her and her performances in real media. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage found in GNews, appears to only have had bit parts. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zahira College, Matale[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, though I'm aware my search is limited by language. Possible ATD would be redirect or merge/redirect to T. B. Jayah. Has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, have added additional references and now satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Additional Sinhalese references also exist. Dan arndt (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good work by Dan arndt.This college was founded in 1942 and is a 79 year old one hence as per WP:NEXIST Sinhalese references and even to lesser extent Tamil references exist.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are now enough references.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per Donald. Geschichte (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Groove (film)[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:FILM. I did WP:BEFORE to no avail. FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. FiddleheadLady (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your BEFORE failed to find FIFTY-ONE Critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes? [2] DonaldD23 talk to me 20:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A large majority of those lead to 404 errors and they are not full-length reviews from critics as required in WP:FILM. FiddleheadLady (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W (2006 TV series)[edit]

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

Article about a television series, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, the notability bar for television shows is not automatically passed just by writing "W was a television show that existed, the end" -- it requires reliable source coverage about the show to establish some significance. But the only source here is content self-published by the show's own producers, while a WP:BEFORE search for other sources went about exactly as well as you'll expect when I remind you that Teletoon was co-owned with another television channel branded as W Network, meaning I found a lot of Teletoon+W hits in that context and absolutely none whatsoever in this one. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once I got to "The series of 52 thirty-second episodes" in the one source presented, it's obvious this is just cartoon filler meant to be where an ad couldn't be sold and not remembered by many. There are links to episodes here, which is just 'guy tries to get off deserted island in 30 seconds, fails'×52. WP:N not met, no redirect. Nate • (chatter) 04:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the Hungarian wiki, one-sentence "articles" (and I use that term loosely) like this would've been speedy deleted on the ground of "test" or "not an article". Merely announcing that something existed is not a Wikipedia article. Also, beware that searching is incredibly difficult due to the simple "name". Even with "w teletoon" I only found a PR article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zmanda Recovery Manager[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. A mere 2 gnews hits, one being a press release. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best merge into Zmanda since each product has not met the notability level, but an argument could be made for the company as a whole. Probably not much to save from this one? Also should delete Zmanda Cloud Backup for that matter. Or maybe merge all four into Amanda (software) also I see single-purpose account Special:Contributions/Nikunj_wiki shows indications of a possible conflict of interest, in a burst of edits circa 2011. W Nowicki (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sansy, Turkmenistan[edit]

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

The village does not exist, the creator has just been blocked indef for creating articles on mostly fictitious references with untelated references. Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources are bogus, I can't find any mentions of it elsewhere, and searching it on Google Maps simply shows a pin in the middle of nowhere. Aerin17 (t • c) 03:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aerin17: Check out the US Army May Service topographic map NJ 40-3 Modar at those coordinates and you will find Sansyya, an alternate name for Sansy. --Bejnar (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I take back the comment about it not existing-- but simply because a settlement can be found on a couple of maps/lists does not mean that it is notable enough for a Wikipedia page. It doesn't particularly meet WP:GEOLAND, given that it doesn't seem to be a populated, legally recognized place, and there is no other coverage of it to be found. What would the page even be? There's potentially something at these coordinates but we know nothing about it? Aerin17 (t • c) 00:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aerin17: Re: "legally recognized place" see, for example, listing here in the 1976 print version U.S.S.R.: Official Standard Names Approved by the United States, which also shows it as a populated place. In Russian it is Санси, and is listed as a rural settlement. --Bejnar (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am making a very skeptical face through my computer screen. I will freely admit that I don't have much experience with GEOLAND to know whether being in this book/database technically counts as making it a legally recognized place. If that means it meets the letter of the guideline, sure, fine. But I feel like it's a stretch. Even the guideline has some flexibility, given the use of the word "typically." Given that literally no other sources can be found beyond notes/maps/databases that show nothing more than its existence (yes, I saw the ones in your comment below), I still do not believe that Sansy is notable. Aerin17 (t • c) 01:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the coordinates are confirmed here, it is a settlement in the Karakum Desert. Alternate names are "Sansyya" and "Sansyz". The settlement at Kirpili (Kirpichli) is 13.5 nautical miles east of Sansy. It is shown on the US Army May Service topographic map NJ 40-3 Modar as "Sansyya" copy here. Kirpichli is shown on the same map. Sansy is listed in the GNS database, with its alternative names. Listed here in the 1976 print version U.S.S.R.: Official Standard Names Approved by the United States. --Bejnar (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Geonames is a notoriously bad source. That something is there may mean that (i) the settlement exist (ii) something exists there, but it is not a settlement, for example, a geological party location or a small military installation; (iii) it existed there but is no longer there; (iv) it is a mistake, for example, the settlement has been renamed and has other coordinates. The fact that OSM and Google Maps (including Google panoramas) shows nothing is a strong indication that we are dealing with (iii) or (iv). That the coordiates are the same is not surprising since the creator of the article obviously copied them from Geonames.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Those things are not true of the US Army May Service topographic map NJ 40-3 Modar which clearly shows "Sansyya" copy here. --Bejnar (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the name on the map, but I do not see any evidence that this is a settlement. It could be a single house for example--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This used to be a settlement — I doubt Sov-mil. but cannot confirm in less than a week. I do not think that the subject has any chance of meeting GNG. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem notable per above. Qwerfjkl talk 14:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Goodman Group#Goodman UK. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goodman UK[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG on its own. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Goodman Group, but it may overwhelm that article. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Goodman Group#Goodman UK per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I previously merged material from Leeds Valley Park to Goodman UK per my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leeds Valley Park (2nd nomination). It would be due weight to merge some of the material in this article to Goodman Group, which I have done. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant information to Goodman Group#Goodman Group UK. I couldn't find sufficient evidence that the topic merits it's own article and Goodman Group already has a subsection it can be merged into. Suonii180 (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MARSEC-XL[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG. Got a flutter of coverage, mostly WP:CHURNALISM around the time it was established and basically nothing since. PepperBeast (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNews finds a bit of coverage from Matla about it, most recently in 2013. I think it doesn't warrant an article based on the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. As noted in the first AFD, sources are largely promotional press releases that lack independence.4meter4 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob_Balder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interjectcite84 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wouldn't the mention of Erfworld, and Balder as the writer of Erfworld, in this citation https://web.archive.org/web/20071212161244/http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/top10/article/0,30583,1686204_1686244_1692143,00.html meet the basic criteria for notability? There are other articles about Erfworld by other sources, like https://www.wired.com/2010/01/erfworld-geekiest-comic-ever/ and https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/07/living/web-comic-spotlight-erfworlds-rob-balder/index.html as well. In the previous proposal for deletion there were comments along those lines. YourBestFriendFromMySpace (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the author himself has worked to remove the series from the internet, Erfworld's status as a "significant or well-known work" is questionable. The scant support of multiple independent reviews or articles is highlighted by the post above.Interjectcite84 (talk) 02:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first book made a splash and was commented on by writers with Time and NPR. Balder withdrawing from interaction with the internet and closing his fan community isn't the same thing as the work being removed from the internet. The books were published and remain in print. Balder took the first book off Giant in the Playground's website, but the whole work is still available on the archive on Balder's site. Balder is not generally famous, but he made a work that was noteworthy at the time of publication. His handling of the IP, most particularly the cryptocurrency funding attempt, was also noteworthy simply because as near as I can tell it was the first time anyone had tried to do that with a graphic novel or web comic. Regardless of Balder's personal wishes about wanting to disappear into obscurity, he's achieved a measure of notability through that authorship and his handling of the Erfworld IP which will outlive him. YourBestFriendFromMySpace (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Erfworld as a series seems to have gained notoriety through its association with Rich Burlew and Giant in the Playground. Its removal from that site and seclusion to a static archive that is not prominently featured on its own site's landing page reduces its cultural significance. As far as I can tell the books are not in print and were self-published. That the comic generated a couple minor articles on the internet a decade ago does not make it notable. The author is also not notable for having used print-on-demand services to sell his work to fans or his attempt to use his fans to mine cryptocurrency. The existence of a few die-hard fans of a discontinued webcomic does not necessitate an encyclopedia article for its author. Interjectcite84 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both Interjectcite84 and YourBestFriendFromMySpace appear to be single-purpose accounts. The former has only made edits relevant to this AfD, while the latter has only edited at the AfD and the related Erfworld article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had wikipedia accounts in the past and made a handful of edits, but it's been years. I've also made some unsigned edits here and there, but you can't participate in an AfD conversation without creating an account, so yes, I created an account to participate in this discussion. I don't believe that invalidates my comments. Interjectcite84 (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused by what you're saying. First of all, unsigned edits are still recorded in your edit history, so that doesn't make any difference to my previous point. If you mean that you sometimes edit while logged out, be careful that you're not violating WP:LOUTSOCK. (If you edited solely from an IP address before creating an account and now edit solely from your account, you should be okay.) Additionally, if you have used other accounts in the past, review WP:CLEANSTART to ensure there are no potential sockpuppetry violations. You are correct that single-purpose accounts can contribute to AfDs, but those accounts are often used as sockpuppets, which is why it's important to at least tag them when they appear. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know. I maintained an account over a decade ago and don't know what email address I used back then, but I'll review WP:CLEANSTART. I have never edited any Erfworld or Erfworld-related pages. I have made minor grammatical edits in the intervening time, but have not edited logged out since creating this account.Interjectcite84 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to ignore the odd conversation above, and stick to evaluating the subject based on notability policy. Seems to meet criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE per the sources given above. That was the consensus at the last AFD. Notability is not temporary, so later changes in the availability of the work online don't matter. 4meter4 (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks notable to me. — Qwerfjkl talk 14:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzma, Croatia[edit]

