Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 29	October 01 >

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 merge to University of Pikeville. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of the University of Pikeville[edit]

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

I did look at other universities and college on Wikipedia, and I don't see a similar page for their former employees. This and the page on Hurley start to look like someone is using Wikipedia to promote a very obscure college with few claims to fame. I can definitely see how the roster of former presidents at Harvard might be worth having, but this? Do we ever talk about consistency? --Literaturegirl (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Smaller universities often have an article titled "List of [University] people" or similar that includes their administration, including presidents. I don't see anything unusual that suggests promotional activity. I can see a case for merging but this list isn't out of scope. Citing (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The university article has a size appropriate to incorporating this, no need to split. Geschichte (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Pikeville. Unnecessary content fork.4meter4 (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Pikeville. Only two have their own articles, and one of those is up for deletion now James L. Hurley. Dream Focus 09:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Pikeville.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:38, 7 October 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) 19:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosingthong Chalermsri[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOX as he only won the minor WBU world title. JTtheOG (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He meets none of the criteria at WP:NBOX. The article's references consists of a youtube video, pictures of a shrine, a passing mention, and a listing in a fighter database. Nothing indicates that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Fails NBOX and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Papaursa fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:39, 7 October 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 Shaan (singer)#Discography. Seems a sensible suggestion, with no dissenting opinions, and agreement from the article creator so I'm going to close this a bit early (non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love-Ology[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, and the only source is a link to a streaming website. The other three Shaan album articles that were created by this editor were all recently redirected at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alive & Kicking (Shaan album)). However, this was a joint album with another notable artist, and although the article creator has requested a redirect to the second artist's discography (see Talk:Love-Ology), WP:XY comes into play here, and I think the article will have to be deleted instead. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NMUSIC "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence." Well there is no evidence of that. Does not warrant a stand-alone article. Poorly sourced. Gentleman wiki (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shaan Discography - Fail:WP:NMUSIC Per Norm Abhiraj Mohan 31 (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: the comment above is from the article creator, who has now clarified that the album is just a Shaan album. As WP:XY is no longer a factor, and the article creator themselves recommends a redirect, I think this can now be closed as a redirect to Shaan (singer)#Discography. Richard3120 (talk) 15:04, 1 October 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 Nintendo. Sandstein 16:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Australia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The company (which is a division of Nintendo) is not independently notable. When it seems like there are a lot of references, very few are actually reliable, and none of them actually discusses the company in detail. Most were discussing trivial details about Nintendo's game releases in the Oceanic region. WP:NEXIST also does not seem likely. OceanHok (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is just a division of Nintendo, not a stand-alone organization. What could justify it having its own distinct article? Gentleman wiki (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per the "keep" outcome the last time it was nominated for deletion back in 2017, where the closer observed that no "policy-based reasons for deletion" could be found, is there a particular reason why a merge and redirect proposal on the relevant talk pages was not pursued instead as recommended by the closer? Haleth (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of the article is unsourced. The information that are sourced are mostly trivial and unimportant. I won't oppose redirecting the article (it is a viable alternative to deletion in this case), but merging this to the parent Nintendo article is not a good idea. OceanHok (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per the nomination. Most references are excessive statistics for sales, while other information is nothing substantial and hardly referenced. Other regional divisions are also redirects, as they should be. -Vipz (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WTSS-TV[edit]

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

No station with this call sign ever made it to air; it has been a longtime redirect to WFTS-TV, the eventual station using the allocation (channel 28 in Tampa, Florida) this would-be station was to have used, but it might be for the best if this is deleted outright, not just because of the relatively-tenuous connection to WFTS, but because in recent months this has been persistently converted into an unsourced article seemingly split from WFTS-TV (and by IPs in a loophole around the usual autoconfirmed account requirement for article creation — another reason why, at least without protection, a redirect should not return). It is very rare for an unbuilt television station to meet the general notability guideline; I certainly don't see anything to suggest that WTSS-TV does. The most recent reversion to a redirect suggested either PROD or AfD if converted back to an article; a PROD would probably be inevitably contested, so here we are. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nomination. – The Grid (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Never broadcast, not really needed. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not finding sources evident of passing GNG, article is unsourced and the station never even aired. ASUKITE 23:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sppedy Delete - As per WP:A7. Gentleman wiki (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not sourced and never active. scope_creep^Talk 10:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Non-notable would-be TV station.TH1980 (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and let people search for info on it in the two articles that have it, WFTS-TV and WSCV (it was co-owned with 51/Fort Lauderdale). An unbuilt station needs to have come exceptionally close to air to be notable—this did not. There seems to be a disruptive IP editor in this topic area (one IP was recently blocked) in the 2603:9000:e504:: range, so this needs salting. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:48, 4 October 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) 15:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UFund[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. No sources, external links are all promotional in nature, no reliable sources found in web searches in several languages Rogermx (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, poorly sourced, fails WP:NCORP. Borderline WP:G11. Gentleman wiki (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 13:11, 7 October 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) 15:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijet Raajput[edit]

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

Covert advertising, classic WP:ADMASQ. A case of using what, at first, appears to be news articles to give an illusion of notability. Cited entirely to his own press releases, nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE search. Also, there is no claim to passing WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. What has he achieved in his career to justify an article?

Telegraph says sponsored content at the bottom. Mid-day labels this as partnered content and has further warnings at the bottom of the article. Tribune is labelled as brand connect. DNA says Disclaimer: This is a Featured Article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Compelling case in nom. Good job. Gentleman wiki (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "He has Directed and Produced many Ad Films, Brand Films, Punjabi albums, English albums, Fashion Film Videos, short films and Documentaries" statement seems quite advertising , not sated the names of the works as well , Strongly Fails WP:DIRECTOR Rockpeterson (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does seem to be a case of WP:BROCHURE; sources are non-independent and no notability has been established Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Keep’’’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaesingh (talk • contribs) 05:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others, though I do appreciate the term "calendar launch party" for brightening up my day – never a bad reason to celebrate, is there... AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no assertion of notability here.Brayan ocaner (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination Brayan ocaner (talk) 07:43, 5 October 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) 15:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Hamann Rasmussen[edit]

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

Similar case to Ekaterina Skivko.