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

Not notable. Uninhabited. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It's a ghost town, there are thousands of them on Wikipedia. This place likely was notable at once, especially since it had nearly 300 people at its peak population. In this same logic, we would be deleting articles for defunct companies, discontinued products, or deceased people. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mundane gazetteer entry per WP:5P1. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to pass WP:GEOLAND as a formerly recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Togo, Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

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

The first citation is a random Excel spreadsheet that does not mention this Togo, and the second is "How a Finnish Symphony Orchestra Collaborates with South Indian Carnatic Musicians". User:Spokane Ball yt, can you please explain this. This being the name of a country I cannot find sources about this supposed town, nor are coordinates provided. Reywas92^Talk 13:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 13:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 13:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Certainly appears to be a settlement on Google Maps. But anything else hard to find. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT] delete - Maybe it's real; maybe it's not; current state is junk because of the fake referencing. No objection to recreation with real referencing. Hog Farm _Talk 20:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Hog Farm. It may well be real place (this part of the country is extremely remote) but I agree there's nothing to establish notability or salvage the current content. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modar, Turkmenistan[edit]

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

The Google Maps pin is near a facility of some sort but I don't see a town. I cannot find any results calling this a town or otherwise notable place. The first citation is about opera of Turkmenistan?! User:Spokane Ball yt, why was that a useful link? Reywas92^Talk 13:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 13:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 13:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no such town in Turkmenistan. Needs to be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a locale, not a town. The user who created this has created many more similar articles for non-existent towns and using irrelevant references. They do have a current discussion at ANI regarding this. Someone proposed deleting all of their articles, however there is at least one that I know of (Zumwalt, Washington) that is a legitimate community. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NJ 40-3 (AMS) documents Modar to be a ruined town. I will try to ascertain its current state; had probably heard of its name in a list of untapped petroleum/energy deposits in Turkmenistan. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per § Sansy, Turkmenistan above. Qwerfjkl talk 14:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Guadalupe Church (Danbury, Connecticut)[edit]

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

Like Notre Dame Church (Easton, Connecticut), since deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notre Dame Church (Easton, Connecticut), this church was mentioned but not discussed in a mega AfD that closed as keep, logistically. A BEFORE for this particular church shows no evidence of notability with coverage limited to event listings and nothing that would meet ORG. Not mentioned in the city nor in the diocese, so a redirect wouldn't be helpful or DUE given lack of other churches' presence. Star Mississippi 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything towards WP:GNG, only directories, not independent stuff, and media coverage about sexual abuse by one the church's former priests (which is not in-depth coverage about the church itself). - Tristan Surtel (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tristan - no evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's some evidence of notability, owing to detailed coverage from multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles are definitely not significant coverage about the church as GNG requires. The first few are about sexual abuse by a former priest (the only thing those articles tell about the church is that it is located on "Golden Hill Road in Danbury" and that the Rev. Jaime Marin-Cardona has been a priest there), so nothing in-depth about the church there, and in the last two articles the church is only mentioned in a single sentence as one of a number of examples of churches with increasing attendance. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Danbury, Connecticut or Delete, in that order of preference. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge -- There is nothing in the article to show that this is not a NN local church. Mikehawk's list of references in the local press establish its existence but not its notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability. I don't think it should be merged as the information isn't referenced. Suonii180 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCHURCH, WP:NBUILDING, and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rewrite can occur outside of AfD Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Thuraisingam[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sources used in this article is highly misleading, as it does not actually involve the individual itself on what these news outlets were writing about.

It also does not help that there are some severe conflict of interest violations going on in this article by its creator, a single purpose account. The article was initially already rejected at articles for creation for failing WP:GNG, but they ignored it anyway and decided to create it themselves exactly a year later after making a few edits to reach the edit count.

It also involves constant additions of puffery, copyvio images and subsequently removing COI tags in response. The very first reference literally goes to their website. There is also another single purpose account, which could possibly also hint at sockpuppetry. Otterslort (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – this article is a mess, and I agree with the nominator that the vast majority of the 79 (!) references are probably worthless for notability purposes. Nonetheless, I find it difficult to discount sources like [3] [4] [5], all of which come from reliable Singaporean press outlets and seem to give Thuraisingam substantial coverage as opposed to trivial mentions. That's probably enough to meet the GNG. While one could make an argument for blowing the article up and starting over, a better idea might be to start a discussion at WP:COIN and/or reduce the article to a neutrally-written stub. Ultimately, deletion is not cleanup, although the article is sorely in need of it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep as there exists significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (e.g. TNP, Today, Straits Times). There should still be enough information for an article after pruning the passing mentions and primary sources, but I'm not opposed to a WP:TNT considering the suspicions of conflict-of-interest editing and sockpuppetry. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Extraordinary Writ and KN2731 but needs a rewrite.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hadjer Sini, Chad[edit]

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

The coordinates given here show an empty stretch of the Sahara Desert. Citation 1 is about places n France. Citation 2 which I do have access to is about the music of Chad and does not include this name at all, neither the supposed town nor the mentioned mountain. User:Spokane Ball yt can you please explain this? Reywas92^Talk 13:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 13:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 13:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT delete - maybe it's real; maybe it's not, page creator has been indeffed for use of fake referencing. As this article is cited only to those fake references, it should just be presumptively deleted with no prejudice against recreating with real referencing. Hog Farm _Talk 18:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bonello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MMABIO for not having any fights in top tier promotions. While he appeared a few times on Bully Beatdown, I doubt anyone would consider that enough to meet WP:GNG. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has no top tier fights so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. He lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. I checked ibbjf.com for his world championships results. His three silver medals all came in age limited divisions that had only two competitors. It turns he lost to three different fighters in his only matches. Merely showing up does not indicate notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least GNG is not met Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Environment Photographers Association[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, though someone who reads Japanese may find something I missed. No WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The association closed in 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20190125170823/http://www.theiepa.org/news/171215/article01.php Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sources. Lagoyan (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Tallman[edit]

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

Not finding any worthwhile reviews or significant coverage in the article or online. Edwardx (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this review and some references in books. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comic Valkyrie. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Time Communication[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD attracted little input. I may be missing Japanese sources, but I can see mentions but not enough to show it is notable. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comic Valkyrie since it is their only notable publication. I looked for sources but wasn't able to find much outside of press releases. Link20XX (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comic Valkyrie.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women to the Top[edit]

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

A short-lived European project for a few countries that does not seem to have any encyclopedic value. Question mark over notability for over 10 years suggests this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Possibility to trim and selectively merge to Women in the workforce#Women in workforce leadership. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to pass GNG with the sources it already has (significant coverage from two major newspapers and evaluations from the Nordic Gender Institute and University of Gothenburg) and a very quick search for Swedish-language sources returns at least this and this which could maybe be added. And, so far, the article pretty much only seems to have Swedish and English sources - there'd probably be even more coverage in Estonian, Danish, and Greek-language sources. NHCLS (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--RamotHacker (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)*Delete Simply not notable at all.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NHCLS. Agree that the topic passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources already in the article.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Arnold[edit]

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

~~Notability of this BLP is largely inherited from Arnold Ventures LLC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the references are to her (or to her and her husband collectively), rather than to the company. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her wealth may have come from Arnold Ventures but what she has done with it has made her notable. There seems to be significant coverage of her in independent reliable sources. RicDod (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes WP:GNG based on the sources in the article which are largely about her work as a philanthropists; not the company. However, I would consider merging the article with John D. Arnold and re-naming the merged articles John and Laura Arnold (currently a Redirect). Given that their philanthropy and business are run as a team, it really doesn't make sense to split them into individual articles. But that should probably be discussed through a merge proposal not at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srayra[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources about this place, or where it is located. It is not in localiban; http://www.localiban.org/jezzine-district Huldra (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Huldra (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the ar.wiki article names the village as “Soueira” not “Srayra” but I can’t find any sources for that either. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nobody has come up with anything. Mccapra (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umantewena[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage that would meet GNG as required by criteria #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Participants in previous AfD mentioned that it appeared in historic pilot guides (similar to the current Sailing Directions source), but no sign of in-depth coverage has been produced. The relevant GEOLAND criteria haven't changed since 2015 but the practice of presuming named settlements to be notable has. –dlthewave ☎ 21:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : not existing settlement.--Arorae (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a settlement previously? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamvas Studio 22[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: All sources (except for #6, which is the manufacturer's press release) are technology review websites or forums, where the bar for publication is not relative to any inherent notability of the piece of technology being reviewed. Note that many of these pages can also fall under the WP:SPONSORED banner, where affiliate links are provided at the end of the article, or where the review is commissioned by the company that produces the technology in question. A search of other coverage of the device turns up similar results. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete just a product spec sheet, the kind of thing that gets obsolete very fast anyway. Article on its company Huion is thin, but could mention maybe one sentence on it. Would support a merge too ,but lean to just delete. W Nowicki (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Canada Officiating Program[edit]