I will do a source analysis on the sources cited and will also include a couple that I found in my own searches, which include DDG (full name), DDG (shorter name), Zip News and Google News under both the shorter and longer name. Zip News with her full name returned zero results. Players could get presumed notability through WP:SPORTCRIT if they have played in a major international competition at the highest level, but Rasmussen hasn't played in the European Championship, nor the World Championship nor the Olympics. There is no evidence that she is a significantly notable figure within handball in the sense that it would allow us to completely ignore GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://dhdb.hyldgaard-jensen.dk/spiller.php?id=11003		Stats page for her youth teams	✘ No
http://history.eurohandball.com/ech/17/women/2019/player/599745/Thea+Hamann+Rasmussen		Minimal stats page	✘ No
http://skanderborghaandbold.dk/2021/02/pressemeddelelse-thea-rasmussen/	Press release from the club that she plays for	Routine sportsperson announcement of signing a contract	✘ No
http://skanderborghaandbold.dk/2021/07/kommende-ligaspillere-til-u-19-em/	Published by her own club	Routine youth team call up announcement, these never confer notability	✘ No
https://www.haandbold.dk/landsholdsinfo/spiller/243241_3		Stats	✘ No
http://skanderborghaandbold.dk/2017/01/mr-fredericia-bliver-ny-cheftraener/	Her own club	Mentioned once	✘ No
https://sport.tv2.dk/haandbold/2021-09-20-skanderborg-jeg-takker-jer		Whilst this is the best source available, it's still only 4 sentences about her and not enough to justify an entire article.	✘ No
https://skanderborg.lokalavisen.dk/sport/ECE13108276/kommende-ligaspillere-til-u19-em/		Trivial U19 coverage	✘ No
https://handbollskanalen.se/danmark-damer/danmark-fortsatt-succe-for-svenska-spelare/		Mentioned once	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a youth player with no coverage. --🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SPORTCRIT as not having played on the highest level of her sport. I think that someone thinks handball U20 championship players are notable. Geschichte (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page was created by User:Essiepolman79. If you look at his talk page there are many AfD's. He created some pages about U20 handball players. Many of them are not notable or have very low notability. --🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and GNG per convincing source analysis by Spiderone.4meter4 (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hmm you guys are so welcome to delete the page. Whatever, it's just an Wikipedia article, nothing notable, so why even spend time on it? And btw I am a girl, you male chauvinist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Essiepolman79 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7. Okt. 2021 (UTC)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iiro Aalto[edit]

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

no appearances for Finnish national team. Notability? Estopedist1 (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks to pass WP:FOOTYN, but article could definitely use some work. WP:FPL lists the top Finnish league as fully professional and he's made quite a number of appearances there it looks like. Will certainly need more references to verify information and ultimately pass WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets NFOOTBALL by playing in Veikkausliiga as per this. Article needs improving, not deleting. Did nominator even check for sources?! Giant Snowman 22:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY and GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. Clog Wolf _Howl 02:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he easily passes NFOOTY. The Veikkausliiga might not be well known but it is an FPL. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:20, 3 October 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. This has already been draftified once after the first deletion so I have chosen not to do that. I will consider it on request, but I'd like to hear the author agree to submit the reworked draft to a formal AFC review rather than directly move it to mainspace themself. SpinningSpark 16:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarel Robinson-Brown[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. All comes from the comments. Previously delete at Afd. scope_creep^Talk 18:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator: I have only recently asked for its undeletion, and have made a number of edits which I think show notability outside of the tweets – notably on his book, which has been referenced separately from the tweet incident. I may have been hasty in putting this in the mainspace; if editors don't think it's ready, I'd appreciate it if we could draftify rather than totally delete the article again (which was the solution given when I requested undeletion in the first place). Thank you. —Bangalamania (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here, as there are three main points of notability: The subjects' book (which has received reviews in Reading Religion here and in Church Times here, plus a discussion with Black History Month UK here); his political comments (such as The Times here, and The Express here); and his position within the church. Also, seeing the comment of the creator of the article, if others view it as not ready for mainspace, I suggest draftifying rather than deleting. Cheers! —Kbabej (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted in Febuary 2021. As far as I can nothing has changed. Daily express is non-RS. I've struck it. The Times is a followup annoucement from the one event. scope_creep^Talk 10:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more content in the "Other work" section, and trimmed the section which talks about the tweets since it was deleted. Here are just a few examples of sources which don't mention the tweet debacle and mention the book in detail: Daybreak with Helen Jones (BBC Radio Merseyside), Bustle, Church Times. Not just notable for one event. (also: Changes since article deletion) —Bangalamania (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Daily Express is not a reliable source. scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is irrelevant; the Express source is not used in the article. –Bangalamania (talk)
Delete per consensus at the first AFD. Still fails WP:BLP1E. Of the sources provided by Kbabej above, only one of them is usable. The Reading Religion source is a quality independent review. However, the Church Times "review" is not independent as it is selling the book and there is no named author. It's essentially a promotional advertisement on a website that makes money off of selling the book. It therefore does not count. Likewise, Bustle is selling the book which means it also lacks independence. With only one quality review, the subject fails WP:NAUTHOR and GNG. The Times article is about the tweet which is the BLP1E event, and The Express is not a usable source on wikipedia. Daybreak with Helen Jones is an interview with the subject and is therefore not independent; which means it can't be used towards proving notability at AFD. There is nothing inherently notable about the positions the subject holds in the church, and there is not enough independent in-depth significant coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument doesn’t make sense. First you’re saying there’s a quality source for the book. But then the Times is obviously notable and covers his public comments. So it can’t be BLP1E by your own assessment, as that’s obviously two different categories of notability. —Kbabej (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were essentially arguing that he is notable for multiple things. An author was the first thing you mentioned. In order to establish notability as an author, we have to have multiple sources covering his work as an author that are independent. The Church Times piece is not notable as they are selling his book and making money off of it. You can't sell a product and simultaneously be an independent source reviewing the product you are selling. GNG requires sources to be independent. We only have one independent ref on his book (we need a minimum of three independent refs to prove notability). So fails WP:NAUTHOR. The second thing you mentioned was his political comments, which in the coverage provided all centers around the whole Captain Tom controversy (including The Times piece). This is BLP1E, because he failed the author test. The third thing you mentioned was his position in the church, but we don't have any independent in depth refs discussing his position so that also provides no notability. Even if we were to combine all of the Captain Tom controversy refs and the one independent review of his book there is still not enough independent significant coverage to pass GNG in my view. Most of the other refs in the article are trivial passing mentions, are about the Captain Tom thing, or lack independence for one reason or another (such as being an interview). So any way you slice it, the subject is not notable based on the current evidence. For me, this a clear case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: move to draft or user space to allow the article to be developed. Not yet suitable for mainspace for reasons laid out above. ––FormalDude talk 20:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he is still a minor cleric with WP:BLP1E coverage together with inherited notability due to tweeting a controversial tweet about a clearly notable person. He is not an academic and does not yet pass WP:NAUTHOR as many of the reviews are not independent, therfore he does not qualify for an article at this stage, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:47, 9 October 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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Planning Excellence[edit]

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

Kept in 2007 in recognition of their work post-Katrina, but fourteen years on, there's no evidence via BEFORE that their work is notable. A BEFORE identifies only name dropping of the agency, but nothing independent and in depth. I have no doubt this text is from a prior version of their website, but without sourcing I cannot re-write it to be something that isn't a brochure. Star Mississippi 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced and not notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being unsourced is a fixable problem, especially when we have quite a few sources available to help. Agree these are not necessarily easy to find unless you search for "CPEX" and various combinations of the organisation's name, rather than just its on-Wikipedia name. The organisation produces a range of reports and so is cited extensively in government reports and various news articles. But there are a few that provide a bit more detail, like this one. Notability also not being temporary, if it was notable then, we really need a solid case to consider it not-notable now. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cited in many government reports and news articles.Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking through the first 15 pages in a google books search, there appears to be many sources with more than trivial coverage; particularly in relation to Hurricane Katrina and as a national model for emergency response planning at the local level. Also, if one searches under their former name (Plan Baton Rouge) or CPEX, more sources come up. I think there is enough there to pass WP:NORG/GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 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. Disregarding sock votes, this is a clear consensus for delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of premiers of New South Wales by age[edit]

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

Trivial cross-categorisation ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which is also statistical trivia. Unsourced WP:OR.

The first section of the list ranks former premiers who are living by their age. There's no evidence that this ranking is notable, and it has no bearing on their job since they're mostly retired. It's a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of office holders and longevity.

The second section of the list is a very confusing table of historical holders of the title "Premier of X", and is loaded with trivia, such as their age at start of office, age when they left, length of retirement, and final age, all in years and days.

The third section of the list is a confusing table of historical holders of the record for "oldest living premier of X," a title that appears to have been invented by a Wikipedia editor. The start and end dates list the time period during which the person was the record holder, their age at both, and the duration. This topic appears to be a completely original invention, and is certainly non-notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because all six articles were published by the same editor over the course of 1 minute in 2020, and remain nearly identical:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as for all lists by age oldest/youngest. Trivial cross-categorisations. Mccapra (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All fail WP:SYNTH, WP:NLIST, WP:NOTSTATS. Recent precedent shows consensus that these types of lists are non-encyclopedic. pburka (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with user:Pburka, non-encyclopedic. Gentleman wiki (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Needless trivia that spins off from the standard lists of premiers articles. Ajf773 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep passes WP:NLIST and scrapes by WP:GNG in my opinion 2001:8003:24d1:a000:2ceb:c26a:6ecd:b209 (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)~~ Logged-out editing sock; see Special:Contributions/2001:8003:2480::/41. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To scrape by GNG there would need to be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. There's not a single source cited in any of these lists, nor has anyone presented sources in this discussion. pburka (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: misleading signature by the IP fixed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A "Premier of X" is not a trivial position. Almost every state premier of the years is the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources. Green Hook 1224 (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC) — Green Hook 1224 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bartolo 5565 RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR, not a single reference that would show that such lists are actually compiled by reliable sources outside Wikipedia. What's next, List of premiers of Western Australia by shoe size? Calistemon (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as there's simply too many of these list articles, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Premiers are clearly notable, but these lists are clearly not notable. --Bduke (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it might be useful to have these userfied as a reference point. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Age comparisons between each respective set of state leaders are of high interest to Wikipedia users and these type of articles, as well as other similar statistical entries, which have been nominated for deletion at the same time as this one regularly receive high views. These age statistics are not available anywhere else in such easily accessible sortable form and users would be deprived of the statistical value and interest inherent in those statistics for no reason related to improvement of Wikipedia. Theotherscrubbythug (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC) This one too has been indeffed. Geschichte (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSINTERESTING is subjective and not a valid reason: the amount of cars that do not properly stop at stop signs is also an interesting statistic, but it's not encyclopedic (as opposed to the concept of Traffic violations or Stop signs as a whole). Whether something receives high views is not a good argument for keeping it, as that is not a reliable indicator of article quality or notability. Finally, if "these age statistics are not available anywhere else" (in whichever format), then it is a textbook failure of WP:LISTN and WP:OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Others have given strong reasons; the largest factor to me is the overall purpose of Wikipedia. I sought out this information specifically as I was curious if Rees was the youngest NSW ever premier to ever be in office, and as it turns out, he was until Perrottet surpassed him. Without these pages, finding that information would have been a lot more difficult. The main purpose of Wikipedia is easily accessible information. It is clear that this information is sought out, that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines to remain, and is a generally useful page which should definitely not be removed and is best exhibited independently. Kerwin 05 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Kerwin 05 is a CU-confirmed sock RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very specific way of putting it. It's the same phrasing as Caleb 1223 used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age (diff) and Poida 0122 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of New Zealand by date of birth (diff). TompaDompa (talk) 04:12, 6 October 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 close and tag for CSD. Requests for deletion of redirects go to WP:RFD not AfD. This one can just be tagged as speedy. I've tagged it with R3/G5 per the nominator. (non-admin closure) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William "Boss" Tweed.[edit]

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

Redirect already exists (William "Boss" Tweed) but I accidentally added a period. Self-delete request SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:G6 But keep William M. Tweed article. Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I only want to delete the redirect, not the main article itself. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 30 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) 15:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garh Raipur Girl's High School[edit]

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

Non-notable high school. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N as far as I can tell. Gentleman wiki (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (maybe speedily per WP:CSD#G4?) as a very similar article to (or a variation of) one that has already been redirected via an AfD. The creator's talk page is littered with templates about creations of articles by this name or similar. The articles clearly are not notable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, I would second a CSD under WP:G4 as well as additional measures if appropriate. Gentleman wiki (talk) 21:29, 30 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forte Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

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

No indication in major independent media of notability, no indication of competitive success. DCI is not an independent source, it is a governing organization that exists to promote drum and bugle corps activities, and is only usable for documentation, not notability. It could conceivably be mentioned in the article on its predecessor Memphis Sound Drum and Bugle Corps, but that article is sourced exclusively to DCI, and itself had not competed in any higher echelon competitions. Extreme reliance on DCI with an absence of any independent media coverage is a widespread issue in this kind of article. Acroterion (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. There's a walled garden here of related articles that are meant to bestow notability on each other, but the basic fact is that many of the individual organizations, such as this one, completely lack the sourcing required for passing the GNG. It's not unlike Boy Scout articles--that an overarching organization might have some notability doesn't mean that therefore everything under it is notable. In addition, there is at least one COI account (now blocked) and likely a bunch of socks, and it's time to do some cleanup. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Drum Corps International member corps. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. I could find no independent RS other than a brief mention that they played in a fourth of July parade in Chicago in 2012. See "Get ready for a fun-filled Fourth: Independence Day Parade begins at noon in downtown Glen Ellyn" Suzanne Flynn Chicago tribune, 2012-06-28, p.TL_c8. This wasn't even a review but a before the parade puff piece. I would imagine that a lot of the other articles on the individual member corps of the Drum Corps International are similarly not notable.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with other minor DCI corps, there's not enough independent coverage to meet GNG. A redirect to List of Drum Corps International member corps would be inappropriate as the corps is no longer active and doesn't have any apparent plans to rejoin active competition, which would put it outside the scope of that list. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:20, 13 October 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) 15:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sticky Fingers Ribhouse[edit]

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

Not enough sourcing to provide any notability. No claim to notability in article. Was unable to find sufficient sourcing, as I don't believe local news stories about locations closing establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find much: a paragraph in a book ("Built for Growth"); numerous announcements of closed branches; the inevitable mentions in restaurant listings and social media. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a hard one to google given how common the name "sticky fingers" is, but I'm yet to find enough to pass WP:NCORP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:26, 30 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 15:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Strebormas (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)===Letterheads===[reply]

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

No claim of notability, no independent sourcing. Unable to find sourcing to establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RS wasfound to to WP:V. Lightburst (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads as self-promotion; not enough reliable sources. Smith(talk) 15:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost definitely a copyvio from somewhere. This states they're not a formal organization, and even if they were there's no sourcing found about this use of letterheads to meet WP:ORG. Star Mississippi 15:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and non notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sourcing to meet GNG. --- Possibly ☎ 20:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Schilling[edit]