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

The Hockey Canada Officiating Program appears to fails WP:GNG since I cannot locate any independent sources on the subject. I have only found information posted on web sites directly affiliated to Hockey Canada, which do not satisfy reliable sources required for GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Canada is a publically funded organization and receives its authority delegated through Sport Canada. Certifications are governed by Hockey Canada, in a similar way to the PMP designation is governed by the Project Management Institute. Both are internationally recognized certifications. Perhaps it's better to rebrand the article as "officiating hockey" with a section dedicated to the certification process. however it can be expected that the Hockey Canada website would be the only source available as validation for the certification. jordanleblanc (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a new name on the article does not resolve the sourcing concerns. The information in the article is available only from WP:PRIMARY sources, and no secondary or tertiary sources have been found. Until the subject receives such coverage in neutral sources, it fails WP:GNG and should not be kept on Wikipedia as per WP:NOT. Flibirigit (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I did find two quality sources with some in depth coverage; one a peer reviewed journal article on the retention of ice hockey officials in Canada, and the other a magazine article about a journalist's experience going through the organization's training as a rookie referee. I don't have access to major Canadian newspapers, but I would imagine that the organization has coverage given its importance to ice hockey in Canada. See sources below. Also, the organization was originally named the Canadian Hockey Officiating Program according to one of those articles, so sources may exist under that name.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, Brian, Jimmy Smith, Heidi Nordstrom, and Tyler Ferguson. "Ice Hockey Officiating Retention: A Qualitative Understanding of Junior Ice Hockey Officials' Motivations in Canada." Managing Sport and Leisure 24, no. 1-3 (2019): 18-31.
Rosenberg, Elmer. "TWO MINUTES FOR FLAILING: As a Rookie Referee--at 52--I Soon Learned There's Nowhere to Hide." Maclean's (Toronto) 116, no. 41 (2003): 63.

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Saviano[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC subject is covered in many reliable sources including TaxHistory, NYTimes, Reuters, Bloomberg, AccountingToday, TEDx talk,BizJournals and many others. Riteboke (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and decline. No in-depth coverage of the person at all. Doesn't satisfy WP:NPEOPLE, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Below is my assessment of the current sources in the article.

Source analysis

"Employee or Contractor? Health Care Law Raises Stakes". The New York Times. 2015-02-14. ISSN 0362-4331.
Behind the NYT paywall. Considering my source assessments below, I'm not inclined to bother digging this one out. No matter what this article contains, it's only one source.
"48th Annual Conference of the USA Branch of the International Fiscal Association". IFA USA. 2021-09-09.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Schedule of sessions at a conference, which lists the subject as a participant
"The United Nations Centennial Roundtable | The United Nations Centennial Initiative".
Not a reliable source: No coverage at all. Schedule of a roundtable discussion, which lists the subject as a panelist. There is a bio--most likely submitted by the subject.
"INSIGHT: Why Tax Collection Remains a Challenge in Sub-Saharan Africa". news.bloombergtax.com.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. One-sentence quote of something the subject said.
"Jeffrey Saviano - EY Global Tax Innovation Leader". www.ey.com.
Not independent: This is the subject's profile page at their employer.
"Tax Analysts -- Transparency in State Taxation, Part 2 -- Legislative Process and Letter Rulings". www.taxhistory.org.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. The subject is quoted a few times, talking about a taxation issue.
Studies, New York University School of Continuing and Professional (2012-06-12). New York University Institute on State and Local Taxation (2012). LexisNexis. ISBN 978-0-327-18209-2.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. The subject's name is listed in the front matter as a member of an NYU advisory board. This appears to be the only mention of the subject in the book.
"Technology and Tax During and Beyond the Coronavirus Pandemic". World Bank.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Video of a live-stream panel discussion. The subject talks about financial data technology.
"How EY Launched an Innovation Program". Innovation Leader.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Video of a podcast, wherein the subject talks about launching innovation programs.
"Season 3, Ep.11: The Davos Talks, 2020- Jeff Saviano: How can we fight climate change with better taxation? | TEDxBeaconStreet from Better Innovation | Podcast Episode on Podbay". Podbay.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Audio of a webcast, which includes audio of the subject speaking about taxation on fossil fuels.
"DIGI Co-hosts Inaugural Prosperity Collaborative Online Event". New America.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. This appears to be a synopsis of a past online panel discussion. The subject is listed as a participant.
"EY to hold FinTech Pitch Day for tech startups". Accounting Today. 2018-05-25.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. The subject's employer held an event for tech startups to make pitches to them. The subject probably participated, and is quoted in a couple sentences about the event.
"EY announces the opening of global EY Advanced Technology Tax Lab". ey-announces-the-opening-of-global-ey-advanced-technology-tax-lab.html.
Not independent: (broken link) A press release from the subject's employer, announcing the opening of a lab. The subject is quoted, saying something about it. The actual link is here.
"Using Multiple Void Patterns at Crime Scenes to Estimate Area of Origin in Bloodstain Cases – ACSR". www.acsr.org.
This isn't even related to the subject. This is an article co-authored by a different "Jeff Saviano" here.

—Scottyoak2 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are glancing mentions of him in several articles on tax policy and similar, I don't think it adds up to WP:SIGCOV. No sign of WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost nothing in GS, so not much impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the source analysis above. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:ANYBIO. I will add by saying that I have a subscription access to The New York Times, and the subject is only briefly quoted in the article. The article is not about him, and we don't count mere quotes as indications of notability or as significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bandar Country Homes[edit]