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

Promotional bio on an executive. The cites are mostly press releases or press release reprints, or occasions when he was quoted as a pundit - not independent third-party biographical coverage. Doesn't appear to meet any of the prongs of WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, a bit of punditry and mostly other people of the same name - not sufficient content to actually write a WP:BLP about this one. David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. As per WP:A7. Gentleman wiki (talk) 15:56, 30 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Hawkins Jr.[edit]

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

dePRODded by Necrothesp under the possibility that role as Chair of U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations might make for notability. I'm not sure, so bringing it here for discussion. This is the best source I'm able to find that isn't his writings as chair, and I'm just not sure it's enough. Thoughts? Part of the issue is when the Commission was disbanded, not a lot online that might have covered why he was selected, which could also speak to notability. Star Mississippi 17:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chair of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations might certainly make a valid notability claim if he could be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about his work in the role, but it isn't "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him an article regardless of sourceability problems. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find enough quality sources to do better than this, but the existing article in its existing state isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC for being the director of the American Public Policy Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. I would think a position like this at the Smithsonian Institute would meet that criteria.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Question it seems to be a think tank, not an academic institution so I'm not sure academic criteria would apply. This did back up his role, the only non wiki mirror that I could find. Star Mississippi 21:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a think tank but part of the United States federal government which does academic research. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars was established by an act of Congress in 1968; it's paid for through federal tax money and is part of the Smithsonian Institution (a federal government institution widely respected as a major academic institution internationally).4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm familiar with the Smithsonian. Our own article on the WW Center needs work then because it says it's a public private partnership which also functions as a think tank. This underscores why it needed to be brought here for discussion v. PROD though so thanks for raising these. Star Mississippi 21:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... it looks like there are some indications it may work that way after looking more closely at the wiki article. I honestly am not sure how to evaluate his post. Let’s see what others have to say.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That article needs massive work. I did what I could and added a few tags, which hopefully will catch the eye of some editors more experienced in NGOs and the like to see if your academic theory is correct. Star Mississippi 01:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:51, 23 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) 14:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in indeptendent reliable sources. The position held does not confer notability; even if it did, that would be a rebuttable and now rebutted presumption. Sandstein 16:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One the one hand, the lack of ready references to demonstrate notability has been stated by other editors above and I agree with that assessment. On the other hand, the most active part of this person's career seems to have been the 80's and possibly into the early 90's, which is pre-Web. On the gripping hand, even available archives don't seem to have anything and it has essentially lingered without improvement for nearly twenty years. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:26, 11 October 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 nominator's agreement. Star Mississippi 16:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Robertson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:PROF #5 as Lincoln Professor of Classical Archaeology and Art at Oxford. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry missed that, my bad, happy to close as speedy keep. Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Meets almost every criteria of WP:PROF, plus WP:NAUTHOR and the WP:GNG: held named chairs at UCL and Oxford (#C5); was a Fellow of the British Academy (#C3); his 1975 textbook A History of Greek Art is still in print (#C4);[1] and widely-reviewed (WP:NAUTHOR);[2][3][4] his other books are also widely-reviewed;[5][6] his book on Athenian vases has been cited over 250 times[7] and according to Ian Jenkins "there can be few students of Greek art who would not readily admit their debt to him"[8] (#C1). There is a full-length entry on him in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.[9] Biographical obituaries were published in in the Proceedings of the British Academy (16 pages),[10] The Independent,[11] the Daily Telegraph, The Times (twice), the American Journal of Archaeology,[12] and Contemporary Authors.[13] His festschrift includes a biographical foreword and a full bibliography.[14] This is one of the most spectacular WP:BEFORE failures I have seen in a long time. – Joe (talk) 15:33, 30 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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dungiven landmine and gun attack[edit]

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

No significant lasting coverage in any reference, fails WP:NEVENT. FDW777 (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The murder of three British servicemen in the United Kingdom is a clearly notable event and like all such events was heavily covered in the media at the time and since. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The attack was notable as it received significant coverage at the time, in addition, the arrest and sentencing of the perpetrator continued the coverage. Meanderingbartender (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems significant and there is no compelling evidence otherwise. Geschichte (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. With books covering the subject in depth that were published more than 20 years after the event, passes WP:SUSTAINED and WP:PERSISTENCE. 4meter4 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omeyoma Eshemitan[edit]

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

This person doesn't meet WP:GNG. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage does not demonstrate that the WP:GNG is met. Princess of Ara 20:47, 30 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 snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Card games online[edit]

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

Unclear scope of article; currently just a WP:Repository of random non-notable sites, some Google search figures (no idea what search queries are actually being used, and doesn't really provide any useful information) and a "History" section that has nothing to do with "card games online". It links to Digital collectible card game which doesn't seem to be relevant as this article seems to discuss games with a typical deck while the other is for collectible card games. To me this looks like WP:INDISCRIMINATE. eviolite (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. eviolite (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. eviolite (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A1. I can't even figure out what the subject of the article is. Is it talking about Digital collectible card games? Is it talking about regular Card games that can be played online? At best this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE with no way to evaluate notability because practically any card game with online capability could be included based on the title. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment This article is functionally identical to a rejected draft by the same user under VIP SPADES. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Agree it clearly fails WP:A1. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A1 declined as it has sufficient context to identify the topic. Let the AfD Continue. Jclemens (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be WP:REFSPAM, article creator contributions are pretty much solely trying to add "citations" to vipspades.com. Might be G11, but borderline. Jumpytoo Talk 22:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADS. Wario-Man ^talk 04:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A1. The current content is The first data of playing card games is associated with ancient China during the Tang dynasty \ The first online card games appear around the 1990s. I have no clue what the text of the article is referring to. Previous versions have been stricken per WP:COPYVIO. Id kindly ask @Jclemens: to reconsider their rejection of the A1 request given the current state of the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this is not even grammatically correct enough to be redirected somewhere.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have articles that properly cover online card games (whether it be traditional card games played in online formats, or online digital card games). Unnecessary. --Masem (t) 13:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no content, no sources. Ditto what Qwaiiplayer said. Leitmotiv (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Powell (businessman)[edit]

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

Promotional biography. Grandiose claims of noteworthiness - but the cites are almost entirely about the entities the claims of notability are from, and not about himself, except a few dubiously-reliable local business booster sources. A WP:BEFORE overwhelmingly shows other individuals of the same name. Most of the claims of notability are about Motus, LLC, his company; a redirect there may be appropriate. David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, isn't he a hell of a swell fellow. Fails the GNG and WP:BIO all the same; the nom's assessment is dead on. Almost all the article creator's scant Wikipedia work is focused on this article and the aforementioned Motus, LLC article, which she created a week apart, and which is similarly choked with puffery. Ravenswing 15:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. These articles cheapen Wikipedia. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:02, 30 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Schaible[edit]