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

does not satisfy WP:GEOLAND (housing development), negligible non-trivial sources to help improve the article Zulfadli51 (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Bolger Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable sound engineer. Fails WP:ANYBIO because he was only nominated for an Oscar once. Mottezen (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated for an Oscar, coverage in the LA Times. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lugnut. Winning Oscar and coverage in LATimes passes subject for GNG. Riteboke (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only one source was presented and being nominated for a single Oscar is not a WP:SNG. Still way short of WP:GNG and should be deleted based on available informations. Mottezen (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Lugnuts, with a reliable source of the subject's death notice. Since its subject has been nominated for an Oscar, seems notable to me, since they sound engineer on notable films. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Academy award nominee. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts Academy award nominee.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't need to pass WP:ANYBIO because the subject passes criteria 4C of WP:CREATIVE as an Oscar nominee.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. We have plenty of articles on stupider things, and clearly there's enough coverage of the relationship between Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, a relationship commonly referred to as "Bennifer," to justify retaining an article on GNG grounds. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bennifer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The closing statement of the last AfD for this article was Delete...As the article is about the relationship between the actors and only passingly about the term "Bennifer" itself, any encyclopedic treatment of the relationship can be included within one or both of the actors' articles. While the relationship is arguably notable (depending on the weight one gives the sources), our notability guidelines do not require that all notable topics receive their own article when it is possible that a broader article – e.g. the actor bio(s) – can adequately cover the topic as part of its broader treatment of the subject. Several editors participating in the discussion have proposed including any relevant information in the actors' bios instead of having a standalone article, and no argument appears to have been made to explain why that proposal would be either a bad idea or against policy.

I don't think that this revision addresses the issues raised in the AfD, but since that discussion was 10 years ago, I thought it would be better to bring this to AfD again. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Once notable, always notable. Plus it's made a strong resurgence: "Bennifer 2.0: How Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck got us talking again" (the freakin' BBC), "The Complete 19-Year Timeline of the Bennifer Saga" (Vulture.com), "Bennifer Is Back: A Complete History of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez" (Fashion). (The other three Horsemen of the Apocalypse should be along presently.) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the last AfD ended in delete, it is yet to be determined that this topic has ever been notable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is evidently an enduring relationship and topic and here's another source. The worst case would be merger to some broader page such as supercouple per policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been redirected before there, so I suppose that's something we could do. Still, it seems like an awfully silly thing to do in an encyclopedia, but then we treat rasslin' as if it's a real sport with competition. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect fails on WP:XY. Ravenswing 19:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This relationship and it's comeback in the recent months is pretty iconic, I don't see why keeping it is a bad idea. The article has multiple sources provided to back up almost everything written in this article. It has a lot of information provided that would just go to waste if it was put in something as broad as their bios or another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellotay (talk • contribs)
- You didn't sign, and you're not saying anything that has any basis in policy for keeping it. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you didn't set forth a policy reason for deleting it, I suppose that's a wash. Ravenswing 19:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--that some of this trivial shit flying around gets written up in some publications doesn't make this notable. It's noteworthy that the Guardian article, for instance, isn't about "Bennifer"--it's about the people and their relationship. That it says "the original celebrity portmanteau" means very little, and there is no further commentary on it: it would, however, justify a sentence in portmanteau. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It "isn't about 'Bennifer' - it's about the people and their relationship"??? What else would it be about? The fact that the Guardian and the BBC still write about it nearly two decades after its coining shows plenty of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your name is not a joke, clearly. But thanks for the wikilink for "sustained", that was really nice of you. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Seriously? It's not merely that this is a heavily sourceable topic, it's that I wager we could put in a thousand reliable sources if that wasn't insane overkill, and that some of the coverage is "trivial" is a deflection that insults our intelligence at the least. That these elements might be pitchforked into the individual bios is true, but for pity's sake, you could say the same thing about just about any content fork on Wikipedia. If you're looking for a basis in policy, this is it: this is a notable, verifiable topic that stands on its own. Done deal. Ravenswing 19:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravenswing, I'm still unclear on what "strong keep" means. But anyway, "trivial", there's plenty of that in the society pages, and not using those to source material in Wikipedia is hardly new, and so I don't really understand why you are getting so upset. Obviously WP:N doesn't tell us that "Bennifer" is a notable topic just because it's used in many articles, and what you are avoiding is the fact that it is a word used for a relationship between two people--and there is no reason why that content can't be dealt with in their article (which wouldn't be "pitchforking", but rather "writing content") or, as indicated above, in an article on portmanteau. What you are proposing is an article on a word, the word "Bennifer", and, at the risk of clouding up the alphabet soup, that really would violate WP:DICDEF; if the article is about the word, it's a dictionary definition, and if it's about the relationship, it should be in the BLPs that are relevant to it. "Done deal". Drmies (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's so much wrong with this it'd take far longer to rebut than it's worth, but that you're using so much energy mocking just about every other Keep proponent says it all. Why does the prospect of this article surviving AfD bother you so much? Ravenswing 01:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic appears to be notable based on reliable sources, which is the bar for inclusion. Whether or not a topic should be treated as notable by society is beyond our scope. While this can be covered on the individual pages, I don't know who that helps; editors will have to maintain sections on two pages and readers may have to read both articles to get the information that they desire. The article name seems reasonable if there are not competing pages for the title on Wikipedia. If the title is the concern, the page can be moved to title such as Relationship of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck. —Ost (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough media coverage, there is no harm in the inclusion of this topic. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG; unfortunately. Yes, it’s on a topic that belongs in a tabloid more than an encyclopedia. And yes it has lots of significant RS because our world is obsessed with celebrities.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvo 69[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. WP:BIO1E. The event in which the subject had a major role, which would be the invasion, not the test, was newsworthy but not notable. A redirect to Indian cricket team in England in 2021 could be recreated if and when the event this person was involved in is found WP:DUE there and finds a mention. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usedtobecool expresses it well; while technically their notability comes from invading the pitch multiple times (multiple events), I believe this falls under 1E due to the narrow timespan and similarity of the events. Further, the news cycle on this was brief; there was no enduring notability, and so the appropriate decision is to delete this article. BilledMammal (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, as he is known for one thing that won't have lasting notability. Although he invaded multiple matches, the only real coverage is at one match. And he's not a notable Youtuber. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This guy will have no lasting legacy or impact on the sport. StickyWicket (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generated a brief spike in coverage, especially in India, but nothing to suggest there will be the long lasting coverage that is needed to justify an article so this fails WP:BLP1E. The volume of the coverage may justify a sentence or two in the Indian cricket team in England in 2021 article, so merge and redirect could be a valid ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BLP1E. Clog Wolf _Howl 09:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one is going to remember this guy in 10 years time and he is probably not going to do anything else notable so fails WP:BLP1E. Maybe a line in the article about the series as an ATD at best. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E not a notable youtuber and got coverage for invading only one match.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions made by Ray Kurzweil[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, the article is almost purely cobbled together from primary source predictions and independent sources either confirming or denying the prediction coming true, usually without any reference to Kurzweil. We do not dedicate separate articles to predictions made by individuals, which incidentally gives this article a silly level of prominence (prior to nominating for deletion, it is a top suggested result when you type in "Predictions"). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no place for this vapid BLP on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The main article on this author already has a short section on his predictions. This article contains almost no sources outside of the works written by the subject.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Fernandez (tennis coach and footballer)[edit]