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

Non-notable. Seems to be trying to make a case for notabilty. Case rest of forbes interview and paid for bloomberg ref. The rest seem to be profiles. scope_creep^Talk 06:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not seeing a strong deletion rationale based on the many sources in the article which have not been sufficiently analyzed by the nominator. The article lists multiple foreign language offline refs. The nominator has not indicated that they have looked at the offline sources and evaluated whether or not they are significant. Accepting that the offline refs do indeed constitute significant coverage in good faith, this is a clear keep.4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of the sources [15]. It an simple annoucement, a press-release, an annoucment. Here is another example [16]. It is a passing mention. There is no doubt a senior guy in industry, but the references are very poor. Other references in the article include in the passing mention in the Stefan Schaible, deputy chief executive of consultancy Roland Berger, called for a modern-day Ostpolitik. Looking at Ref 12, another references on Roland Berger. Ref 13, [17] is on Berger again. Many of the reference in German I couldn't locate. I spend a lot of time translating German articles. I couldn't locate the ref in Handelsblatt, in ref 10. Most of the references, are very poor, often mentioned in relation to his boss, Roland Berger. There is no grouping of secondary sources on Schaible that confirms his notability. This is an example of the coverage I found, an interview: [18]. The management consultancy is called Roland Berger. Berger is still there. scope_creep^Talk 06:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 30 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 13:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Náncsi Néni (restaurant)[edit]

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for multiple issues (notability, advertisement) since 2020. I brought this restaurant to Afd because of this template. Sourced solely to travel books/guides. I don't know if they count as reliable sources; anyway, during a google search I only found more of those along with some social media sites and a few reviews posted on blog/gossip-like sites. I am not very convinced of the notability of this establishment (despite myself being Hungarian), but as always, I am happy to be proven wrong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The age of the article makes this one a challenge. I was able to track down a couple via the Wayback Machine (e.g., http://visitbudapest.travel/budapest-restaurants/nancsi-neni ), and was not impressed: just a typical short listing in a travel book, not an article. I'm betting that hard copy sources like Budapest City Guide, Frommer's and Lonely Planet have similar entries. Barring proof to the contrary, all I see are typical short restaurant reviews for a perhaps-good-but-not-notable restaurant. I can't see keeping this entry. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - Wikipedia is not a travel guide as per WP:NOT. Put this entry in wikivoyage instead. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So travel guides are unreliable. My suspicion was right. Yes, all I could find during my search were a lot of travel guides and short reviews, so none of those establish notability, no matter how good the restaurant is (I have never been there). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not just publicity, but with no serious bringing up to date in ten years. Two out of three External Links are dead links. It might be worth trying to fix them if the article were worth saving, but I don't think it is. Also, it reads like the sort of hing you'd find in the travel section of a newspaper: "Náncsi Néni serves pálinka, the traditional Hungarian plum brandy" -- how does that distinguish it from every other Hungarian restaurant in the world? (I prefer Vilmospálinka, myself, but that's personal.) Athel cb (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator's concerns here and with the concerns raised by other contributors above. A good restaurant doing what restaurants do but nothing to establish notability in the context of a general and global encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only delete vote post additional sources being added gave no meaningful rationale and did not address why the new sources were insufficient. SpinningSpark 16:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TNTmips[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article that has existed since 2005 about non-notable software that has failed in that time to provide any references showing how this topic meets the criteria for notability. -- Longhair\^talk 08:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

DELETE non-notable software product from non-notable company, and an article that It isn't even clear from this infrequently edited article whether the product is still current. Just 3 edits in 8 years since 2013 surely means this is a product and page that nobody cares about / nobody will miss. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I cannot find any evidence of sources that might get to meeting WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although the article Infobox is showing a 2013 version, the software does appear to be actively maintained, currently under TNTgis 2021. A Google Books preview from Hyperspectral Remote Sensing: Fundamentals and Practices by Ruiliang Pu shows the first page of what appears to be a thorough product feature assessment which could contribute here. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (Pu,2017), & (Choudury, Chackrabati & Choudury, 2013) sources added to article; seems to overcome the nom. & delete !votes. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found [this book], which discusses the software's functionality throughout. It appears to still be a relevant tool for GIS work and passes WP:GNG with the found book source and the sources already cited on the page. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources have been found since the nomination that appear to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV with sources added to the article and provided in the discussion above by Heartmusic678, Djm-leighpark, and AllyD.4meter4 (talk) 21:22, 7 October 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. Delete comments focus around not meeting WP:NACTOR but there seems to be a consensus of meeting WP:GNG. Seddon ^talk 01:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC) Seddon ^talk 01:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Haskell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. She’s only had one significant role in The Animal. Being a contestant on Survivor doesn’t count as a significant role. The Film Creator (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple sources satisfies WP:GNG. ♟♙ (talk) 23:23, 17 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) 22:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falls short of NACTOR, yet to receive SIGCOV.-KH-1 (talk) 04:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Being in one critically disdained movie, a few guest appearances on some TV shows, and appearing on a reality TV show do not convince me that she meets WP:NACTOR, which requires significant roles in multiple notable films. The coverage I can find of her consists of listings on IMDB or summaries of show episodes, none of which constitute the significant, independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. There is also no evidence she comes close to meeting any criteria at WP:ANYBIO. Papaursa (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG just scrolling through the first 10 pages of google books. Her role on Survivor has had lots of non-routine coverage, such as academic books analyzing Survivor in relation to the field of psychology (see google books). She was also widely cited even years after for being one of the few reality contestants who managed to continue working in the entertainment industry in multiple publications (again see google books). All of this to say, she had a meaningful cultural impact that went beyond what's typical for an entertainer/reality contestant which is played out by multiple independent refs with significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Very weak claim to WP:NACTOR, I agree with User:KH-1 on this. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there appears to at least be WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability supported by multiple independent and reliable sources, e.g. Survivor Colleen Has Animal Instincts (ABC News, 2000), Tagi Alliance Kills Off Pagong (CBS News, 2000), Pagong! Now Colleen Is Cast Away (Washington Post, 2000), Colleen heads back to school, clothed (EW, 2000), Playtone plans a ‘Wedding’; Mohr work (Variety, 2000), Colleen Survives Hollywood (CBS News, 2001), The Animal (Variety, 2001), FILM REVIEW; Half Man, Half Beast, But the Guy's All Heart (New York Times, 2001), The Animal (2001) (BBC, 2001), Chat with Colleen Haskell (Baltimore Sun, 2002), The 10 Best Survivor Showmances Of All Time (Screenrant, 2021). WP:ENTERTAINER/WP:NACTOR is not limited to films, and her role in Survivor was significant, as demonstrated by the coverage focused on her role, and she starred in The Animal, which was reviewed in addition to the coverage of her participation, so this notability criteria also appears to have support. Beccaynr (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has received enough coverage for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confused I don't usually get involved in showbiz articles, so maybe I just don't understand why mentions about getting an agent, repeated one or two line mentions about being on Survivor, and cast updates are considered in-depth coverage. In sports AFDs we'd call that routine coverage and ignore them. There's no doubt she's mentioned in a lot of sources (especially industry ones) and appeared on lots of talk shows, but that all stemmed from her being on Survivor and is not what I'd call significant coverage of her. I don't know, maybe the sheer volume of coverage is sufficient to show notability. I'm clearly out of my element. Papaursa (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the part of WP:BASIC that states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability, helps support notability here. For example, the Variety article has two paragraphs about her, including that she was getting an agent, but also other details, such as Bryant Gumbel referring to her as "America's sweetheart" after she left Survivor. Per WP:BASIC, this is more than a trivial mention because Variety added WP:SECONDARY context and commentary. ABC News also offers WP:SECONDARY commentary about her role on Survivor and the news of her role in Animal. The Washington Post offers biographical information about her, as well as WP:SECONDARY commentary and context about her role on Survivor. Entertainment Weekly also offers some biographical information and WP:SECONDARY context about her Survivor role. These seem to be more than WP:ROUTINE/trivial mentions, because they are more than announcements, or reports similar to sports scores. Beccaynr (talk) 01:09, 8 October 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 and merge with BAF Saheen College Hockey Field Seddon ^talk 01:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BAF Shaheen College Dhaka[edit]

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

No notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (schools) guideline. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 14:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Schools are not normally notable and this one is not an exception.--Bduke (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could someone please search for Bengali-language references that could be added to this article? Searching for references in the appropriate language is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've trimmed the unsourced content and added an independent source. Questions were asked in parliament about the school,[19] (before independence, when it was run by the Pakistan Air Force) but I can't see the answers in Google snippet view, and won't be able to consult the printed source before this AfD closes. Recommend merging BAF Saheen College Hockey Field into this article. Separately, each is weak, notability-wise; they would be better together. If there's no consensus for keep, redirect to the enclosing community, Dhaka Cantonment as an alternative to deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the Bangladesh Air Force, because it is closely affiliated to the subject, is not an independent source. Dege31 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source added by Worldbruce is a primary source which lacks independence. As such, it doesn't count. None of the sources in the article demonstrate independent significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Worldbruce.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep generally per Worldbruce; especially considering the merge in option. SIGCOV/GNG passed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Worldbruce.Seddiq Sabri 20:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, very prominant instition in Bangladesh. -Afifa Afrin (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BAF Saheen College Hockey Field or Dhaka Cantonment. The article itself has no significant coverage in the sources that are independent of the subject. There is coverage of some events related to the subject, like The Daily Star's article on the student reunion, but not the subject itself. Fails general notability guidelines. Dege31 (talk) 12:13, 15 October 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. Seddon ^talk 01:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bing guo[edit]

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

Unsourced since it's inception in 2007, this Beijing dessert comes up in absolutely no English sources. I pursued the possibility of a merge with a similar dessert, Talk:Baobing, but there was no connection. I finally found a source on a page of the official Beijing tourism website, but the dates don't confirm who came first. Either this is a copy-vio (please see talk page for more info) or this fails WP:V. Sounds tasty though. Estheim (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the copy-vio issue, I checked the tourism website and it's a perfect match of the 2010 version, but not the original 2007 version of the article. So it is likely the website took the content from Wikipedia without attribution. Jumpytoo Talk 23:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced, and I've never heard of anything called Bing Guo as a dessert, nor is there any evidence (not even unreliable sources) that points this "dessert" to Beijing. An image search also doesn't have anything concrete either, whether in Chinese or English. The fact it's unsourced already warrants the delete.Kazuha1029 (talk)
delete. I tried searching for 冰果 but it only turned up anime, primarily Hyouka which has an oddly similar name. Nothing on the desert. 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:F8FC:3D1D:E982:7C1E (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment Searching for variations of "冰果" online and masking references to the anime, it seems like the term is simply used for desserts using ice cream (or more generally a cold preparation) and fruit, i.e. popsicles, fruit salads, smoothies, slushies, etc. In other words, it's not one dish but an umbrella term. Furthermore, it doesn't seem to be limited to any region. However, the dish in the article does seem to exist. After a bit of auto-translation shenanigans, I was able to boil the term "河鲜儿冰果" down, roughly translating to "hexianer ice bowl", "hexianer" being the mix of ingredients described in the article. Multiple internet sources do say it's a Beijing/Shanghai specialty, but even then, they either are in the form of independent cooking blogs or social media (Weibo/Baidu) posts. While it exists, it's not at ALL notable even outside of the confusion of terms. Toyota Impreza (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move to Bing wan Did some more searching and the dish does exist, but under a different name. There are enough Chinese sources to meet WP:GNG, but the article should be moved to the actual name.

"老北京时令小吃冰碗冰盘曾价值不菲-中新网". Beijing Daily. Retrieved 2021-09-28.
"炎威暑气蒸水晶冰碗儿(图)_新浪旅游_新浪网". Sina Corporation. Retrieved 2021-09-28.

Jumpytoo Talk 02:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Bing wan per Jumpytoo.4meter4 (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Bing wan per above. VocalIndia (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Bing wan per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Jumpytoo. Bing wan passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Bing wan per Jumpytoo. Meets WP:V and WP:GNG now. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socure[edit]

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

This article is probably the work of multiple undisclosed paid editors, as evinced by the page history; and I was highly unconvinced about the notability of Socure. Having searched Google for sources for roughly half an hour, other than this Bloomberg piece, all that I came across was Businesswire press releases, and articles in niche reporting sites which only seemed to have been rewritten versions of the press releases, i.e. churnalism. Having found very little that otherwise indicates that Socure passes WP:NCORP, I'm bringing it here for discussion. Java Hurricane 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom, not much of note to be found. GNews has the puff pieces/press releases, a G newspaper search only finds OCR mis-readings of the word "secure". Not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete The claim that this was by paid authors is incorrect (I wrote the initial article and was not paid). The Identity verification market where the company plays may be obscure to some, but there are existing articles on Socure competitors including Onfido and Jumio. The company has ~300 employees and been noted by industry analyst Gartner. If you are going to remove this article, you are being inconsistent by retaining, similar articles. Cryptodd (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete As an additional contributor, I can confirm I was also not paid to write it. In regards to churnalism, a number of the references are to third-party sources that might be niche but are valid journalistic entities, such as The Fintech Times, Forbes, TechCrunch. Ceeduff (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptodd, can you confirm you don't have a WP:COI? Also, have you edited under a different user name in the past? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the sources, and it was rather easy to see how the different "third-party articles" were basically rewrites of the same press releases on Businesswire. Compare, for instance, this, this, this, this and this press release. Java Hurricane 05:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JavaHurrican's source analysis. Fails WP:NCORP.4meter4 (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis above, references discussed above fail WP:ORGIND as they rely entirely on company announcements and press releases - no "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 15:35, 4 October 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 subject has been mentioned in reliable sources to some degree. However, upon analysis of the sources presented, consensus here determined that the organization itself lacks significant, in-depth coverage to meet the threshold of notability in accordance with WP:NORG. ✗plicit 13:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Human Rights[edit]