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

Notability is not WP:INHERITED. All the coverage of Jorge Fernandez in my WP:BEFORE is simply coverage of Leylah Fernandez with some extra facts about her dad. I could not find any reliable sources that cover Jorge Fernandez in depth. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom in that case. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless it can be shown he satisfies WP:NFOOTY. Two of the references state he represented Ecuador internationally. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless proof can be found that he genuinely did play internationally for Ecuador (I couldn't find any in what I consider to be reliable football sources). The two sources which make this claim don't look especially reliable and both make the claim very vaguely. It also seems quite unlikely to me that a player who apparently emigrated at age 4 to Canada (a country which didn't even have a professional football league at the time) would be called up to play for his country internationally, but that's just gut feel..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I remind you all that WP:GNG > WP:NFOOTY. Even if he does not qualify on football terms he certainly does on tennis coach terms. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also certainly meets WP:TENNIS for notability for coaches. Furthermore the football claim is made by The Times as well, and sources include L'Équipe and mainstream Canadian news. On top of that WP:INHERITED does not apply because there are also stand alone articles included about him. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Presumably you mean WP:NTENNIS. That doesn't seem to mention coaches, could you clarify what the notability guideline for tennis coaches is? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why not WP:TENNIS? There are notability guidelines there; those for a coach depend just on the notability of the player coached. A one-hit wonder doesn't count, but our current presumption should that Fernandez isn't that. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Clearly I didn't scroll far enough down to see that....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - BTW The Times source (at least the section I can read without subscribing) doesn't say that he played for the Ecuador national team or even that he played professionally, it just says that he "played for a string of clubs in Ecuador". Does the rest of the article say that he played professionally or internationally? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nitpicking here, but yes the others say professionally specifically L'Équipe does, as per the citation. Only two sources says says international so maybe he was in a youth team at some point. And no I did mean WP:TENNIS; Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Coach Abcmaxx (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - not convinced that the existing sources support the claim that he played international or even professional football, and the current sources are mostly not about him or don't look reliable, but he does seem to pass Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Coach and there's probably just about enough for a weak GNG pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest that the article be renamed to Jorge Fernandez (tennis coach), BTW, as that is what he is notable for being..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Coach, considering that then he would pass for a notability, though the article needs a clean up. I agree with ChrisTheDude with regards to renaming to suit what makes him notable , Jorge Fernandez (tennis coach). Ampimd (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see GNG really, however I don't see why we can't just redirect to Leylah Fernandez. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Abcmaxx and ChrisTheDude. Like Chris, I think the article should be renamed since that seems to be his source of notability, however borderline that may be. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 15:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep passes GNG and NTENNIS. He isn't notable as a footballer, so I believe his page should be moved to Jorge Fernandez (tennis coach) as per Ampimd.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fernandez played semi-pro soccer (football) in Canada per this. The article fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG as almost all of the coverage is devoted to Leylah, rather than Jorge (the El Universo article dedicates more ink to Jorge than is usual in these articles, but it's not really in-depth coverage). Perhaps, the article passes WP:NTENNIS? Jogurney (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above, there was a recent GNG quality reference recently, just looking at the Globe and Mail!. here. Nfitz (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Abcmaxx and ChrisTheDude scrapes through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably scrapes by on GNG, and agree with move to Jorge Fernandez (tennis coach) as that is primary notability. Giant Snowman 15:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leylah Fernandez per Govvy above. If her dad should in time emulate Judy Murray, the redirect can be cancelled and the article developed. For now, though, insufficient GNG because he is known only as Leylah's father and, as the nominator says, notability isn't WP:INHERITED. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- terrible argument because he is her coach. That's like saying Sir Alex Ferguson is only well known because of Man U and therefore without Man U nobody would know who he is. There's standalone articles about him by the way so it's not entirely accurate what you've said anyway. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a friend who supports ManU and he has often said ManU would now be a tier 2/3 team but for Fergie. The fact is that Jorge Fernandez is only known because of Leylah and sources which verify his coaching abilities are currently below the level of coverage needed for GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you'll find that the article has standalone sources about him and it passes WP:TENNIS for coaches. And I'm sure your friend is a very good source that passes GNG, I heard Kent is full of football experts. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how Kent comes into it but, whatever, you need to read WP:SARC. Your Ferguson analogy is nonsense because he was famous before he joined ManU and there is no comparison between him and Jorge Fernandez – Ferguson is notable through his own efforts, not those of his offspring. Anyway, seriously, you need to deal with your dubious sourcing about football. First, the L'Équipe article doesn't mention football so ref#3 in the lead is false. Second, the final sentence is in no way verified by ref#11 – the only mention of football (as soccer) in that article is re two other people. Those claims amount to misinformation. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Article about former semi-pro footballer, who is now a tennis coach, which appears to scrape by WP:GNG. I think there is just enough to reach SIGCOV, but it's close. Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft End-of-Life Solutions[edit]