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

WP:NORG is not met. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Human Rights is the oldest standing Human Rights organisation for Hindus in the UK and one of the first outside India in the world. It is a notable organisation and it should not be deleted. It is also problematic in the context of a competing, far newer group from the USA who are aggressively using a very similar name and have gone so far as to claim the knowledge panel at google with their own account. This is a maliciously motivated attempt to silence Hindu Human Rights. Jnanashuddhi (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Clearly notable. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears unwarranted to target this page for deletion. It doesn't seem to be violating any clauses and WP:NORG is certainly met as compared with other organisations on wiki since HHR is a distinct and unique organization with significant number of anti-Hinduphobia events held under their guidance and a significant social media presence. I would raise a point towards probable malicious targeting of the page here since equally or even lesser known organizations seem to have wiki pages without any deletion discussions on them. e.g. Labour Muslim Network, Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, Council on Islamic Education, Muslim Student Union of the University of California, Irvine, etc. The last one, for example, is a university student organisation. It's very unnerving to see that there is no deletion discussion for a wiki page of a small college student organisation but is there for an international human rights organisation. I'd suggest the wiki community should do much more against such biased discussions which waste the time of contributors. Toshi2k2 (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding your inability to read WP:NORG (the criteria is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you might like WP:WHATABOUTX. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding your inability to read my comment in its entirety, I mention ..as compared with other organisations on wiki... Additionally, WP:WHATABOUTX mentions - While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this.... The article appears to consist of independent, reliable citations (BBC News, Times of India, The Hindu) to news reports/articles which point to some of the HHR activities and demonstrations which should be apt (alongwith the comparative argument) for the article to exist. Despite this, even if you continue to argue using the notability clause, the article seems to be still covered under WP:FAILORG and WP:NONPROFIT. A better use of space and time would be improving the article and making it more comprehensive. e.g. adding details regarding founding, membership, structure, etc. Toshi2k2 (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
BBC News	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Articles detail Hindu Human Rights (HHR) and quotes their petition and responses.
Times of India	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	HHR mentioned in a prominent way.
The Hindu	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Article is directly related with HHR.
Total qualifying sources					3

WP:NORG is met. Toshi2k2 (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu article is about Meghnad Desai's reaction to some campaign on M. F. Hussain that the organization had started.
The TOI article has two paragraphs. In the second of them, it notes that our subject has planned a protest against Hussain.

This is literally the reason for which a NYT source was deemed to not make the cut in the boilerplate source-analysis-table provided at NCORP.

The BBC article on Tina Turner devotes two lines to the organization. (1) The organization has planned to protest her appearance in her film and (2) that they have circulated a petition.

Once again, the coverage is not significant.

The BBC article on Harrods quotes HHR executives on some controversy over a store selling objectionable clothing.

Same. Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement [include] brief or passing mentions, such as quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.

If you can source details about membership, structure etc. from independent and reliable sources, add them. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, The Times of India has "no consensus to generally unreliable" in terms of reliability. I advise against sourcing from it for controversial/problematic/high-profile subjects. — DaxServer (talk to me) 06:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet finished my own search for sources, but the sources provided above are absolutely not substantive. They offer nothing substantial about the organization besides verifying its existence and its participation in a specific protest. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Founded in 2000, in London,[20] their activities have got significant coverage from scholarly sources.[21][22][23] and media sources.[24] Otinflewer (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage it is, significant it is not. P. J. Nelson tabulates the subject in a list of faith-based NGOs. Shinder S. Thandi, whose same work (chapter) you have cited twice, mentions the organization in a single paragraph about the protests. To repeat what Vanamonde93 said, the sources offer nothing substantial about the organization besides verifying its existence and its participation in specific protest[s]. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS does not apply because the coverage was not one-off but attracted attention from scholarly sources. The coverage is significant enough. Instead of using CTRL+F, you need to read the actual sources that have been provided. Otinflewer (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Toshi2k2 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an advocacy group that lacks the required coverage needed for wikipedia article. Some users have pointed a few and I am not convinced that it meets the criteria of WP:NORG. Venkat TL (talk) 09:22, 22 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) 12:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with TrangaBellam and Vanamonde93 above that none of the sources provided meet WP:ORGDEPTH, and my searching doesn't find anything that goes beyond a few sentences. Until the organization receives in-depth coverage (not the occasional mention or quote) from reliable sources, it doesn't meet WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TrangaBellam and Vanamonde93. Fails WP:NORG.4meter4 (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per vanamonde93 comments. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:15, 30 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. Geschichte (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Emigree[edit]

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

Zero sources Dollyplay (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Dollyplay (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the poem is a GCSE set text and a brief search showed that in consequence there are multiple reviews and analyses of it. Mccapra (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, reliable sources exists Wakowako (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a couple of sources analysing the text CiphriusKane (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on additions by CiphriusKane, there are enough analyses of this poem to demonstrate its notability. Patiodweller (talk) 14:33, 3 October 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 and move to Weedville, Alabama. Sandstein 17:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weed Crossroad, Alabama[edit]

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

A literal crossroads with some buildings and a construction plant nearby. I don't think this is a populated place. wizzito | say hello! 06:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 06:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 06:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The presence of Weed Baptist Church neaby suggests that there once was a community here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our minimum guideline WP:NGEO. Lightburst (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Weedville, Alabama. "Weed Crossroad" returns one newspaper result talking about an asphalt plant planned to be constructed there. However, "Weedville" in Alabama returns 365 matches. On 19 Feb 1931 we have a fairly expansive chronicle of the community, including all sorts of people who live and work there. There are several dozen results from then up to the 1960s, mostly in the society pages concerning people who lived there. In May 1977, this article mentions a "Weed Baptist Church, in the Weedville community". Searching for just "Weed" is much harder, since it's a common word, but "Weed community" brings up this from 1937 and this from 1961 (it seems that the place may have been named for H.T. Weed, a "prominent farmer" in the community who was also the deacon at the Weed Baptist Church. It seems that this was definitely an inhabited settlement, which people referred to as "Weedville", at least during the middle of the 20th century. I've added these sources to the article. jp×g 00:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Weedville, Alabama per JPxG. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Weedville, Alabama Djflem (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Weedville, notable settlement. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:10, 4 October 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 13:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur Bangla High School and College[edit]

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

No references! If there are some references then I can tell that this doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (schools) guideline! ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 08:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 08:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone please search for Bengali-language references that could be added to this article? Searching for references in the appropriate language is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced and non notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:27, 30 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 17:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Shreshtha Noor Mohammad Public College[edit]

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

No notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (schools) guideline. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 08:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 08:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone please search for Bengali-language references that could be added to this article? Searching for references in the appropriate language is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced and not notable according to WP:SCL. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:44, 30 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 17:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seabreeze International School[edit]

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

References has no link. No notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (schools) guideline. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 08:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 08:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone please search for Bengali-language references that could be added to this article? Searching for references in the appropriate language is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced and non notable. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:20, 30 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 17:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Center for New Ideas[edit]

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

Organisation lacks the significant coverage in independent sources required to meet WP:NORG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a bit surprised that there's nothing here (since the Center seems to be referenced often in the press), but my searches in English and Belarusian find no significant coverage of the organization itself sufficient to meet WP:NORG: only quotes and passing mentions. I'm glad to reevaluate if there's something I've missed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:44, 7 October 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 13:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noora, Bihar[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable at all. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a pincode for Nooras which appears to be the same place. If it is the same place I think it will pass WP:GEOLAND. However the current article looks like pure original research. Unless other sources are found the best answer my be to stubify the article down to a single sentence. Mccapra (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Too many of this kind of pages. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GEOLAND; cannot find any such village in the census search. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:41, 3 October 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 10:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Basar[edit]

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

non-notable actor fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I will also say WP:TOOSOON. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON —MdsShakil (talk) 11:12, 2 October 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 10:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jud Wilhite[edit]

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

Not enough notability. 3 out of 4 references are from a single website. Too much trivial information within the article. Dollyplay (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also some extra information: The article was created by a user named Pastorsson93 (talk · contribs). This makes me believe there is a definite close connection with the article subject. Dollyplay (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dollyplay (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m not finding any RIS to support this. Mccapra (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough mention in RS's (I find only one that mentions him, but gives no bio info) to pass WP:GNG ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 02:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 30 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 06:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Dhandia[edit]

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

Local politician. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NPOL and I can’t see how the subject is otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The subject's website, as well as previous revisions, state that he was a member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly and represented the Malviya Nagar (Rajasthan Assembly constituency). However, I am unable to find any source that backs this up. The constituency's electoral history, going as far back as the 1970s, does not mention Dhandia. The only other alternative is he was filling a vacancy, which would still confer notability if able to be proven. Dhandia is listed on the page 13th Rajasthan Assembly as an Independent member of the body, but there is no mention of him in either of the two archived member lists ([25] [26]). Perhaps sources exist in Hindi, but I have been looking for an hour through English language sources and I've been unable to find anything. Googe translate usually doesn't work for Hindi, so we need someone who knows the language. Curbon7 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An alternative spelling of his name seems to be Ajay Dhandhiya. Curbon7 (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Malviya Nagar (Rajasthan Assembly constituency) with refs. It seems to have been created just before the 2008 elections and the winner has been Kali Charan Saraf for all three elections (2008, 2013 and 2018). Regarding 13th Rajasthan Assembly, the link to Dhandiya's page has been added, without a ref, in this edit, by a user whose userpage is essentially Ajay Dhandia's resume. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:35, 2 October 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 13:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. Roupakiotis[edit]

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

No references and I couldn't find any. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Patras is Greece's third-largest city, so its mayors are notable. This newspaper is a reference. Here is a book about the mayors of Patras that is also a reference: Psōmas, Petros (2006). Dēmarchoi Patreōn : 1836-2006 ; tekmēriōsē, xenophōntas arg. papaeuthymiu [Mayors of Patras 1836-2006] (in Greek). Patras: To Donti. ISBN 960-88046-2-0. OCLC 255899690. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Eastmain: A 19th century notable person that even his first name didn't survive ? Furthermore, he was an acting mayor for a couple of months, so not realy a mayor after all. It seems that after his extremely short term he fell back to oblivion. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No size of city confers any automatic notability freebies on its mayors that would exempt them from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing. Mayoral notability is not established by the population of the city, or by where it ranks in a list of cities, but by the volume and depth of the reliable sources that can be shown to support substantive content about the significance of his mayoralty. Just sourcing his existence to lists and glancing namechecks, while saying and sourcing nothing to establish his importance, is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nonsense ! the mayors of an absolute monarchy can't be compared with nowadays town mayors, there is definitely a greater notability as the monarch fills both political and communal functions. VocalIndia (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, at that time Greece was not an absolute monarchy. VocalIndia (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL as mayors aren't inherently notable under that guideline. As such, GNG is our standard. Subject lacks in-depth significant coverage and fails GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely agree with FiddleheadLady. Gentleman wiki (talk) 16:26, 30 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 06:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. S. Dalal[edit]

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

Lack of independent sources to support notability. Venkat TL (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Does not clearly appear to follow WP:NACADEMIC. Then again he was a Dean but that in itself is not one of the criteria. Gentleman wiki (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF notability is not demonstrated in the article. --hroest 19:02, 5 October 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. Sandstein 17:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Lindsay[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. Her claim to notability resides in being co-editor and "instrumental in the development" of an academic journal, but that falls short of the "head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal" in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). St Anselm (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant achievement to pass WP:Prof unless some reputable book reviews can be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe I have included multiple book reviews of two of her major works. DrMushEa (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could you indicate the significant ones? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe Do you mean indicate the significant ones in the body of the article? FYI, this is the start of the project on the Women-Church journal as a significant contribution to Australian feminist theology. So, I am sure I will be able to add more to this page once the libraries open up and I am once again able to access the journal and other holdings. DrMushEa (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that add most to notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe I have now added them in the body of the article. DrMushEa (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that her inclusion in the Literary Encyclopedia which is described in Wikipedia as both authoritative and reliable qualifies her as notable. From the Literary Encyclopedia page: "Articles are solicited by invitation from specialist scholars, then refereed and approved by subject editors,[3] which makes the LE both authoritative and reliable."DrMushEa (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have access to The Wikipedia Library, and from EBSCO, there are additional reviews available: Brady, V. (2002). Rewriting God: Spirituality in Contemporary Australian Women’s Fiction; Feminist Poetics of the Sacred: Creative Suspicions (Book). Australian Literary Studies, 20(3), 274; McSorley, J. (1998). An Artist’s Life. Social Alternatives, 17(4), 80–81; Brady, V. (1999). Book Reviews. Australian Literary Studies, 19(1), 111. Beccaynr (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But these are reviews of a book she co-edited. They do nothing to demonstrate her own notability. St Anselm (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The review titled "An Artist's Life" is for The Diaries of Barbara Hanrahan and discusses why editing ~~matters~~ is a creative act, as well as Lindsay's introduction, and states, "The strength of this work lies in the careful editing of the diaries into a coherent picture of an artist's life." The review titled "Book Reviews", which includes a major focus on The Diaries of Barbara Hanrahan, states, "It is this search which generates the terror and glory, the naivety and complex ambiguity of Hanrahan's life and work, and we must be grateful to Elaine Lindsay for the Diaries which make this clear." And WP:CREATIVE#3 says (with emphasis added) The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject [...] of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Beccaynr (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC) - comment edited to clarify editing is a creative act Beccaynr (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She was the sole editor of Rewriting God, and was in fact a co-author there also, writing not just the usual introduction but the first two sections (88 pages), so it's a substantial contribution. As noted above, it's been reviewed by Brady 2002, which should obviously be summarised and cited in the article, as well as in: Haynes, R. "Review of Elaine Lindsay, Rewriting God: Spirituality in Contemporary Australian Women’s Fiction." Uniting Church Studies 8.1 (2002): 63-65. This certainly contributes to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NAUTHOR with independent secondary coverage of her written works including reviews in reliable sources so there is no need for deletion in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'd be more comfortable if she had at least two book-length authored works with reviews, but two reviews for the one she has (Rewriting God) and four for two edited books (Diaries and Preachers) makes a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 4 October 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 01:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Phelps[edit]

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

Boxer who fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. The fighter has 12 losses and the only title he has won is from an organization without a WP article, not to mention it's not even listed on Phelps' BoxRec. JTtheOG (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems a bit like Rocky Balboa before he got his big break! No Great Shaker (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails to meet any criteria at WP:NBOX and all of his coverage is routine sports reporting (which means WP:GNG is not met). Papaursa (talk) 23:15, 5 October 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.