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

Non-notable niche business. No assertion, credible or otherwise, of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I’m not seeing anything that would pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Orangemike: @Mccapra: I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the work of Eastmain in finding so many sources. I think it’s still pretty borderline in terms of in depth coverage but if I’d managed to find these myself I probably wouldn’t have voted to delete. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough for WP:NCORP and to withdraw the nomination. gidonb (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anando Ashru (2020 film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, there are some passing mentions and primary sources but no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. The article was deleted previously, see Ananda Ashru (2020 film). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD of same content on a slightly different page name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. ~Yahya (✉) • 21:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google news search doesn't show any coverage. Fails GNG. Riteboke (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life After Life (TV series)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a television series that only just entered the production pipeline, and is not yet properly demonstrated as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, the base notability criterion for a television series is that it has been upfronted by a television network, and TV series are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles the moment you can single-source that production has started on a pilot -- but the only sources here are a single casting announcement and a glancing namecheck of this show's existence in an article about its lead actress being cast in an unrelated film, which is not enough coverage to claim that this would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass TVSHOW. So no prejudice against recreation if and when a television network actually announces a hard and firm premiere date, but just entering the production pipeline is not enough to make a TV series notable in and of itself. (And for added bonus, this was such a half-assed rush job that the creator described and categorized it as an American series even though the casting source clearly describes it as a British one.) Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ordinarily, I would suggest moving it back to Draft space, but since this is part of the article creator's long-running attempts at article-creation credit grabbing by creating essentially empty placeholders in Draft space (for a couple of extreme examples, see Draft:Untitled Universal Live Action Project and Draft:Untitled Pixar Animation 2023 film). The User Talk archives of their previous account are littered with G13 notices and the creator has been indefinitely banned from page moves, so there's no sense in rewarding this sort of behavior. --Calton | Talk 09:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:TOOSOON. Suonii180 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Joseph D'souza. ✗plicit 13:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity Freedom Network[edit]

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

Not notable and fails to meet WP:NCORP. Only 52 hits in Google News for "Dignity Freedom Network" OR "Dalit Freedom Network": half of the sources are blacklisted/unreliable and the rest do not provide significant coverage. GBooks hardly helps either. We already have an article on the founder Joseph D'souza. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Joseph D'Souza.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then just redirect.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I'm in concurrence with the nomiantion regarding a redirect, as this is a pretty obvious WP:NCORP fail. However, the nominator may benefit from reading WP:GHITS as to why Google hits isn't a good argument for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7, thanks. Will keep it in mind. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its founder Joseph D'Souza per above. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Bigger fish to fry. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of rail transport–related periodicals[edit]

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

Fails WP:V (there's no source for much of this, some sections are entirely redlinks), is basically a typical example WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and accomplishes no purpose that couldn't already be done via Category:Rail transport publications. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it doesn't fail WP:V because that policy states that sources are only required for quotations and controversial facts. And facts such as the existence of the famous Bradshaw's Guide are not controversial at all. Claiming that categories are the answer is absurdly contradictory because they are comparatively hopeless at satisfying WP:V because they don't support citations. This is all explained at WP:CLN which states that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." So this is just more driveby deletionism – another nomination of a long-standing list contrary to logic and policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of most of these entries is clearly verified by an ISSN and/or the linked article, and that they are related to rail transport is also not controversial as a whole. In other words, the nomination statement is factually incorrect. If there are any incorrect entries they can be removed without requiring deletion of the whole list, likewise any improvements to the organisation or changes to the scope of the list can be proposed on the talk page and do not require deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Railways Africa[edit]

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

Cannot find anything to substantiate WP:GNG here (having an ISSN number is not "significant coverage" nor is it proof that this is notable). The publisher of this doesn't appear to be notable either (and doesn't have an article either), so there's no where logical to redirect to; and owing to the absence of sources it wouldn't make sense to keep it on the relevant list article (in the article see also section). So there's not much else to be done but to delete this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The continent of Africa is weakly served in many respects and so it would be systemic bias to delete this. It is generally hard to find detailed coverage of journals but we accommodate them because it is helpful to our purpose to maintain brief entries for sources of detailed information such as this. See here for a discussion of the matter. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So again the same person compulsively voting keep on every of my nominations. WP:GNG is not optional; while WP:BIAS is just an essay and certainly doesn't override that. Something being a reliable source does not mean it's notable. And what you have found doesn't seem to be enough to meet GNG (being a two sentence mention without any kind of detail to write an article from), less so when the source of this information is "After a quick search on the Internet" (presumably, the same thing I did). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:GNG is certainly optional – it's not a policy and it plainly says so ("occasional exceptions may apply"). It was not created until 2006 and so Wikipedia got along fine without it for over 5 years. It is part of the creeping bureaucracy which is the reverse of policy per WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm halfway between @RandomCanadian and @Andrew on this. Andrew's argument seems to be that we should allow articles on journals/magazines/other-sources to have a dispensation from the requirements of GNG as they are the sources we use to support other articles, and WP readers should be offered further information about our sources within WP. I believe that (1) this might be sensible, but ought to be decided at a bigger forum than AfD on a single article, and (2) if so, it should only apply to journals etc. that genuinely are sources, not to everything that might conceivably be a source. I do not know whether statistics exist on how often a particular journal has been cited in WP, or whether such a thing is technically possible. In effect, Andrew's argument comes down to "This magazine is not the subject of secondary sources, but it is used in tertiary sources (WP!), so it is notable to WP readers"; this requires proof that the magazine is used in tertiary sources, proof analogous to the normal requirement for secondary sources. I think??? Not sure if any of that makes sense??? Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding that we are more relaxed about sourcing for such topics arises from hearing editors like DGG talk in this vein. He was a professional librarian and so tends to look at things like impact factors and library holdings. Me, I just take a more commonsense view that we're better off having a stub about this periodical than not. Then, if we cite it we can link to it and so help readers understand its nature and standing. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG and as it stands sounds promotional. Can find no secondary sources discussing the publication. It is listed by neither SCImago Journal Rank nor Scopus - so no impact factor etc. A look here does not reveal any usage on WP either. The source provided by Andrew is not worth anything (someone in an unreliable source saying they once googled the magazine is not much of an endorsement). Not that it means much but my institution’s library doesn’t hold this in hard or soft copy and we have a large transport research area. Even with the most generous of reviews this doesn’t cut it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a trade publication, not an academic publication perse and is cited in the examples below. That and pragmatic common sense (WP:DEFUNCTNEWS), a publication that has existed for over 50 years and is cited in various peer reviewed academic journals, suggest it is more likely than not – notable. Though written sources are still required to be able to write an article. I enclosed some examples where Railways Africa articles are referenced in other articles.

2003 Railways Africa article mentioned in Transit conference
Thomas, David P. (2013-01-01). "The Gautrain project in South Africa: a cautionary tale". Journal of Contemporary African Studies. 31 (1): 77–94. doi:10.1080/02589001.2013.747292. ISSN 0258-9001.
Amadi, Henry (2016), Nyeck, S.N. (ed.), "The Governance of Concessionary Assets: A Review of the Partnership Between Kenya and the Rift Valley Railways Consortium", Public Procurement Reform and Governance in Africa, Contemporary African Political Economy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 313–333, doi:10.1057/978-1-137-52137-8_14, ISBN 978-1-137-52137-8, retrieved 2021-09-10

~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great WP:BEFORE work here - unfortunately this small smattering of references to individual articles in the publication is too weak to persuade me. There is still a huge WP:V issue with using such weak sources justifying WP:GNG. Currently the article is two sentences neither of which can be verified with a secondary source. The phrase " the leading if not only publication" does not really give confidence in the reliability of this page and just sounds promotional. Without secondary sources talking about the publication we cannot even verify any of the information other editors are using to justify a keep vote. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson and Shushugah. If the claim of being "the leading if not only publication covering railways in Africa and the Middle East" is correct, it is important to keep this for our coverage of African topics. NemesisAT (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The present article is barebones and needs cleanup, but I believe the publication meets notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and we are not being indiscriminate if we keep the major publication in a important field of human affairs. the GNG is a guideline interpreting NOTINDISRIMINATE. The reason guidelines are called guidelines is because they are just guides to fulfilling policy. They have exceptions that do not require invoking via IAR. As it says at the top of the guideline box at the top of the GNG page, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Making sure we have an article on the leading publication of a subject is not the usual case which we discuss here. (even policy is of course subject to IAR, of course, but we properly are very reluctant to use it, and there is no need to use it here). Consensus to keep is a sufficient reason. Incidentally, if we did want to find sources to meet gng, I would suggest looking in textbooks about operating or constructing railroads in Africa, some of which will discuss important publications. No Worldcat library has such a book. I did a thorough enough search to find 3 textbooks about railroads in India--but not Africa. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG - Just revisiting this discussion. I am not sure what you believe justifies this article circumventing guidelines. No one can provide any reliable sources saying this is a major publication in an important field. I could create a website and associated social media profiles for a publication called "African Railways" saying it started publication in 1953, publishes 7 times a year and is the leading publication in its field. It would be just as notable and only slightly less verifiable than this article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you could create one, but WorlCat would not include it [6]. nor would it show up in the catalogs of the libraries that hold it, and confirm the publication dates. Nor would i d GoogleScholar link to three articles in it [7]. You;re confusing WP:V, which is policy with the guidelines for when we make an article in it, we our practice has always been enormously wider than GNG., or we would have almost no articles ontrade magazines or small newspapers. WP is an encyclopedia , and an encyclopedia , among other things, is a guide to resources. GNG is a guideline, and we followguidelines onl hwen they're appropriate.

So to understand - the arguments for keep so far are:

WorldCat shows golbally 11 universities (at some point) hold/held this publication from 1992 onwards (from this we cannot verify the 1954 date)
Google Scholar shows that articles within the publication have been referenced 3 times.
That this is "the major publication in a important field of human affairs" despite no sources making this claim (not even the magazine's website!) so we should ignore WP:GNG.
It would be biased to not have this article

I bring up WP:V because without having sources to verify the article contents all we have it an ISSN and a title to which I say: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Or, we believed the promotional copy on the publication's website and do a bit of free advertising for them. To write the article with only verifiable information it would be: "Railways Africa is a publication with the ISSN 1029-2756. According to WorldCat it has been or is held by at least 11 institutions and has been references in at least 3 academic papers." Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. African or not, covering an important subject or not, what we need are independent sources on which to base an article (WP:V). As for systemic bias, that is a term often used loosely and, I think, incorrectly. Systemic bias is if we would apply different criteria to magazines from Africa (or articles about women, or minorities, etc) to make it more different for them than for European or American magazines to meet our criteria. Here the case is actually the reverse, if this were a magazine about US railways, most people !voting "keep" above would without hesitation !vote "delete". Systemic bias can be avoided if we apply the same criteria regardless origin. Unless sources can be found to verify what we write about this magazine, this should be deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty You and I geerally, agree, but we cannot avoid systemic bias in covering publications if we make no allowance for the lack of availability in practice for most sources that might exist; that's one of the direct meaning of systemic bias: our geographically limited knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson, DDG, and Shushugah. At some point we have to step back and ask, which wikipedia is better? The wikipedia that allows content on reliable publications/media that we use as sources, but which may lack enough multiple RS on the publication/media itself to pass WP:N, or the wikipedia which deletes such content by maintaining rigorous adherence to our notability policies when it comes to covering this topic area? I would argue that inclusion of information about the sources we use creates better transparency for our readers in evaluating the content of the articles they are consuming. It is therefore a better service to our readers to include this content. As such, this is one of the few times at an AFD where I think the policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and WP:5P5 should be routinely invoked.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Railways Africa has never been used as a source on WP? See my above comment. In which case, this line of reasoning makes no sense. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it as been called to our attention, maybe we should. This is an area where we need more coverage. The print is not easy to find, but most of recent material is online. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ÏCE Condominiums at York Centre[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. A condo complex in a city with a surfeit of such. Brief mentions in reputable media such as The Globe and Mail re: its allegedly huge number of Airbnb units, but no in-depth coverage of the building or its architecture. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete If there were a number of articles such as that used to cite the claim that "the towers have become a symbol for Toronto's housing market crisis", there would be more of an argument for keeping this, but one use as an example is not enough to justify this, and what else I'm seeing is not especially important. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:other stuff exists. It's a lot bigger and more western than tons of other non notable buildings with articles. B137 (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is an instance of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, not a point in favour of keeping this article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building was nominated for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat Award for Best Tall Buildings Americas for its use of sustainable architectural design. That would seem to meet criteria 2 of WP:NBUILD. See page 267. Additionally, there are other sources in google books with coverage.4meter4 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google mostly brings up articles about stuff happening in the buildings, noting about why they're notable. Toronto has lots of tall buildings, most aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of buildings get nominated for awards by industry groups. I do not think this project is notable. Alaney2k (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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